Roma, Italia
Introduction
In June 2025, Mexico marked an important milestone by holding its first ever judicial elections on a national scale, refreshing around 2.600 roles, including judges, magistrates, and Supreme Court officials. This development represented a significant alteration in the constitutional system established the previous September. The aim of this change was to democratize the judiciary by allowing citizens to select their judges directly through popular vote, stepping away from the traditional method where appointees were chosen by the executive branch and ratified by the Senate.
The administration heralded this shift as a means to enhance legitimacy, foster public confidence, and align the judiciary more closely with the needs of society, rather than being shaped by political elites or outside influences. The level of voter involvement was shockingly minimal, achieving just a 13% turnout, marking the lowest rate in over thirty years. Instead of indicating rejection, this minimal involvement emphasizes the significant gap between the public and a traditionally unclear legal framework. Beyond being merely a matter of procedure, this participation points to a pressing democratic issue: establishing pathways for individuals to comprehend and interact with organisations that impact their liberties directly.
Critics in Mexico have expressed reservations regarding the appropriateness of campaigning for judicial positions, given their supposed fairness and technical failure, drawing comparisons to Bolivia’s situation, where political influence persisted despite reform efforts. These circumstances illustrate that the journey towards democratization is intricate and needs solid protections. The key issue for Mexico is if this updated framework can turn public involvement into true legal legitimacy and independence, promoting a judicial system that embodies the variety and hopes of the entire community.
From PRI Control to Zedillo’s Reform: A Judiciary in Transition
The legal framework in the country has experienced substantial modifications since the 1900s, influenced by struggles over centralized governance, party influence, and efforts to promote legal integrity. Initially shaped by European civil law and the principles of the U.S. Constitution, the judiciary underwent turmoil due to liberal and conservative disputes along with political strife. During the period of the PRI, judicial appointments were made through political means, fostering allegiance over autonomy. Reforms implemented from 1994 to 1997 improved judicial accountability by reducing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, increasing their power, and allowing constitutional evaluations; nevertheless, some critics perceive these changes as strategies to maintain governmental control.
The 2008 overhaul of the criminal justice system transitioned Mexico to an oral, accusatorial model aimed at enhancing clarity and effectiveness, although disparities persisted, and concerns regarding corruption endured. Despite the reforms, political and systemic issues have continued to limit judicial autonomy, mirroring boarder risk in Latin America, where advancements coexist with restrictive controls, raising questions about whether these recent efforts truly break existing patterns or simply reshape them.
With regards to the judicial independence, the challenges that the country has faced within the political landscape have been varied, often swayed by the priorities of the executive branch and dominant legislative factions. The judicial reform planned for 2024/2025 aims to improve public access to the judiciary while reducing the influence of political and economic elites on judicial appointments. However, global organisations and constitutional law experts have pointed out the risks associated with this change.
Judicial elections have the potential to disrupt the equilibrium of authority if candidates rely too heavily on private or party financial support. The historical development of changes in Mexico highlights an ongoing conflict: attempts to update institutions are often compromised by systems that perpetuate reliance. Without the inclusion of safeguards like public funding, merit-based admission pathways, and clear monitoring, reforms might end up strengthening current hierarchies instead of ensuring autonomy.
In Mexico, the new institutional arrangement gives voters and political parties considerable power to renew the judiciary every six years. This shift presents two main threats the normalisation of electoral politics and the potential political pressures on the judiciary. This being noted, the public election of judges could act as a pathway to democratization when supported by strong frameworks that safeguard the judiciary’s operational independence. In the absence of such, there is a risk of fostering a judiciary that serves the interests of the ruling party, which would compromise the protection of fundamental rights and the principle of separation of powers.
Independence Under Siege: How Elections Risk Politicizing the Bench
The Judiciary of Mexico (PJF) operates with a defined system, hierarchy, and career trajectories that prioritize skill and technical knowledge over political affiliations. Although this framework is not without faults, it offers some protection against overt partisan bias. Simultaneously, it has maintained a culture that, despite being professional, has frequently been detached from the societal conditions and variety of the community it caters to. The planned changes for 2024/2025 will replace this framework with one based on popular elections for most judicial positions, altering access guidelines and internal incentives. This transition, if appropriately managed, might create pathways for people who have been historically marginalized from legal professions. However, it will also necessitate the development of new skills like community involvement, effective communication, and transparency to the public, in addition to the usual legal knowledge.
The potential impact on the culture within the judiciary is noteworthy. The reform could lead to increased professional and social variety, counteracting long-standing elitism. However, critics caution that election-related abilities such as campaigning, outreach, and visibility should support rather than substitute for technical knowledge, guaranteeing that the process of democratization improves, not undermines, professional standards. Although this change could promote increased diversity and lessen elitism, it also poses a challenge to professional identity. Judges who have typically climbed the ranks based on technical abilities may have to adjust to fresh demands, finding a balance between judicial integrity and public presence.
Legal experts have cautioned that the voting framework could inadvertently diminish the independence instead of enhancing it. According to Mexican academic Ana Laura Magaloni, “historically, the judiciary has been both feeble and compromised, and elections might exacerbate rather than solve this issue.” Likewise, David Shirk, who leads Justice in Mexico, emphasized that the changes might motivate judges to behave like politicians, “pursuing public favour instead of objectivity,” which could compromise their function as unbiased decision-makers. Nonetheless, others argue that, when combined with robust protections like open funding sources, community education, and explicit ethical supervision, public elections might enhance legitimacy and disrupt enduring patterns of elite dominance. These viewpoints highlight the worry that the revamped system emphasizes political presence rather than expert knowledge, yet they algo highlight a chance to redefine expertise as an aspect that is responsible to the wider community.
The organizational culture could shift from a primarily technical and business-like focus to a more blended approach, where established judicial practices mix with elements of election rivalry. The outcome of this change depends on factors including the training of new judges, the strength of disciplinary measures, and the institution’s ability to maintain high ethical standards. If carried out with fairness and openness, this change could signify a significant shift—reshaping the judicial system into a body that better reflects societal diversity and gains public trust.
Populism and Power: The Politics Behind Reform
The reform unfolds against a political landscape shaped by the current ruling party, the National Regeneration Movement (Morena), which has amassed significant power through a strategy focused on social inclusion and active participation of citizens. Since 2018, Morena has solidified its dominant standing in both the executive and legislative branches, enabling structural changes that confront established elite dominance and aim to redistribute power within institutions. The conversation regarding elections for judges fits within a larger populist story throughout Latin America, where authorities have sought to link legal systems more closely with the populace through avenues for direct engagement.
Nonetheless, Mexico’s situation introduces a unique aspect: its influence on trade connections in the region. Concerns were raised by USMCA members highlight the conflict between efforts for national democratization and international demands for consistent economic conditions. This aspect—seldom highlighted in instances involving Bolivia or Ecuador—positions Mexico at the forefront of discussions where legal stability directly affects trade and international investment.
Internationally, reactions to this reform have been met with unease, particularly from the United States and Canada, partners in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), who have expressed concerns about a possible deterioration of the rule of law and legal certainty. These external worries often indicate an emphasis on market-driven goals that might neglect the democratic aspirations fuelling Mexico’s change. This pattern mirrors instances in other Latin American countries, where administrations with substantial legislative support have pushed for judicial reforms under the pretense of democratization, even though such actions have led to a reduction in judicial independence. The central issue is not if democratization weakens independence, but if it is possible to reshape institutions to enhance participation while maintaining neutrality.
In Latin America, Bolivia serves as an insightful example: in 2011, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) administration introduced the direct selection of judges to enhance accountability and foster public trust in the judiciary. While concerns over political influence remained, the initiative demonstrated a real attempt to bring democracy to a legal system often seen as disconnected from the everyday populace. Likewise, Paraguay and Ecuador tested approached aimed at updating court management and increasing their responsiveness, despite these efforts being met with backlash regarding inconsistent application or an excessive central control.
The scenario in Mexico encompasses three key elements that are evident in other local cases: a history of centralized institutions before reforms, widespread calls for openness and participation, and the ongoing difficulty in transforming citizen authority into structural autonomy. With proper precautions, Mexico’s reforms might how that enhancing democracy and maintaining judicial fairness are not opposing objectives, but rather goals that support each other in the wider quest for social equity.
Conclusions
The judicial changes planned for 2024/2025 mark a significant moment in Mexico’s constitutional journey, with the goal of curbing corruption and enhancing citizen engagement. However, the extremely low participation in elections and the breakdown of the judicial career framework indicate a conflict between democratization and political manipulation. This strain highlights not just the dangers associated with party dominance but also the extent of institutional disparity that reforms must address to ensure meaningful involvement. The main difficulty lies not only in the threat of party control—something already seen in other Latin American cases—but in crafting institutional designs that align accessibility with true independence.
Mexico’s situation underscores the pressing need for supportive actions: clear funding for judicial campaigns, stringent rules on political advertising, public educationprograms to inform citizens about the judiciary’s function, and autonomous disciplinary bodies that can uphold ethical practices. In contrast to past regional instances, Mexico hols the potential to transform judicial elections into a process that is both transparent and inclusive, merging democratic renewal with professional ethics. If these changes come with strong guarantees, the nation might be able to reshape the judiciary into a more transparent and trustworthy body, one that not merely withstands political influence but also embodies the varied backgrounds and hopes of its citizens.
From a broader viewpoint focused on democracy, the reform provides a chance to reconsider the judiciary as a public entity instead of a detached elite that needs to be answerable to the populace. Simply having elections does not ensure legitimacy; what is essential is creating systems that enable individuals—particularly those historically marginalized—to engage knowledgeably and with assurance. Establishing trust demands more than just procedural adjustments; it requires fostering a culture of openness, honesty, and attentiveness to societal needs.
In order to address these challenges, it is essential for Mexico to enhance electoral processes with strong institutional protections. To start, initiatives focused on civic education are necessary to improve the general public’s comprehension of the judiciary’s function, preventing future elections from suffering due to inadequate voter participation. A hybrid model would also maintain merit-based progress within the framework while opening pathways for fresh voices and viewpoints. Furthermore, clear regulations regarding campaign funding must be established to avoid judges becoming reliant on political affiliations or private contributors. Without these initiatives, reforms might solidify current power structures instead of dismantling them; with them, they could democratize justice in ways that empower communities instead of political parties.
Ultimately, this reform stands as a crucial chance to align the judicial system with ideals of inclusiveness and fairness. By eliminating barriers to involvement and advancing varied representation, direct elections can enhance both legitimacy and public trust. Combined with rigorous ethical guidelines and ongoing education, thee strategies could nurture a judiciary that effectively safeguards rights and resonates with the realities faced by all Mexicans.
SOURCES
- Castillejos-Aragón, M. (2023), Populism and Challenges to Judicial Independence in Mexico
- Castro Cornejo, R. (2024), Is Mexico at the Gates of Authoritarianism?
- González Montes, P. (2016), The Challenge of the New System of Justice in Mexico
- Mexican Law Review, (2017), Unpacking the Mexican Federal Judiciary: An Inner Look at the Ethos of the Judicial Branch
- SSRN Electronic Journal, (2024), Mexico’s Judicial Reforms Lead to Friction with the US And Canada
- Seyis, D., & Munir, H. (2024), Populists in Government and the Independence of the Judiciary in Latin America
- Shirk, D. A. (2008), Justice Reform in Mexico: Change & Challenges in the Judicial Sector
- Stanford Law (2024), A Threat to Judicial Independence: Constitutional Reform Proposals in Mexico
- The Determinants of Judicial Independence and Constitutional Adjudication: Latin America 1950–2002 (NYU Law)
- University of Miami Law Review, History of the Mexican Judiciary
***
Article’s author: Lucía Mantilla, graduate in International Relations and postgraduate student in Global Governance and Regional Studies.
***
Nota della redazione del Think Tank Trinità dei Monti
Come sempre pubblichiamo i nostri lavori per stimolare altre riflessioni, che possano portare ad integrazioni e approfondimenti.
* I contenuti e le valutazioni dell’intervento sono di esclusiva responsabilità dell’autore.
Editor’s Note – Think Tank Trinità dei Monti
As always, we publish our articles to encourage debates, and to spread knowledge and original and alternative points of view.
* The contents and the opinions of this article belong to the author(s) of this article only.