Judges in Mexico: A Recipe for Mayhem or Democracy?
Starting next year, Mexico is about to embark on a wild ride—imagine a rollercoaster where the guards let the passengers run the show! That’s right, in an electoral stunt so audacious that even your most eccentric uncle would raise an eyebrow, Mexico will elect all its judges by popular vote. Yes, you heard that right—every last one, from your local district judge to the mighty ministers of the Supreme Court. The only thing missing is a talent show to see who can place the wig on the head the fastest!
A Judicial Free-for-All
By 2027, Mexicans will get to choose between thousands of judicial candidates. It’s like a beauty contest, but instead of swimwear and speeches about world peace, competition will focus on who can interpret the law most gracefully! The National Electoral Institute (INE) predicts public spending of at least 13.2 billion pesos for this monumental electoral circus—about 656 million dollars. Just think of all the tacos that could buy!
Now, you have to wonder, was this really a brilliant idea or just a government plan to distract everyone from their actual problems? The ruling party, led by Andrés Manuel López Obrador and now Claudia Sheinbaum, insists it’s a move to combat judicial corruption. “We’re getting rid of the rotten apples and bringing in fresh new produce!” they proclaim. But let’s be honest: We’re about to hand the gavel to the masses. Would you trust a mob to pick a judge at a fish market? That sounds like a documentary that ends with chaos!
When the Chips Are Down
In a plot twist worthy of a telenovela, the Supreme Court recently stifled attempts to moderate the judicial reform. They shot down any proposals to diminish the number of judges pulled from the electoral lottery—and, spoiler alert, it was also a slap to those worried about the quality of judges. They’re at least keeping their drama alive. The rejection of the bill led to a showdown between the judges and the ruling party, providing more plot holes than your average soap opera!
But here comes the real kicker: ministers close to the ruling party claim “only Congress can modify the Constitution,” acting like the High Court is a voice of the past—perhaps more of a ‘Too Many Cooks’ scenario than the respected institution it’s supposed to be! But are we really surprised? It’s politics! They’re practically saying, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us!” Let’s raise our glasses to democracy… and hold our breath!
The Future: The Unknown Tempo
As we move forward into this brave new world, the implications are immense. Critics warn that the independence of the judiciary—crucial for any democracy—might be compromised. With all judges elected, what happens to impartiality? Will judges end up becoming influencers, driven by likes and shares instead of justice and ethics? The court’s independence could come with more selfies and soundbites than actual expertise!
And as Minister Alberto Pérez Dayán teeters in and out like the last belligerent drunk at a party, he acknowledges the deep consequences the reform will have. “It’s like I’m watching a train wreck in slow motion,” he seems to say, resigned to the chaos rolling down the tracks. One can’t help but wonder if all those affected judges will need therapy to handle the public’s expectations! “I’m not a lawyer, I’m a celebrity!”
So, What Now?
With the opposition left with fewer avenues to challenge this literally groundbreaking decision, what remains to be seen is how Mexico will adjust to this new institutional reality. No, we’re not prepared; that’s the catch. A nation where the people decide the fate of judges—not through qualifications, but through popularity—creates a layer of absurdity that rivals any sitcom!
In the end, as Mexicans gear up for a unique combination of democracy and entertainment, one must ask: are we witnessing the dawn of a judicial renaissance or a comedy sketch gone horribly wrong? Either way, grab your popcorn—it’s going to be a bumpy ride!
Starting next year, Mexico will elect all its judges by popular vote. These are thousands of judicial charges at the federal and state level. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has definitively closed any possibility of changing the judicial reform established by the ruling party, with the impetus of Andrés Manuel López Obrador and now with Claudia Sheinbaum in the presidency of the Government. A draft ruling proposed limiting or reducing the number of judicial positions to be elected at the polls, but it was rejected this Tuesday in the full Court. This decision puts an end to months of confrontation between the judges with Morena, which controls the Executive and overwhelmingly dominates Congress. The Supreme Court required at least eight votes to approve the bill that limited the amendment and safeguarded the future of thousands of judges. However, the ruling party had the in extremis support of the minister [magistrado] Alberto Pérez Dayán, who this time did not accompany the majority bloc. The resolution represents a glimpse into the unknown. No country the size of Mexico votes for all of its judges.
Around 1,700 federal judicial positions will have to be voted on at the polls in two elections, one in 2025 and another in 2027. District judges, circuit magistrates, magistrates of the Electoral Court, magistrates of the Judicial Disciplinary Court – of recently created—and ministers of the Supreme Court. The 32 States that make up the Republic will also elect their local judicial powers by popular vote in two elections. Mexicans will have to decide between thousands of candidates for judges in all court matters, from the most basic in family justice to the most specialized in commercial matters or telecommunications. The National Electoral Institute (INE), which will be in charge of organizing the unprecedented and complex elections, has budgeted public spending of at least 13.2 billion pesos (about 656 million dollars) only for next year’s election. The judicial reform was promoted by the ruling party with the argument that the judiciary was suffocated by corruption and privileges and that it was necessary to renew it at a stroke.
The project rejected this Tuesday by the Court, and which was prepared by Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara, proposed that only the judges of the judicial leadership – ministers of the Supreme Court and electoral and disciplinary magistrates – be voted, and that the district judges and circuit magistrates remained subject to the gradual promotions of the judicial career, which has existed in Mexico for three decades. The project also pointed out that the imposition, from the federal Constitution, of a model or roadmap on the States – which are free and sovereign – to conform to their judicial powers was inappropriate.
The ministers engaged in a long technical debate on whether the Supreme Court has the power to review and invalidate reforms to the Constitution. The draft sentence, which was finally supported by seven of the 11 ministers, maintained that it was. The Mexican Supreme Court is a constitutional court and as such can invalidate general laws that contradict the text of the Magna Carta. Alcántara’s project indicated that the Constitution is a set of general norms and that, in certain cases, the changes made to it by the Legislature can be reviewed through the action of unconstitutionality, which is the resource promoted by the opposition parties to Controvert the official reform.
Furthermore, Minister Alcántara warned that the judicial amendment contradicts the fundamental – or “stony” – rules that make Mexico a federal and democratic republic, whose power is based on the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. His project indicated that the independence of the Judiciary, a necessary condition in any democracy, rests on basic guarantees that the Morenoist reform has erased from the Constitution: the tenure of judges, an adequate promotion system, the prohibition of unjustified dismissal. and the irreducibility of wages.
The minority on the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. Ministers Lenia Batres, Yasmín Esquivel and Loretta Ortiz, close to the ruling party, have stated that only Congress can modify the Constitution and that the amendments cannot be reversed by the High Court. This is a position taken from Moreno’s political discourse. Both President Sheinbaum and the party leaders have affirmed that the judicial reform is a faithful expression of popular desires, and have criticized the Court for pretending to “be above the people of Mexico,” in the words of the president.
Unexpectedly, the ministers of the ruling bloc have been joined at the last minute by Minister Alberto Pérez Dayán, who has agreed that the content of the constitutional reforms cannot be reviewed through the appeal promoted by the opposition. “I am not, in any way, oblivious to the consequences that the questioned constitutional reform will produce, mainly in the public sphere of legal security, in the issue of the division of powers and in the principles of judicial independence,” he said. said the togado, “nor those that it will produce in the personal sphere of the judges, the concrete impact on thousands of people who, with its execution, will sadly see their efforts to improve and commit to a more just nation cut short. Of course I know it, and I even personally resent it: it’s my turn too. However, I maintain that there are other ways that protect those desires,” he noted.
With the help of Pérez Dayán, by four votes to seven, the Supreme Court decided to reject the opposition’s appeal. The ministers did not even enter into the substantive study of the Alcántara project. There is no other opportunity to challenge judicial reform in the future. In recent days, the ruling party hastily approved a new amendment that declares the norms contained in the Constitution unchallengeable through judicial means. It is absolute shielding. Representatives of opposition parties have indicated that the Government defeated Minister Pérez Dayán to obtain his vote. There is no evidence of this accusation. What exists from today is a new institutional reality for which no one in Mexico is prepared.
**Interview with Dr. Laura Mendoza, Political Analyst and Legal Scholar**
**Host:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Mendoza. As we dive into the recent developments in Mexico’s judicial reform, let’s start with the big picture. How significant is the decision to elect judges by popular vote for the future of Mexico’s democracy?
**Dr. Mendoza:** Thank you for having me. This decision is incredibly significant. It reflects a profound shift in how the judiciary operates in Mexico. By allowing the public to elect judges, the government is essentially merging the judicial system with electoral politics, which can lead to a host of complications—including potential bias, populism, and the erosion of judicial independence.
**Host:** You mentioned the erosion of judicial independence. Many critics are voicing concerns about the impartiality of judges elected through popularity. Could you elaborate on that?
**Dr. Mendoza:** Absolutely. The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy. When judges are elected based on popularity, there’s a risk that they may make decisions based on public opinion rather than what the law requires. This could turn judges into figures who appeal to the crowd, prioritizing public favor over legal integrity. It’s a troubling scenario that could diminish the public’s trust in the judicial system.
**Host:** The ruling party claims this reform is a necessary step to combat corruption in the judiciary. Do you think this will be an effective measure?
**Dr. Mendoza:** The intention to reduce corruption is a noble one, but the method raises questions. While rooting out corruption is crucial, electing judges might not necessarily lead to a cleaner judiciary. In fact, it could create a new breed of political patronage where judges feel beholden to the electorate rather than upholding the law. A more systematic approach to judicial reform, focusing on accountability and transparency without compromising independence, might have been more effective.
**Host:** With the National Electoral Institute (INE) predicting significant spending for these elections, how do you see this impacting the political landscape in Mexico?
**Dr. Mendoza:** The budget allocated for this reform is quite staggering—over 13 billion pesos. This level of spending indicates that the government is serious about this initiative, but it also raises questions about the prioritization of resources. With money being poured into judicial elections, there may be fewer funds available for pressing social issues like education and healthcare. Plus, the potential for campaigning among judicial candidates could lead to an electoral circus rather than a focus on qualifications and competence.
**Host:** Given the current political climate, do you believe there will be opposition to these reforms from other political parties or civil society?
**Dr. Mendoza:** Yes, absolutely. Many opposition parties and civil organizations are already expressing concerns. They see these reforms as an affront to the constitutional balance of powers. Expect significant pushback as they argue for the protection of judicial independence. Furthermore, lawyers and legal experts are likely to mobilize public opinion against what they may perceive as a politically motivated dismantling of the judiciary in favor of populist governance.
**Host:** what do you predict for the future of Mexico under this new judicial election system? Are we looking at a potential ‘judicial renaissance’ or a chaotic situation?
**Dr. Mendoza:** It’s hard to say definitively, but I suspect we may see both. The potential for a chaotic situation is high due to the myriad actors involved—politicians, the electorate, and the judiciary itself. However, if engaged properly, there could be a unique opportunity for greater public involvement in the legal system. The challenge will be ensuring that this engagement does not come at the cost of maintaining a fair and impartial justice system. It’s a tightrope the government will have to walk carefully.
**Host:** Thank you, Dr. Mendoza, for your insights on this complex and evolving situation. It certainly gives us a lot to think about as Mexico approaches this unprecedented shift in its judicial landscape.
**Dr. Mendoza:** Thank you for having me. It’s a pivotal time for Mexico, and we’ll all be watching closely as events unfold.
