Latin Analysis: Mexico & The 7,000 Candidate Election
Mayolo Lopez Gutierrez
Mexico made history this month, becoming the first country in the world to elect its judges, following judicial reform passed in the country last September. These elections, held on June 1, gave Mexicans the opportunity to select some 2,600 Supreme Court justices, federal and state-level judges, and magistrates. The results are expected on June 15, while the next round of judicial elections are expected in 2027. President Sheinbaum’s government have hailed this novel vote as a “complete success” but others remain unconvinced. There has been significant criticism of this move to do what many see as politicizing the judiciary, which is thought to inevitably erode checks and balances. A turnout of just 13 per cent suggests that these concerns weighed heavy on the electorate.
Although it is sitting president Claudia Sheinbaum presiding over these elections, this reform is the fruit of her predecessor’s administration, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), passed during his last month in office. This process - up until now- has involved the resignation of 7,000 preexisting judges, reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from eleven to nine, shortened term lengths, and eased requirements relating to age and experience. Somewhat controversially, these changes also mean that the Supreme Court will henceforth be more restricted in its “ability to invalidate laws as unconstitutional”. According to AMLO and his successor Sheinbaum, this policy is a key component of renewed efforts to suppress organized crime. However, many commentators believe that this is clearly a product of the previous president’s frustration over court rulings blocking his proposals, rather than just purely motivated by profound concerns over cartels.
These concerns have manifested themselves in significant opposition to the reform. Some opposition figures, such as the PAN party, called for a boycott of the election, branding it as “vulgar fraud”. Additionally, legal professionals have clearly demonstrated their disapproval. For example, judicial workers and judges staged weeks of protest last year, in response to the announcement of these policies. The fact that Sheinbaum’s party and its allies were the only parties that supported this reform, encouraging those more inclined to vote for opposition parties not to participate. Perhaps, therefore, a turnout of just 13 per cent was to be expected.
– “Today the system of checks and balances died. ... Today was a coup d’etat. No weapons were used, but they captured the institutions meant to safeguard democracy.”
(Fernando Belaunzarán, member of the center-right National Action Party)
Commentators have not only criticized this overall reform, but many have voiced concerns over the vetting of candidates. According to civil society group Defensorxs- which reviewed hundreds of people standing in this election- several had links to organized crime. For example, one person seeking election was the ex-lawyer of Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán, the ‘world’s most powerful drug lord’, while another defended the notorious gang Z-40. Additionally, many of the candidates have links to church organizations which have been marred in sexual abuse scandals. The presence of these individuals highlights the flaws in the candidate vetting system, with lawyer Miguel Meza warning that “[w]e risk electing judges who are still working for their clients- or worse, for criminal groups.” Unfortunately, this also seriously undermines the government’s insistence that these reforms end judicial corruption.
Indeed, this dynamic may have influenced voters when deciding whether to go to the polling booths on election day. However, it is also undeniable that large-spread confusion over how the vote actually worked also influenced turnout. The 7,700 nominees were largely unknown to the electorate, making it almost possible for voters to make informed decisions in the short time period that they were given to familiarize themselves with the candidates before June 1.
The relative anonymity of those running for office was compounded by the fact that those contesting positions on the judiciary are unable to campaign using traditional methods such as adverts, endorsements or public debates. Although in theory this is meant to limit the politicization of judicial candidates, it also inevitably means that the electorate do not know the people that they are voting for. This can cause untold problems in normal elections, but in the case of this June 1 election with over 7,000 candidates, Mexican citizens were left with no idea about how a vote for a specific person would affect them personally.
Also, there were six different ballots that needed to be filled out by each voter, and candidates being listed only by name rather than party affiliation meant that citizens could not just opt for the person running on the ticket of their preferred party. None of this was conducive to encouraging widespread political participation, which spelled trouble for an election which lacked political consensus across the board.
Within a country where 93 per cent of crimes go unreported due to a lack of faith in the justice system, it is crucial that something changes. Without a functioning and efficient judiciary, it will be impossible for Mexico to address the heartbreaking crime rates and organized crime that has permeated civil society. Sheinbaum’s government – aided by the work of the previous government under AMLO- believes that the answer lies in these judicial reforms and putting the direction of the judiciary in the hands of the electorate. However, due to a combination of factors including a lack of political consensus regarding this policy, concerns over the history of many of the candidates, as well as the confusing ballots and the sheer number of candidates, have meant that just over 10 per cent of the population has had their say. Sheinbaum believes this is democracy in action, but it is hard to believe that is so, when so few Mexicans have gotten involved. Unfortunately, these measures- brought forward in good faith to reform a justice system crippled by corruption- may do more harm than good. On June 15, Mexico will find out the results of this election, but only time will tell what the future hold for the judiciary, and the country at large.
