Editorial Note: This is the third news article published by The Economist, and featured on the NAPCO website, concerning new legislation recently passed in Mexico requiring the popular election of that country’s entire judiciary. NAPCO editors have followed this story since it represents a dramatic change in how that nation’s judiciary is selected at all levels of court. In the opinion of NAPCO website editors, it portends the serious erosion of an independent, unbiased judicial system for our neighbors to the south.
On the evening of June 1st, as polls closed, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum hailed the historic vote to elect the country’s judiciary as “a complete success.” There are few measures whereby that could be said to be true. Turnout was a paltry 13%. Of the ballots that were cast, more than 20% were spoiled or left blank. But in one way the election was certainly a triumph: it has consolidated the grip of Morena, Ms. Sheinbaum’s ruling party, over the third branch of government—and over Mexico as a whole.
It will be days before full results are announced. Thousands of positions were up for grabs, mostly in local courts, but including 850 federal judgeships, half of all federal posts; the rest will be elected in 2027. But results for the highest courts are clear. They show that Morena-friendly candidates have won. All nine seats on Mexico’s Supreme Court were taken by people with links to the ruling party. A new disciplinary tribunal which is empowered to punish judges will probably have a similar hue. The electoral tribunal looks like it will tilt the same way.
This was expected. In theory the process was non-partisan. Unlike legislative elections, or some judicial elections in the United States, candidates were not affiliated with parties and political endorsements were banned. But flaws in how candidates were selected and flagrant rule-breaking made a mockery of that.
Morena controlled two of the three committees that vetted candidates. Each candidate’s approving committee was noted on the ballot, guiding those who wished to vote with Morena. In the days before the vote, Morena operatives circulated “cheat sheets” showing voters the slate of preferred candidates. Carlos Heredia of CIDE, a university in Mexico City, says that “in reality it was not an election, it was a designation.” Headlines dubbed the new judiciary “cherry-colored,” referring to Morena’s official hue. The new judges will take their seats in September.
Morena’s cheat sheet for the Supreme Court was perfectly predictive. The greatest number of votes went to Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, a lawyer close to Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Ms. Sheinbaum’s predecessor and the architect of the judicial reform. He had been in charge of getting indigenous groups to go along with Mr. López Obrador’s flagship projects. Another winner is María Estela Ríos, a former chief legal adviser to Mr. López Obrador, who proudly advertised it by calling herself “AMLO’s lawyer” (Mr. López Obrador is widely known as AMLO). The only justices reappointed to the Supreme Court were three who were appointed by Mr. López Obrador in the first place and rarely ruled against his reforms. None of the other sitting judges put themselves forward.
Turnout was lower than expected (even Mr. López Obrador’s bizarre referendum to ratify his presidency halfway through his term attracted 18%). The vote was marked by confusion and apathy. Volunteers manning a polling station in Mexico City struggled to explain the seven different ballots, one of which featured scores of names divided by specialization and gender. Many of those who bothered to turn up were mobilized by Morena.
Ms. Sheinbaum claims that electing judges makes Mexico “the world’s most democratic country.” This is a stretch. Morena and its allies hold a supermajority in Congress and threequarters of state governorships. Since coming to power in 2018 it has eliminated or weakened Mexico’s checks and balances. Morena increasingly resembles the hegemonic Institutional Revolutionary Party which ran the country for most of the 20th century.
The vote has provoked a torrent of criticism. Opposition parties said they would seek to have the election cancelled. Even Morena fans have suggested the process should be improved. The vetting could be depoliticized and the required qualifications raised. But Morena tends to ignore feedback. Ms. Sheinbaum blamed the opposition for the low turnout.
An additional danger lies ahead, when the results for the lower courts come in. The concern is not only that Morena will dominate, but that criminal groups may get their allies into the judiciary, just as they do in local government. At least 16 candidates with links to gangs managed to be listed on the ballot.
Bad for democracy, bad for business
Morena’s control of the judiciary is likely to hurt Mexico’s already sluggish economy. Coparmex, the local employers’ association, said the election would deter investment. The judicial elections may well constitute a breach of the terms of the free-trade deal between the United States, Mexico and Canada. As such, they provide Donald Trump with leverage over a forthcoming review of the deal.
The elections have handed Ms. Sheinbaum enormous power. Mr. López Obrador reshaped Mexico, but several signature policies, such as giving control of the National Guard to the army, were delayed or overturned by the Supreme Court. Ms. Sheinbaum faces no such constraints.