On Sunday, May 31st, Mexico held its first-ever judicial elections. This was a historic moment in Mexico’s developing political landscape, but the democratic procedure was simultaneously met with confusion and controversy among the Mexican populace. Voters had to sift through around 2,600 candidates running for over 880 judicial positions. According to the Associated Press, the candidate pool had been previously narrowed down from the initial 18,000 individuals that registered to run for various judge seats, the selection done by random draw.
Based on democratic metrics, the election’s voter turnout seemed inadequate to yield a truly representative outcome. According to Reuters, only around 13% of Mexico’s voting population participated in the election, as was announced by Mexico’s election authority, the Instituto Nacional Electoral. Possible factors resulting in low turnout include the fact that this was Mexico’s first judicial ballot and voters were likely overwhelmed by the wide array of choices. Moreover, many individuals expressed a deep-rooted sense of apathy, likely a symptom of the decades of disillusionment, corruption, and lack of transparency in Mexico’s political history.
This election emerged from the constitutional reforms enacted in late 2024 by leaders affiliated with Morena (Movimento de Regeneración Nacional, which translates to “National Regeneration Movement”), the nation’s ruling party. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected criticisms of the judicial elections, citing how a civilian election would tackle any potential for corruption and put the future of Mexico’s justice system in the hands of the democratic process.
Some took issue with the party’s judicial reforms. In an interview with the Associated Press, Laurence Patin, director of the legal organization Jucio Justo, claimed the court reforms are a blatant political strategy for the ruling party to leverage control of the country’s legal system. This is exemplified by how federal and state legislatures, both dominated by Morena, passed the constitutional amendment that gives legislative immunity to all constitutional reforms passed with two-thirds majority, regardless of judicial challenges or interpretation. However, Patin recognized the value of the democratic procedure, stating “it’s a counter-balance, which exists in every healthy democracy.”
This judicial election is historic for several reasons: not only is it the first of its kind, but it also comes at a time where the country’s democracy is in a complicated position. In general, the current political dilemma in Mexico is rooted in the country’s history of instability and corruption.
Following the mid-twentieth century rise of authoritarian rule from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (P.R.I.), student protests and political dissent were met with an authoritative government response that resulted in the Tlatelolco Massacre of 1968. For decades, P.R.I. dominated Mexican politics, with the federal government playing a crucial role in the nation’s economy. Later, neoliberal developments toward decentralization in the 1980s and 1990s gave way to a failed democratic transition. The 1988 election, won by Carlos Salinas de Gortari, was widely and infamously considered to be marked by fraudulent and corruptive politics. However, this misconduct fueled an opposition movement and dissenters of Salinas’s free-market ideology later developed the Party of the Democratic Revolution (P.R.D.), which pushed for democratic reforms. Since then, Mexico has been developing in its transition from a centralized, dominant-party system toward a decentralized, multi-party democracy in which regional governments and the judicial branch became more influential in the country’s greater political landscape.
Mexico still faces democratic obstacles, notably in terms of drug trafficking, cartel violence, and border dilemmas. According to the AP, Civil Society Organizations such as Defensorxs have raised concerns regarding the questionable range within the judicial candidate pool, including lawyers who represented cartel leaders and local officials who were forced to resign on account of corruption scandals. Others on the ballot include an ex-convict imprisoned for drug trafficking in the U.S. and several individuals connected to a religious group whose leader is currently facing time in California after pleading guilty to sexually abusing minors.
The primary controversy surrounding Mexico’s legal system is two-fold: some argue that popularly elected judges could potentially undermine judicial independence and the sanctity of the rule of law. However, similar concerns have been expressed in regards to judges appointed by members of the state legislature, which may appeal to party interests rather than civil ones. In general, a hybrid system of judicial candidate selection may be the best solution to appease the interests and mitigate the concerns of both arguments: a combination of official appointment followed by judicial elections by popular vote. While judicial selection varies significantly across the globe, many nations and states adhere to some variant of a hybrid-selection system where judges are initially appointed or elected by state legislatures and later held to a referendum-like retention election or a deliberate commission in which voters can decide if they should remain in their positions. A hybrid judicial selection system aligns with the independence of the judicial branch while maintaining the democratic values inherent to popular sovereignty.
Considering the constitutional reforms that have already been passed and enacted, it is now the responsibility of Mexican voters to contemplate their future judicial representatives in order to make the best decisions for Mexico’s political landscape. Moreover, the court reforms that developed the nation’s first judicial selection reflect an application of popular sovereignty that attempts to combat the nation’s weak democratic history. Regardless of the strange pool of candidates on the ballot or the controversial procedure of judicial selection by popular election, the significantly low voter turnout is a clear indication that the elections will not be truly representative of popular or civil interests.
To truly effect the virtue of popular sovereignty that is inherent to democratic procedures, Mexican voters must act on their power to determine political outcomes by participating in the election process. Going forward, the country’s civilians must harness this constitutional right in order to hinder nation-wide conflict, violence, and corruption. Now more than ever, the state of Mexico’s democracy is predominantly in the hands of its civilians. Accordingly, the most fundamental way to develop a country’s democracy is through electoral participation.
