By: Morgan Hirsch
On September 15, Mexico became the first country to allow voters to elect judges at all levels, including its Supreme Court, marking a dramatic shift in its judicial appointment process. Traditionally, the Senate affirmed Mexico’s Supreme Court judges based on a shortlist submitted by the president. This new reform, passed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, fundamentally alters that system.
The Senate approved the amendment with 86 votes in favor and 41 against, driven by the ruling Morena party of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and its allies. López Obrador contended that the new system would democratize the process, making judges directly accountable to the public. The amendment garnered substantial support, quickly securing ratification from the majority of Mexico’s 32-state legislature.
Lopez Obrador pushed for the bill’s approval before leaving office on October 1, before his successor President Claudia Sheinbaum, took over. He argued that electing judges would make them more accountable to the people rather than at the hands of white-collar criminals. The amendment not only enables the popular election of more than 6,500 judges, magistrates, and ministers, but also reduces the number of Supreme Court judges from eleven to nine, shortens the length of their term to twelve years, abolishes the minimum age requirement of 35, and lowers necessary work experience from ten to five years, among other changes.
The reform process was not without controversy. Hundreds of protestors broke into the Senate during the session, chanting slogans like “the judiciary will not fall.” Lawmakers were forced to relocate to an old Senate building, to continue their debate, while demonstrators outside accused the former president of consolidating power and threatening democracy.
This move is not entirely unprecedented in the global context. Some countries, like Switzerland and the United States, elect some judges indirectly or at the local level. While such reforms are intended to enhance democratic participation, history shows mixed results. In the United States, elected judges can become swayed by public opinion, campaign contributions, and political pressures, potentially undermining their impartiality.
Similar concerns are now being raised about Mexico’s reform. Norma Pina, Chief Justice of Mexico’s Supreme Court, issued a public warning that elected judges could become more susceptible to influence from the country’s powerful drug cartels, which regularly use bribery and intimidation to influence officials.
Internationally, the reform has also drawn concern. The United States, Mexico’s largest trading partner, has warned that the changes could undermine investor confidence, a critical element of the countries’ economic ties. U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, described the reform as a “major risk” to Mexican democracy, warning that it could open the door for criminals to exploit “politically motivated and inexperienced judges.” Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, voiced “deep concerns” about the plan, calling access to an independent and impartial judiciary “a human right essential for protecting rights and checking power abuses.”
As Mexico steps into this new phase, the long-term effects on its democracy, legal system, and international standing are still uncertain. The balance between judicial accountability and independence will likely be tested as the country navigates the implications of this unprecedented change.
