Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is set to leave office at the end of September. But before he does, he is likely to see one of his final missions fulfilled: a profound overhaul of the judiciary that he says is necessary to combat corruption.
The president’s proposed changes would shift the judiciary from an appointment-based system that largely revolves around training and qualifications to one in which voters elect judges and there are few qualifications to apply. Nearly a majority of the 7,000 judges would be affected by the measure, making it one of the most sweeping of its kind attempted anywhere in the world, legal experts say.
The changes would apply to the 11 justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, 1,635 federal judges and magistrates, and more than 5,700 state and municipal judges. The long lists of requirements for becoming a judge would be eliminated, especially at the federal level, which would open the way for people who simply had a law degree and a few years of legal experience to apply.
The measure already passed the House of Representatives last week, and overcame its biggest hurdle by narrowly passing the Senate on Wednesday, even after protesters stormed the building and disrupted the session on Tuesday. It will now move to state legislatures, where it is expected to easily pass in the coming months.
The move could lead to one of the most far-reaching judicial overhauls in any democracy. Relatively few countries allow judges to be elected on a significant scale, but none to the degree proposed by López Obrador, according to legal experts.
The government says the measures are necessary to modernize the judiciary and instill confidence in a system plagued by corruption, influence peddling and nepotism. López Obrador’s successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, will take office on Oct. 1 and has fully backed the plan.
Critics of the proposal say the plan would do little to address problems like corruption and would instead increase the power of López Obrador’s nationalist political movement.
Here’s what you need to know about the proposal to overhaul Mexico‘s judicial system.
What would the measures do?
The proposals would change the way judges are selected across Mexico’s judiciary, moving to a system in which candidates for justice must run in elections rather than being appointed based largely on a series of tests, their qualifications and their training.
However, the measures would not apply to military judges, nor to judges involved in land conflicts or specific disputes between administrative bodies and citizens. Such exceptions represent a small fraction of Mexico’s judges.
Table of Contents
- 0.1 However, the measures would not apply to military judges, nor to judges involved in land conflicts or specific disputes between administrative bodies and citizens. Such exceptions represent a small fraction of Mexico’s judges.
- 0.2 CONTENT FOR SUBSCRIBERS
- 1 What are the key features of President López Obrador’s judicial overhaul in Mexico?
- 2 Here are some People Also Ask (PAA) related questions for the title **”Mexico’s Judicial Overhaul: A Sweeping Reform or a Threat to Democracy?”**
Table of Contents
- 0.1 However, the measures would not apply to military judges, nor to judges involved in land conflicts or specific disputes between administrative bodies and citizens. Such exceptions represent a small fraction of Mexico’s judges.
- 0.2 CONTENT FOR SUBSCRIBERS
- 1 What are the key features of President López Obrador’s judicial overhaul in Mexico?
The proposal would also restructure the Supreme Court, reducing the number of justices from 11 to nine and shortening their terms from 15 to 12 years. In some cases, justices’ salaries and benefits could be reduced to cut costs.
In addition, a Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal would be created, whose members would also be elected by popular vote and would have broad powers to investigate and possibly even dismiss or remove judges. The tribunal’s decisions would be final and unappealable.
Why does this bother judges, judicial workers and critics?
López Obrador’s plan has sparked protests across the country and even been at the center of a diplomatic spat with U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar, who called it a “significant risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.”
Many critics of the plan agree that the system needs an overhaul, but warn that the government’s proposal would do little to rid the judiciary of its problems. Instead, they say it would erode judicial independence and allow López Obrador’s political movement to concentrate power.
Specifically, critics of López Obrador and his allies worry that the measures could entrench their current political advantages for a longer period of time by electing judges who are aligned with Morena, the ruling party.
Some foreign companies are concerned that the changes could make it harder to find impartial judges to hear disputes between the government and companies. Other critics have warned that drug cartels could try to influence the new judicial elections, as they have done in other political contests across the country.
While some countries allow for the election of some judges by popular vote — including the United States, Switzerland and Japan — experts say none do so as widely as Mexico’s proposed changes would.
The determination to impose the measures has kept financial markets on edge, marked by a fall of more than 15% in the value of the peso since the beginning of June.
CONTENT FOR SUBSCRIBERS
When could the measures be approved and implemented?
Leaders of Lopez Obrador’s Morena party aim to have the measures approved in Congress this month, before Lopez Obrador ends his term on Oct. 1. The measure was approved in the Chamber of Deputies last week, with 357 lawmakers present voting in favor of the bill and 130 against. On Wednesday, the Senate also approved the reform with 86 votes in favor. A total of 41 senators opposed it.
In addition to being approved by both houses of Congress, the measures have to be adopted by a majority of state legislatures — an easy task, since Morena and its allies have a majority in almost all state congresses. The changes would be implemented gradually, with a large part of the judiciary participating in an election in 2025 and the rest in 2027. That means all 32 states need to change their constitutions and choose between holding elections in 2025 or waiting another two years.
window.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’, function() {
/*(function($) {*/
(function (d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s);
js.id = id;
js.src = document.location.protocol + “//connect.facebook.net/es_LA/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
/*})(jQuery);*/
});
#Mexico #radically #transform #judicial #system
What are the key features of President López Obrador’s judicial overhaul in Mexico?
Mexican President’s Judicial Overhaul: A Sweeping Reform Amid Controversy
As Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s term comes to an end, he is poised to fulfill one of his final missions: a profound overhaul of the judiciary aimed at combating corruption. The proposed changes would shift the judiciary from an appointment-based system to one in which voters elect judges, with few qualifications to apply. This move could lead to one of the most far-reaching judicial overhauls in any democracy.
What Would the Measures Do?
The proposals would change the way judges are selected across Mexico’s judiciary, moving to a system in which candidates for justice must run in elections rather than being appointed based on a series of tests, qualifications, and training. The measure would apply to the 11 justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, 1,635 federal judges and magistrates, and more than 5,700 state and municipal judges. The long lists of requirements for becoming a judge would be eliminated, especially at the federal level, which would open the way for people with a law degree and a few years of legal experience to apply.
The proposal would also restructure the Supreme Court, reducing the number of justices from 11 to nine and shortening their terms from 15 to 12 years [1]. In some cases, justices’ salaries and benefits could be reduced to cut costs. Additionally, a Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal would be created, whose members would also be elected by popular vote and would have broad powers to investigate and possibly even dismiss or remove judges. The tribunal’s decisions would be final and unappealable.
Why Do Critics Oppose the Plan?
López Obrador’s plan has sparked protests across the country and been at the center of a diplomatic spat with U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar, who called it a “significant risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.” Critics of the plan agree that the system needs an overhaul, but warn that the government’s proposal would do little to rid the judiciary of its problems. Instead, they say it would erode judicial independence and allow López Obrador’s political movement to concentrate power.
Critics of López Obrador and his allies worry that the measures could entrench their current political advantages for a longer period of time by electing judges who are aligned with Morena, the ruling party. Some foreign companies are concerned that the changes could make it harder to find impartial judges to hear disputes between the government and companies. Other critics have warned that drug cartels could try to influence the new
Mexico’s Judicial Overhaul: A Sweeping Reform or a Threat to Democracy?
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is set to leave office at the end of September, but not before pushing through a profound overhaul of the country’s judiciary system. The proposed changes, which have sparked protests and concerns about the impact on democracy, aim to combat corruption and modernize the judicial system.
The Key Features of the Judicial Overhaul
The proposals would shift the judiciary from an appointment-based system to one in which voters elect judges, with fewer qualifications required to apply. This would affect nearly 7,000 judges, making it one of the most sweeping judicial overhauls attempted anywhere in the world, according to legal experts. The changes would apply to the Supreme Court of Justice, federal judges and magistrates, and state and municipal judges.
The proposal would also restructure the Supreme Court, reducing the number of justices from 11 to nine and shortening their terms from 15 to 12 years. In addition, a Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal would be created, whose members would be elected by popular vote and would have broad powers to investigate and possibly even dismiss or remove judges.
Why the Overhaul is Controversial
López Obrador’s plan has sparked protests across the country and has been criticized by judges, judicial workers, and diplomats. Many agree that the system needs an overhaul, but warn that the government’s proposal could do little to address problems like corruption and would instead increase the power of López Obrador’s nationalist political movement.
Critics argue that the plan would undermine the independence of the judiciary and could lead to political interference in the justice system. The election of judges could lead to a politicization of the judiciary, rather than a merit-based system.
State Legislatures Back the Plan
Despite the controversy, the plan has made significant progress. The Mexican Senate has given final approval to the overhaul, and more than half of the country’s state legislatures have voted in favor of the plan. The government says the measures are necessary to modernize the judiciary and instill confidence in a system plagued by corruption, influence peddling, and nepotism.
A Significant Risk to Democracy?
The overhaul has sparked concerns about the impact on democracy. U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar has called it a “significant risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.” The plan’s critics argue that it could lead to a crackdown on dissent and undermine the rule of law.
As López Obrador prepares to leave office, his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, has fully backed the plan. The overhaul is likely to be one of the most far-reaching judicial reforms attempted anywhere in the world,
