Disparate expectations ahead of Mexico's first ever judicial elections Fears of political, criminal capturing of judges

Mexico is set to hold its first-ever judicial elections this Sunday (June 1), marking a major shift in how the country selects judges, magistrates, and justices. 

Nearly 900 federal positions — including all nine seats on the Supreme Court — and around 1,800 local judicial roles across 19 states will be contested. This election represents the first phase of a two-part reform, with the second round scheduled for 2027. Supporters argue that this unprecedented change will democratize the judiciary, as highlighted in an article by AP, as well as increase public involvement in the legal system.

The reform was championed by outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who claimed it was essential to reducing impunity and allowing citizens to hold judges accountable. He argued that the judiciary, which had often opposed his policy proposals, needed restructuring to better reflect public interests. Critics, however, see the move as a power grab aimed at weakening judicial independence and enhancing the influence of López Obrador’s ruling Morena party. They fear that allowing judges to be elected through popular vote will compromise their ability to remain impartial and effectively check political power, especially amid Mexico’s ongoing struggles with crime and corruption. 

What reforms will entail Under the old system, Supreme Court justices were nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, while federal judges were chosen based on merit through rigorous exams administered by a judicial commission. The new system replaces these processes with public elections. Judicial candidates will now be selected and vetted by Evaluation Committees representing the executive, legislative, and judicial branches before appearing on the ballot. Concerns over political capture Importantly, the electoral authority prohibits judicial candidates from being affiliated with political parties or accepting any public or private campaign funding. This rule aims to prevent undue political influence, though some argue it favours wealthier candidates who can fund their own campaigns. 

Candidates are also barred from purchasing TV or radio ads, though they can use social media and participate in public forums to promote their candidacies. To maintain accountability after the elections, a new Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal has been established to oversee judicial conduct. This body can investigate and sanction judicial personnel—excluding Supreme Court justices and electoral magistrates—with penalties ranging from financial fines to dismissals and disqualifications. Despite these safeguards, concerns about political interference persist. Critics worry that political parties may still indirectly shape the elections by encouraging voters to support candidates who align with their interests. Local media have reported incidents of politicians distributing voter "cheat sheets" suggesting preferred candidates. 

The National Electoral Institute (INE), which is overseeing the vote, is currently investigating at least two such cases. Tight grip of criminal gangs There are also serious concerns about the influence of organized crime. In the past, Mexican cartels have targeted political candidates with violence, including threats and assassinations, to manipulate election outcomes. According to human rights group Data Cívica, 661 acts of political-criminal violence occurred last year alone, with many victims being local candidates. So far, no attacks against judicial candidates have been reported, but watchdog organizations like Defensorxs caution that cartels may still try to sway outcomes by offering support to likely winners in exchange for loyalty. “Cartels (could) identify possible winners and offer them support in exchange for loyalty,” warned Miguel Meza of Defensorxs in a conversation with CNN. 

Moreover, Defensorxs has flagged concerns about the integrity of some candidates, claiming that a few have ties to organized crime, sexual misconduct, political-religious groups, or other questionable affiliations—raising additional doubts about the effectiveness of the vetting process. As Mexico embarks on this bold experiment in judicial democracy, the outcomes could significantly reshape the country’s legal landscape—for better or worse. While reformers see it as a necessary correction to an unaccountable judiciary, others warn it could open the door to greater politicization, corruption, and criminal infiltration of the courts. 

By Nazrin Sadigova