Will elections for judges make Mexico the ‘most democratic country in the world’? Critics fear the opposite
- Written by Luis Gómez Romero, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory, University of Wollongong
On Sunday, Mexico will hold an unprecedented election, becoming the first country in the world to allow voters to elect judges at every level.
Voters will elect approximately half the judges in the country on June 1 – from the nine members of the Supreme Court down to 850 federal judges and thousands more at lower levels. In 2027, a second vote will see the rest of Mexico’s judiciary elected.
As part of the overhaul, the country’s merit-based, career judiciary system will be abolished. Instead, all judges will serve nine-year terms, renewable by popular vote.
The election had been championed by former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador and embraced by his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, who took office in October.
Sheinbaum has proclaimed Mexico will be “the most democratic country in the world” because the people will now choose all three branches of government.
Critics are not so sure. Some are calling the process a cynical farce. Others warn it will concentrate power in Morena, the ruling party, and its political allies, dismantling the country’s system of checks and balances.
Critics also warn that inexperienced judges could be elected, or those who could be influenced by organised crime. Some candidates themselves have been investigated for crimes, and at least two are former defence attorneys for drug cartels.
Former president Ernesto Zedillo, currently director at the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation, has gone so far as to declare that democracy itself “has come to an end” in Mexico.
Why reform the judiciary?
During his time in office from 2018–2024, López Obrador waged a rhetorical battle with Mexico’s courts, accusing judges of serving the elites and blocking his agenda.
In truth, what irked López Obrador was the fact the courts wielded the power to review and restrain his actions through constitutional oversight.
Sheinbaum seems to share his hostility towards the judiciary. Arturo Zaldívar, a former Supreme Court chief justice who designed the judicial reform system and later joined Sheinbaum’s cabinet, has accused the outgoing chief justice, Norma Piña, of being “a force of opposition allied with the oligarchy”.
In September 2024, Morena used its congressional super-majority to ram through a series of constitutional amendments to enact the judicial reform.
In response, judges walked off the job. Court staff, lawyers and law students took to the streets in support of their strike, some carrying banners reading “justice is not a popularity contest”.
Experts note the reform does nothing to fix Mexico’s real justice problems – the rampant corruption and abuse that plagues the system. The institutions that allow criminals to act with impunity are not the courts, but the prosecutors and police.
Human Rights Watch reports that nearly half of Mexicans have “little or very little confidence” in the country’s justice authorities. Nine in ten Mexicans don’t even bother to report crimes.
The perils of judicial elections
Electing judges is an idea fraught with peril. International human rights law treats an independent judiciary as a basic human right. Article 8 of the 1978 American Convention on Human Rights – an international treaty for North, Central and South America – guarantees every person “a hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.”
Popular elections invite precisely the opposite. As UN experts caution, election campaigns will inevitably inject “political loyalty or alignment with party interests” into judge selection, rather than competence and impartiality.
In addition, leading legal theorists have long warned that politicising the judiciary undermines the rule of law.
US jurist Ronald Dworkin argued judges must decide according to principles – not political winds. Italian jurist Luigi Ferrajoli’s notion of a “guarantee-based” democracy – which is hugely influential in Latin America – likewise insists judges be insulated from party bargaining.
Even in the United States, where some states hold judicial elections, scholars lament their corrosive effects.
As one study notes:
Wealthy people and corporations can pump lots of money […] to elect and reelect judges who decide cases the way they want.
Opponents of billionaire Elon Musk critiqued his decision this year to pour US$21 million (A$33 million) into the campaign of a conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In a comment he posted on X, Musk said he didn’t expect to win but “there is value to losing a piece for positional gain.”
Bolivia offers another cautionary tale. Beginning in 2011, Bolivia has held elections for the judges on its top courts in an effort to “decolonise” the justice system and fight corruption.
In practice, though, only judges pre-approved by the ruling party’s congressional majority make the ballot. Voters, too, know little about the candidates. Turnout is very low.
Courts increasingly under attack
Mexico’s justice system, indeed, needs reform. But its multiple problems will not be solved with the wholesale politicisation of the courts.
As Argentine scholar Roberto Gargarella bluntly observes, electing judges in this way is “one of the greatest institutional tragedies of our time.”
Mexico’s reform effort threatens to turn the courts into just another party apparatus. In that sense, Mexico joins a disturbing global trend. From Washington to Brasília, populist leaders are increasingly attacking the courts as the enemies of the people.
With courts in Mexico potentially beholden to the government or influenced by organised crime, neutral judges may become much harder to find. If history teaches anything, it’s that the night of authoritarianism grows darker when the last judges are gone.
Authors: Luis Gómez Romero, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory, University of Wollongong
