Author: Paula Folino Juanola, MA
January 23, 2025
How well do you understand your country’s electoral process? What about your country’s legal system? In Mexico, all citizens will be expected to learn the judiciary’s role and structure, thanks to the new judicial reform signed earlier this year by former Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), which enables members of the judiciary, at all levels, to be elected by popular vote. As a result of this reform, Mexico is now the only country in the world where citizens can elect its judges at all levels.
This reform constitutes a fragment of the 4T, or Fourth Transformation, a number of reforms and policies proposed by Andrés Manuel López Obrador during his presidential term, which Claudia Sheinbaum has pledged to continue during her six-year term. Among his critiques towards other Mexican institutions, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) proclaimed that the former judiciary power was plagued with corrupt members who exemplified nepotist principles in favor of the “white collar” elite. Indeed, the National Survey on Victimization and Perception of Public Safety (Envipe, 2023), found judges to be the second-highest corrupt authority perceived by citizens, after public transit police. 94.8% of violent crimes in Mexico are treated with impunity, and around 90% of crimes are never reported. While the judicial branch’s corruption and inefficiency warrant its restructuring, will this reform be able to tackle these deep-rooted obstacles?
What is the judicial branch?
The Mexican government consists of three main branches: the executive (headed by the president), the legislative (Senate, Congress, and Chamber of Deputies), and the judiciary (Supreme Court of Justice, Federal Judicial Council, regional and district courts). These branches are separated to distribute power and prevent its abuse through checks and balances, preserving a democratic structure. Nevertheless, this October, the Mexican Senate voted to exclude the judiciary from constitutional amendments, destabilizing these checks and balances. Previously, courts could challenge reforms that violated the constitution or signed treaties. Now, as long as reforms pass by a two-thirds majority in Congress and state legislatures, they cannot be amended. This exclusion, along with the judiciary reform, has raised possible human rights violation concerns within the international community, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR).
What does the new judicial reform propose?
The Judicial Reform comprises four key elements: the restructuring of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), the election of ministers, magistrates, and judges by popular vote, the substitution of the Federal Judicial Council, and the introduction of four new procedural rules. The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) will reduce its members from 11 to 9, reduce their term down to 12 years, sessions will all be made public, retirement benefits will be eliminated, and salaries will be adjusted to be lower than that of the President’s (128,205 MXN pesos monthly or 6,369.67 USD). After a screening process organized by three different committees representing each government branch (judiciary, executive, legislative), 881 ministers, magistrates, and judges will be elected by citizens in 2025. By the 24th of November 2024, the deadline for applications to participate in this new judicial election, 18,000 applications were received. The electoral campaigns will start on March 30, 2025 and last 60 days. Any public or private funding for campaigns will be prohibited. Candidates will have access to airtime (radio and TV) and debates to present their proposals. Political parties are not permitted to endorse candidates. Moreover, the Tribunal for Judicial Discipline, (replacing the Federal Council) will receive all formal complaints and conduct investigations of ministers, magistrates, and judges. The four new procedural rules, which will apply to all legal cases, are:
Swift Justice — Tax matters must be resolved within 6 months, and criminal matters within one year.
Suspensions — Courts cannot issue suspensions for laws that are being assessed for their constitutionality, to prevent disruptions to governance.
Local Justice — State judicial branches must establish rules for the electoral process of magistrates and judges, as well as independent administrative and disciplinary bodies.
Judiciary trust funds — Once pending cases are resolved, funds must be reintegrated into the Pension Fund for Welfare.
What are the concerns surrounding the reform?
The approval of the reform has agitated both national and international law institutions, such as the Mexican Bar Association, the National Association of Corporate Lawyers, the Illustrious Bar Association of Madrid (ICAM), Stanford Law, as well as International Human Rights organizations such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as Human Rights Watch. The IACHR held a court hearing earlier this November, pronouncing the threat this reform poses to the independence, impartiality, and competence of the judicial branch, stating that it, “subjects its members to political and economic pressures.”
While the Mexican government has presented how the candidate selection process will undergo various procedures to ensure they fit the established criteria, leaving the responsibility of final selection to civilians is still a daunting task. Winning by popular vote does not directly imply being the most suitable for the role. Although candidates are not allowed to raise or receive funds, the inherent nature of the election process may be conducive to corruption, clientelism, and pressure from criminal organizations.
The campaigning process itself is also puzzling, as it is unclear what proposals or campaigns will look like, or how airtime will be justly distributed among the hundreds of candidates in only 60 days. Political candidates spend months curating their public image and have communications teams assisting them throughout their campaigns. Not having formal preparation or funding may present a significant disadvantage to those who cannot access it on their own. What proposals can judges promise citizens to stand out from other candidates? This process threatens judges from becoming political figures, rather than actors who are independent of politics.
The reform could not only delegitimize the autonomy of judges, but it also poses a significant threat to gender justice and vulnerable groups in Mexican society, including the LGBTQI+ community, Indigenous individuals, and disabled people. The reform does not propose a structure to ensure their long-needed protection and access to justice, essentially overlooking the active oppression they experience within the current justice system. Who will ensure that judges have an intersectional and human rights approach? Who will ensure the voting process respects gender parity or proportional representation? In a 2022 survey, 70.5% of Mexican women identified access to justice as one of the most poorly respected rights, second only to the right to live free from violence. Will this reform increase vulnerability of women and other individuals who are systematically deprived of their rights?
While this reform raises many concerns regarding its structure, efficiency, and possible threats to human rights, it also has brought to light the numerous faults the previous system had. However, it remains unclear how this process will protect a human rights approach and mitigate the current lack of access to justice and high levels of impunity within the Mexican justice system.
Glossary
Checks and Balances: A system in which the powers of government branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) are separated and regulated to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.
Clientelism: A political system where goods, services, or favors are exchanged for political support, typically undermining democratic fairness and impartiality.
Fourth Transformation/4T: A number of reforms and policies proposed by Andrés Manuel López Obrador during his presidential term.
Impunity: The lack of accountability or punishment for crimes, regularly due to systemic issues in the legal or judicial systems, which can foster further wrongdoing.
Intersectionality: An analytical framework that examines how various social identities (e.g., race, gender, class) overlap and contribute to systemic oppression and discrimination.
Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary operates free from external pressures, including political, economic, or societal influences, ensuring impartiality in the application of the law.
Nepotism: The practice of favoring relatives or close associates in professional roles, often bypassing merit-based selection, leading to inefficiency and corruption.