Mexico's Judicial Elections
Mexico is the first country to elect its entire judiciary, state and federal, by popular vote. By Luke Pickrell
Last September, Mexico amended its constitution to elect all judges by popular vote. While Bolivia elects its federal judges by popular vote, including Supreme Court magistrates, Mexico is the first country to elect its entire state and federal judiciary by popular vote. The amendment also reduced the number of Supreme Court ministers (ministros de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación) from twelve to nine and shortened their term from fifteen to twelve years. It also established that judges’ salaries may not exceed that of the President of the Republic and created a Judicial Disciplinary Court composed of five magistrates with a non-renewable six-year term to oversee judicial conduct.
Mexico's Supreme Court serves as the highest judicial authority. Below the Supreme Court sit the Collegiate and Unitary Circuit Courts, which primarily manage appeals and constitutional matters. At the lower level, District Courts oversee federal cases, including administrative, civil, and criminal matters. Each state also has its own judicial system, which includes local courts responsible for handling state law cases. The Supreme Court can also review constitutional matters and interpret federal laws.
The elections are scheduled in two phases: the first in June 2025 and the second in 2027. In June, nearly 900 judicial positions, including all nine of the Supreme Court ministers, will be elected. By 2027, the remaining judicial positions will be filled by popular vote. All 32 states must amend their constitutions and laws to implement the popular election of judges and magistrates, with elections for these positions slated to occur no later than 2027.
The National Electoral Institute (Instituto Nacional Electoral) is in charge of organizing the elections. During the registration period, which concluded in November, nearly 50,000 applications were received for around 900 positions. Criteria for eligibility include citizenship (Mexican by birth), education (a law degree with a good GPA score), professional experience (at least five years of relevant legal practice), recommendations (five letters attesting to the candidate’s qualifications), and a statement of purpose (a three-page letter detailing the candidate’s interest in the position).
Evaluation committees at the executive, legislative, and judicial levels then filtered and selected the candidates who would appear on the electoral ballot. On February 12, the Senate submitted to the National Electoral Institute a final list with more than 4,000 candidates who will participate.
All current judges are eligible to run for election, though they must also pass certain requirements. In October, eight of the (then) eleven Supreme Court ministers resigned in protest over the reform, meaning that only three current ministers will run for re-election in June.
On March 30, over 4,000 candidates will begin a 60-day campaign process. Article 96 of the Constitution ensures that candidates have the right to fair and equal access to radio, television, and social media during the campaign. Candidates may also take part in forums and debates organized by either the NEI or independently, using their own funds. All events must be free and open to the public, and campaigning by political parties is prohibited. Elections are set for June 1, utilizing a mix of six different color-coded ballots, and the NEI will be responsible for organizing and overseeing nearly 84,000 voting sites nationwide.
Arguments put forward by both U.S. and Mexican news outlets that electing judges will “politicize” the judicial process — especially when the U.S. Supreme Court is used as a positive model for what Mexico should do — are unpersuasive because the law is always political. The supposedly “apolitical” nature of the Mexican Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court is a myth.
Arguments suggesting that electing judges might compromise the quality of the judiciary are also unconvincing. Mexico’s constitutional reform outlines an extensive list of essential qualifications. Moreover, formal “qualifications" have their limits. Consider the United States, where justices serve for life and are nearly impossible to remove via impeachment. Antonin Scalia graduated from Harvard, and Clarence Thomas attended Yale, yet both have displayed evident corruption. The U.S. Supreme Court is populated with individuals who are highly qualified by the academic standards of constitutional law. Nonetheless, a recent Senate report indicates that the Court is “mired in an ethical crisis," asserting that “Justices appointed by presidents of both parties have engaged in conduct that ranges from questionable to blatantly violative of federal ethics laws, with several justices consistently avoiding negative repercussions."
Morena, the most powerful leftist party in Mexico’s long and complex history, is leading the charge to expand suffrage and combat overt corruption through judicial system reform. I welcome the elections in June on this basis. However, as I explained in an interview with Nick Shillingford for Socialist News and Views, what occurs in Mexico does not lessen the urgent need for a democratic constitution in the United States, founded on the principle of one person, one equal vote. We still need to win the battle for democracy.