On Sunday, an event of major consequence occurred, the nature of which is yet to be determined. Mexico has approved a constitutional amendment that restructures its entire judiciary, but the manner in which it has done so makes it arguably the most profound reform of a country’s judiciary ever undertaken by a major democracy. The controversial bill proposed by López Obrador (less than three weeks after leaving office) was approved in the Senate with great uncertainty and controversy.
Approval day. Mexico’s Senate has given final approval to a sweeping overhaul of the judiciary, clearing the biggest obstacle to a controversial constitutional amendment that would have forced all judges to run for office if nothing changes, a change critics fear would politicize judicial power and threaten democracy.
Regardless, senators voted 86 to 41 in favor. The reform will come into effect once it is published in Mexico’s official gazette. The change also represents a major victory for López Obrador, who has claimed his plan would end corruption by making it easier to punish judges.
The big debate: The people choose. The most controversial aspect of the reform is the easiest to explain: The law changes the judiciary from a system based largely on appointment based on education and qualifications to one in which voters choose judges and there are fewer requirements for application. In other words, starting next year, judges and justices in the federal system will be elected by popular vote.
The idea is that the executive, legislative and judicial branches will present lists of candidates for the public to vote on. According to Obrador, “the people now govern, the people decide.” Under the new system, around 7,000 judges, from the chief justice of the Supreme Court to local court officials, will be required to apply for office. The changes will come into effect gradually, with most of the judiciary up for election in 2025 and the rest in 2027.
The rest of the reform. The number of Supreme Court judges was reduced from 11 to nine, their terms were reduced to 12 years, the 35-year age limit was removed and the required work experience was halved to five years.
Other important changes concern the abolition of the life pension for current and future ministers of the Court and the adjustment of their salaries to the maximum limit set for the incumbent president. In addition, a disciplinary unit and an administrative unit were created for the Judiciary, independent of the Court, which would be responsible for matters related to the judicial career and internal control, as well as the preparation of the budget.
In this context, the new Judicial Administrative Body will be composed of five people appointed for a period of six years. One of them will be appointed by the Executive Branch, another by the Senate and the remaining three by the Supreme Court. What is also important is that this reform will not actually be a reform of the entire Mexican justice system, but only of the federal judiciary, since it should not affect the local systems or the prosecutor’s offices, which handle the majority of the processes (80%).
AMLO’s word. Behind this reform will always be the name of López Obrador, still president, who was a big supporter when he first proposed the reform last year. The government has said the reform is needed to modernize the courts and instill confidence in a system plagued by corruption, influence peddling and nepotism. Sheinbaum, who will succeed him on October 1, has fully supported the reform.
In the background is an ambitious plan that AMLO has christened the 4Ts, or “Fourth Transformation”, which aims to change “the foundations of Mexican society” (after Independence, Reform and the 1910 Revolution). The aim, according to the president, is to establish a real rule of law, and judges are “not at the service of a minority.” It is important to remember that Obrador has had significant clashes with the Supreme Court, such as the blocking of his reforms that would have expanded state involvement in the energy sector.
Praise. Many Mexicans have voiced support for the measure, saying it gives them influence in a judicial system that few trust. Government polls show that 66 percent of Mexicans believe judges are corrupt, and analysts say favoritism is still rife.
A recent assessment found that approximately 37% of judicial officials have at least one family member working in the courts.
Reviews. Compared to those supporting the reform, critics argue that electing judges directly at the ballot box would “politicize” justice. In fact, the proposal has met fierce resistance not only from many “people” but also from judicial personnel themselves, legal experts, investors, judges, students, opposition MPs and other critics.
One of the most repeated criticisms is that the nomination of candidates will favor those with networks of connections, financing or political connections to the ruling party. In addition, there are fears that the reform will open the door for organized crime to finance candidacies or take advantage of judges with less experience (which is likely already happening).
International response. In addition to the domestic debates within the country, for example, there is also the warning of the US embassy in Mexico, which described the proposal as a “major risk” to democracy and added that it could threaten the trade agreement between the three countries, which is due to be reviewed in 2026.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers has also called for the project to be reconsidered to protect “judicial independence” and, according to human rights organization Human Rights Watch, the proposal undermines “judicial independence, confidentiality and accountability”.
The market is shaking. López Obrador’s renewed promise of reform has also rattled financial markets, even sparking a diplomatic spat with the U.S. and Canadian ambassadors. British consultancy Oxford Economics said the reform “poses no immediate threat to the broader economy” but the uncertainty will slow investment in the country and the changes could lead to investment falling by as much as 12 percent, according to the consultancy. It is below its baseline forecast, which would weigh on economic growth.
Many investors have also expressed concerns about the reform, expressing concern that the new government will have all the tools to enact laws that could harm the business sector, reduce legal security for long-term investments or increase risk perception.
Even before lawmakers approved the reforms, Mexico’s central bank cut its economic growth forecast for this year to 1.5% from a previous estimate of 2.4% (amid global headwinds). Judicial reform now “increases the likelihood that the Mexican economy will fall into recession,” according to Gabriela Siller, head of economic analysis at the Banco BASE financial group.
Next step. Even so, the next step seems obvious, if not easy. The Senate will need to call for nominations for thousands of judicial positions across the country. And Mexico’s electoral body will have to start organizing judicial elections. At some point, state legislatures will have to change their local constitutions.
The backdrop is a plan under which voters will elect all Supreme Court justices, members of the newly created Disciplinary Court and about half of the country’s 7,000 judges next June, with the rest to be elected in 2027.
The reform currently being implemented is so profound and unconventional that the average Mexican may have to choose between hundreds and thousands of judicial candidates when he goes to vote.
Image | Aeneas of Troy, RawPixel
In Xataka | Mexico approves the Pension Fund for Well-being. How pensions are changing and the remaining keys to the reform
In Xataka | Mexico opted for “energy sovereignty” and now faces a difficult problem
Source: Xatak Android
Ashley Johnson is a science writer for “Div Bracket”. With a background in the natural sciences and a passion for exploring the mysteries of the universe, she provides in-depth coverage of the latest scientific developments.