By Alicia Flores
On June 1, 2025, Mexico embarked on an unprecedented democratic experiment: electing nearly 2,700 judges nationwide, including all nine Supreme Court justices. This sweeping judicial reform, first announced in September 2024, has sparked intense debate over its implications for judicial independence and the rule of law.
The seeds of this reform were sown on September 1, 2024, when then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador introduced a constitutional amendment to overhaul Mexico’s judiciary. The proposal aimed to replace the traditional merit-based appointment system with popular elections for judges, a move he argued would combat corruption and increase accountability. The amendment was swiftly passed and enacted on September 15, 2024 .
The announcement sparked conversations across the nation. During a dinner with friends, a lawyer posed a poignant question to his mother: “If I were running to be a judge, would you vote for me?” Her immediate affirmation led him to remark, “You just proved why the system is not going to work.” This anecdote encapsulates the concerns many hold about the potential for personal biases to influence judicial elections.
As polls opened on election day, early reports indicated a sluggish start. In cities like Mexico City, Veracruz, and Chiapas, some polling stations saw few voters . Experts had warned that the sheer number of candidates—over 7,700 vying for more than 2,600 positions—combined with limited public information about them, could lead to voter apathy and confusion. Indeed, the complexity of the ballots and the novelty of electing judges contributed to an anticipated low turnout .
The ruling party, Morena, had hoped for at least a 20% participation rate but acknowledged that turnout below 10% would be considered a failure . Opposition parties, citing concerns over the legitimacy of the process, urged voters to boycott the election, further dampening participation .
Mexico’s decision to elect its entire judiciary by popular vote is unprecedented. While countries like Bolivia have implemented similar reforms on a smaller scale, Mexico is the first nation to undertake such a comprehensive overhaul of its judicial selection process . This move positions Mexico as a global outlier, raising questions about the long-term implications for its legal system and democratic institutions.
Critics argue that the reform could compromise judicial independence, making judges susceptible to political pressures and undermining the separation of powers. The inclusion of candidates with controversial backgrounds, including ties to organized crime, has heightened these concerns . Laurence Patin, director of the legal organization Juicio Justo, expressed apprehension, stating, “It’s an effort to control the court system, which has been a sort of thorn in the side of those in power” .
The reform also reduces the number of Supreme Court justices from eleven to nine and limits their terms to twelve years, changes that some fear could further erode checks and balances within the government .
As Mexico navigates this transformative period, the world watches closely. The success or failure of this judicial reform will not only shape the nation’s legal landscape but also serve as a case study for other countries contemplating similar changes. The balance between democratizing institutions and preserving their independence remains a delicate one, and Mexico’s experience will undoubtedly offer valuable insights into this complex dynamic.