Mexico’s ruling MORENA Party has proposed a comprehensive judicial reform that aims to elect the entire judiciary of the country, from local judges to Supreme Court justices. According to the administration of outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the aim is to fight corruption, cronyism and judicial unaccountability. However, the proposal has sparked considerable debate both within Mexico and internationally, raising concerns about its potential to politicize the judiciary and undermine the independence of the courts.
The reform proposal, currently being debated in the Mexican Senate, would require citizens to vote for approximately 7,000 judicial positions, including Supreme Court judges. This would be unprecedented as in other countries, such as the US, judicial elections are usually limited to local judges. To be eligible, candidates will need a law degree, good grades, five years of legal experience and a letter of recommendation. A committee of experts will narrow the pool of candidates and in some cases names will be randomly selected from a bag.[1]
Under the reform, Supreme Court judges will be required to have ten years of experience and will serve for 12-year terms instead of the current 15 years. The reform will also reduce the number of Supreme Court judges from 11 to 9. Additional provisions include the creation of “anonymous” judges to hear organized crime cases, thus protecting judges from reprisals, and the establishment of a judicial disciplinary committee to investigate misconduct and errors in judicial reasoning.
Supporters of judicial reform in Mexico argue that the current judicial system has led to public mistrust. They believe that elected judges could solve many of these problems by making the judiciary more directly accountable to the people as opposed to political elites. One of the strongest arguments put forward by supporters is that giving citizens the power to elect judges would restore trust in the judicial system. According to this view, the judiciary has long been perceived as opaque and beholden to special interests, and judges are often seen as acting in favor of political figures or wealthy elites rather than the average citizen.
Under the reform, Supreme Court judges will be required to have ten years of experience and will serve for 12-year terms instead of the current 15 years. The reform will also reduce the number of Supreme Court judges from 11 to 9. Additional provisions include the creation of “anonymous” judges to hear organized crime cases, thus protecting judges from reprisals, and the establishment of a judicial disciplinary committee to investigate misconduct and errors in judicial reasoning.
Supporters of judicial reform in Mexico argue that the current judicial system has led to public mistrust. They believe that elected judges could solve many of these problems by making the judiciary more directly accountable to the people as opposed to political elites. One of the strongest arguments put forward by supporters is that giving citizens the power to elect judges would restore trust in the judicial system. According to this view, the judiciary has long been perceived as opaque and beholden to special interests, and judges are often seen as acting in favor of political figures or wealthy elites rather than the average citizen.
Allowing the public to participate directly in the selection of judges would empower voters and make judges accountable to the wider public, which could lead to more fair and equitable decisions. In short, judges will no longer be selected through opaque processes. Judges will be more directly subject to the will of the electorate and will have to stand for re-election if their performance is deemed unsatisfactory. In this respect, the reforms will allow for the removal of those who abuse their office.
The proposed judicial disciplinary committee is in line with these objectives. It would have the power to investigate judges for misconduct, focusing not only on issues such as bribery or delay, but also on their legal reasoning and the fairness of their decisions. By ensuring that judicial decisions are subject to scrutiny and accountability, this approach aims to improve the overall quality of the judiciary and address a major flaw in the current system. Another key argument of supporters is that the current method of appointing judges is open to corruption and political interference. By introducing elections, it is hoped that judges will better represent the will of the people rather than political supporters.
More broadly, advocates argue that this reform is a democratization of the judicial system, putting power in the hands of the people rather than a few elite decision-makers. They believe that by decentralizing the electoral process, judicial elections will more accurately reflect the diverse needs and aspirations of the Mexican population, which in turn can promote greater inclusiveness and responsiveness in the judiciary.
Mexico is not the first country to experiment with judicial elections. Bolivia introduced judicial elections in 2009, but the process faced challenges, including voter non-participation, with many people casting blank ballots.[2] This has stalled the reform process in Bolivia and raised concerns that a similar fate could await Mexico if voters are not adequately engaged in the electoral process.
While international critics cite Bolivia’s struggles with judicial elections as a cautionary tale, supporters of the Mexican reform argue that the model has not been fully explored on the scale Mexico envisions. They believe that with proper oversight, regulation and voter education, the electoral process can be effective in curbing judicial misconduct and improving the quality of the judiciary in general.[3]
Mexico’s proposed judicial reform is a bold attempt to overhaul a judiciary plagued by negative public perceptions. However, potential risks such as political influence, campaign finance issues and reduced voter turnout could undermine the impartiality and effectiveness of the courts. While reform is necessary to restore confidence in the Mexican judiciary, a critical challenge will be to ensure that reforms strengthen, rather than hinder, judicial independence. Ultimately, the success of reform depends not only on its implementation, but also on addressing the fundamental problems that plague Mexico’s justice system.
[1] “What’s at stake in Mexico’s judicial system under sweeping overhaul pushed by the president”, APNews, https://apnews.com/article/mexico-court-judicial-reform-elected-judges-81081cc0980cd128f3191331bc61a8c4 (Date of Access: 06.09.2024).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
