Currently, the Mexican judicial system is undergoing a broad reform process, sparking heated debate across the country. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has proposed comprehensive constitutional changes aimed at fundamentally transforming the nation’s judicial framework and reshaping the entire political landscape.
This judicial reform has become a focal point in the Mexican media, attracting attention from a wide range of society, including legal experts, politicians, and ordinary citizens alike. The proposed plans include the introduction of a system for electing judges, including members of the Supreme Court, through a “popular vote,” a step that has incited protests against the judicial reform from various sectors of society. As the discussion evolves, questions have arisen regarding the potential impact on Mexican elections, the independence of the judiciary, and the overall health of the political system in Mexico.
Contexts of the Judicial Crisis
Since Mexico’s independence, its judicial system has undergone significant transformations. The federal judiciary currently operates on a three-tiered system, topped by the Supreme Court. In this system, judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, granting them lifetime tenure. Meanwhile, circuit and district judges are appointed by the Supreme Court for four-year terms, with the possibility of reappointment or promotion, and they can only be removed in cases of misconduct.
Despite numerous attempts at reform over the years, including the enactment of a new penal code in 1931 and a federal criminal procedure law in 1934, the Mexican judiciary continues to face significant challenges. The prevalence of corruption, coupled with high rates of impunity and ineffective policing and judicial systems, has created a fertile environment for organized crime to thrive. Consequently, Mexico records the highest impunity rate in the Americas and the fourth highest globally. Furthermore, the shortage of judicial personnel has led to noticeable delays in trial proceedings, resulting in overcrowded prisons.
The Mexican judiciary has long been subject to ongoing scrutiny and criticism. The process of appointing judges to the current Supreme Court, which involves presidential nomination and Senate approval, is often viewed as susceptible to political influence. Although federal judges are selected through a system that is ostensibly merit-based, concerns about corruption and incompetence remain troubling.
President López Obrador has intensified these criticisms by labeling the judiciary as “corrupt” and dishonest, accusing it of serving only the interests of political and economic elites. These serious allegations have heightened calls for radical reform within the judicial system, prompting the president to present his controversial proposal.
The Proposed Reform Plan
The judicial reform plan proposed by President López Obrador, known as “Plan J,” aims to drastically change how courts operate in Mexico. The plan includes several key changes to the judicial system:
First, it suggests conducting direct elections for Supreme Court judges by the public. This change would accompany a reduction in the number of judges from 11 to 9 and a decrease in their term length from 15 to 12 years. This measure aims to enhance judges’ accountability to the public and increase transparency within the judicial system.
Second, the plan proposes replacing the Federal Judiciary Council with two new bodies: the Judicial Administration Agency and the Judicial Disciplinary Court. The Judicial Disciplinary Court, which will also be elected by the public, will have broad powers to investigate violations committed by judicial employees and impose appropriate penalties.
President López Obrador asserts that the proposed changes will solidify democratic gains in Mexico and ensure that the judiciary genuinely serves the people. He believes that granting voters the right to choose judges will make them more accountable to the public, thereby advancing social and economic development in the country.
The Accountability vs. Independence Debate
The proposal to elect judges has sparked intense debate and significant polarization in Mexico. Supporters argue that electing judges will enhance transparency and accountability, which is crucial in a system plagued by corruption. They believe this measure will empower the public and ensure a judiciary that is more responsive to citizens’ needs. Tens of thousands of supporters rallied around the president when he called for backing his judicial reform plan, and in a symbolic vote, an enormous number of hands were raised in favor of electing judges through popular vote.
Conversely, opponents caution against the potential risks to judicial independence and the rule of law. They argue that elected judges may lean towards public opinion at the expense of objectively applying the law and could become susceptible to pressure from criminal organizations, endangering the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups.
The resonance of these discussions has transcended national borders, garnering substantial international attention. In this context, the United States, Mexico’s key ally and trading partner, has warned that these changes could pose “significant risks” to Mexican democracy. The impact of these reforms could extend to international agreements such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), raising serious concerns about investor confidence and the stability of the Mexican economy.
Potential Impact on Democracy
The proposed judicial reform in Mexico has raised significant concerns about its potential impact on the foundations of democracy in the country. Critics argue that this reform could undermine the system of checks and balances, threatening judicial independence and public trust in the legal system. These concerns center around three main areas: judicial independence, corruption risks, and political influence in judicial rulings.
Judicial Independence: Regarding judicial independence, critics argue that electing judges could expose them to political pressures, undermining their autonomy and violating international human rights standards. Additionally, the arbitrary dismissal of thousands of judges for political reasons constitutes a blatant violation of these standards. Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur, emphasized that while electing judges is not prohibited under international law, the necessary guarantees to ensure judicial independence and integrity are critically important. The arbitrary removal of thousands of judges for political reasons would violate international human rights standards. Mexican judge Sid Capello described these reforms as contradictory to human rights, professionalism, and the establishment of judicial independence.
Corruption Risks: Contrary to the government’s claim that the reforms will address corruption, critics argue they may exacerbate the issue. The proposed changes would reduce the requirements for appointing judges, including years of experience, law exam scores, and minimum age. This could severely undermine judicial capability and create opportunities for corruption.
Political Influence in Rulings: The potential for political influence in judicial rulings raises serious concerns in the context of the proposed judicial reform. Critics fear that elected judges may prioritize public opinion over neutral law application, jeopardizing minority rights and the rule of law. Furthermore, concerns are growing that judges may issue rulings primarily aimed at pleasing powerful circles and securing more votes in upcoming elections. If realized, this could severely damage the integrity and sanctity of the judicial process.
Amrit Singh, Executive Director of the Stanford Law School’s Rule of Law Impact Lab, warned that politicizing the judiciary could deprive people of access to justice. Moreover, establishing an elected disciplinary court with final, unappealable judgments could be used as a weapon against judges issuing rulings unfavorable to the current government. Additionally, reducing judges’ terms to align with the presidential term could further politicize judges’ selection and behavior.
Economic and Social Implications
The proposed judicial reform in Mexico carries far-reaching economic and social implications, raising significant concerns among various stakeholders, including foreign investors, chambers of commerce, and citizens. These concerns revolve around three main aspects: its impact on foreign investment, public trust in the justice system, and potential effects on the rule of law.
Impact on Foreign Investment: The sweeping changes proposed for the Mexican judiciary have raised alarms among foreign chambers of commerce regarding potential risks to investment. Critics argue that the constitutional amendments leading to the replacement of 7,000 judges nationwide could significantly affect judicial independence. This has caused concern among international companies operating in Mexico, prompting them to urge President López Obrador to amend the reforms to ensure the protection of judicial independence and compliance with international trade regulations. U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar warned that such changes could severely damage bilateral relations and negatively impact investment and the economy. Canadian Ambassador Graeme Clark echoed these concerns, noting that Mexico is the second-largest recipient of foreign direct investment in the region, accounting for 16.4% of total flows in 2023. Significant losses could occur if investors withdraw.
Potential Effects on the Rule of Law: Critics argue that electing judges could undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary. In this context, Amrit Singh warns that politicizing the judiciary could deprive people of access to justice and endanger minority rights.
The proposal to appoint “judges without identity” in organized crime cases has faced severe criticism, especially after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that this practice violates the right to a fair trial. Moreover, the suggestion to dismiss 466 female judges raises serious concerns about gender equality within the judiciary. This measure could erode the progress made toward achieving gender balance in the judiciary, potentially reversing Mexico’s efforts toward equitable judicial representation.
Implementation Challenges and Future Risks:
The proposed judicial reform in Mexico faces a complex legislative journey. The proposal, which requires a two-thirds majority vote, has already passed in the Chamber of Deputies, and on Tuesday, September 10, the Mexican Senate approved the bill. This approval marked the last major hurdle for enacting the reform, as the proposal secured the necessary two-thirds majority for a constitutional change during a dramatic session that extended into the early hours of the following day. This decision sparked a wave of strikes and protests across the country, culminating in demonstrators storming the building where the voting was taking place, forcing senators to relocate to another site to complete the voting process.
Although the public vote was seen as a pivotal step, further discussion is anticipated regarding the points raised by lawmakers concerning the bill’s details before final approval. The next steps are expected to involve a detailed discussion of the bill’s provisions in the Senate, potential amendments to the final text, a final vote on the law after necessary revisions, and then sending the law to the president for signing and official enactment.
Regarding implementation challenges, if the judicial reforms are enacted, current judges would need to be dismissed and compensated, with opportunities for them to run in the new system. This process would incur significant costs and require a considerable amount of time to organize elections of such scale. Additionally, many newly elected judges may find themselves in specialized courts and appellate courts without prior experience, potentially leading to a long and complex learning period. These concerns, coupled with investor anxiety and the depreciation of the Mexican peso, could prompt lawmakers to consider amendments to the original proposal.
The proposed judicial reform represents a pivotal moment in Mexico’s history, impacting the foundations of its democracy and its international relations. Furthermore, the passage of the law signifies a major victory for President López Obrador, whose term concludes at the end of September 2024. As Mexico grapples with these significant challenges, the outcome of this reform will undoubtedly shape the future of its democratic institutions and power dynamics for years to come.
