Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who has long criticized the country’s Supreme Court for obstructing his key policy initiatives, is pushing to overhaul the judiciary as he nears the end of his six-year term. This month, lawmakers in Mexico City began advancing a sweeping constitutional reform that would introduce elections for judges at all levels of government, a move experts say could make Mexico an international outlier.
Legislative Progress and Upcoming Vote
The reform, which passed the lower chamber of Congress with significant support, will next face a vote in the Senate. López Obrador’s ruling coalition is just one senator short of a supermajority, making its approval likely.
Presidential Justification and Criticism
López Obrador, a prominent leftist figure, argues that the overhaul is necessary to eradicate judicial corruption and ensure that the judiciary is more responsive to public opinion. Critics, however, view the measure as a power grab that threatens one of the last remaining checks on presidential authority.
Mariana Campos, Director of México Evalúa, labeled the reform as a “constitutional crisis,” noting that the judiciary has traditionally served as a counterbalance to the executive and legislative branches. Campos argues that López Obrador and his allies believe they cannot advance their goals with this counterweight in place.
READ MORE: Andrew Tate: Will The Internet Influencer Still Remain Under House Arrest?
Opposition and Diplomatic Tensions
Opposition to the reform has sparked significant discord, with the Supreme Court justices voting to join a nationwide protest, which has led to a suspension of most legal proceedings. U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar’s criticism of the judicial elections as a “major risk to Mexico’s democracy” has resulted in diplomatic tensions between Mexico and the United States. Business groups have also warned that the reform could negatively impact Mexico’s investment climate, contributing to a drop in the peso’s value.
Protesting judicial staff recently blocked the entrance to the lower chamber of Congress, forcing lawmakers to conduct an overnight session in a sports complex. Despite the resistance, the reform is expected to progress swiftly through the legislature due to López Obrador’s party’s substantial control.
Details of the Proposed Reform
Currently, Supreme Court judges in Mexico are nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. Federal judges are selected by a judicial commission based on merit through exams and coursework. Under the proposed reform, judicial elections would occur next year, with approximately 7,000 judges required to campaign for their positions.
The reform also proposes reducing the number of Supreme Court judges from 11 to nine and shortening their term from 15 to 12 years. Candidates for judicial positions would need to be nominated by evaluation committees within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Concerns About Judicial Impartiality
Critics argue that the reform could undermine judicial impartiality. An analysis by the Center for Constitutional Studies noted that the new selection process could favor candidates with political connections and create risks of co-optation by private interests or criminal organizations.
Political Context and Comparisons
The reform proposal comes as López Obrador’s political movement gains momentum, following the election of Claudia Sheinbaum, his political protégé, as president in June. Sheinbaum, who will assume office on October 1, has defended the reform, emphasizing that the nomination process will be divided among the three branches of government.
Defenders of the reform point to the United States as an example of judicial elections. However, experts like Michael Nelson from Pennsylvania State University argue that this comparison is inadequate, noting that Mexico would be unique in its scale of judicial elections.
International Precedents and Public Perception
The closest precedent for such a reform is Bolivia, which in 2011 became the first modern country to directly elect its federal judges. While Bolivia’s reform increased diversity on its constitutional court, it also led to decreased public confidence in the judiciary.
Amanda Driscoll, a Florida State University professor, notes that even well-designed reforms may falter if perceived as politically motivated, potentially undermining public trust in the judiciary.
(Includes inputs from online sources)
ALSO READ: Artificial Intelligence Convention Ready For Signing, Puts Human Rights First
