30/05/2025

Judicial Elections in Mexico: Between Judicial Democratization and the Risk of Narco Infiltration

On Sunday, June 1st, for the first time in its history, Mexico will elect the members of its Judicial Branch through popular vote. This election is the result of constitutional reforms to the Federal Judiciary (enacted in September 2024), followed by subsequent reforms to state judicial systems.

This groundbreaking initiative finds its only precedent in Bolivia, which has, since 2011, held popular elections for principal and alternate judges of its four national high courts.

In contrast to the Bolivian case, Mexico’s approach is broader in scope, covering both the federal and state judicial systems. It includes the election of 9 justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), 2 judges of the Electoral Tribunal’s Superior Chamber (TEPJF), 15 judges of the TEPJF regional chambers, 5 members of the Judicial Disciplinary Court, 464 Circuit magistrates, and 386 District judges. The complete renewal of the judiciary is scheduled to be finalized by 2027.

The areas of jurisdiction up for election include civil, criminal, mixed civil with human rights protection, mixed criminal with human rights protection, labor, family, juvenile justice, and specialized civil courts handling asset forfeiture, among others.

More than 3,422 candidates have been pre-selected by the three branches of government: nominated by the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Candidates did not receive public funding for their campaigns, raising concerns about whether voters are sufficiently informed.

The reform, proposed by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and implemented by current President Claudia Sheinbaum, is based on the goal of democratizing justice, insulating the appointment of judges from political bargaining, and ensuring a more accessible system for ordinary citizens.

Opposition voices argue that the reform, in practice, has politicized the judiciary further and undermined judicial independence. Academia, meanwhile, has expressed concern about the qualifications and competency of those who may be elected.

Civil society actors and regional and international organizations have raised alarms about the potential infiltration of organized crime, particularly narcotrafficking, into the judicial system. Of course, it would be naïve to assume that the current system is immune to such threats.

According to the report “Voting Amid Bullets” by Data Cívica, México Evalúa and Animal Político, between 2018 and May 20, 2025, Mexico recorded 2,485 incidents of threats, assassinations, armed attacks, disappearances, and kidnappings targeting political and governmental figures or party/government infrastructure. These acts, perpetrated by organized crime groups, occurred before, during, and after electoral processes. These figures compel us to consider what such violence might mean when applied to elections involving those tasked with judging such crimes.

What’s most striking is that everyone may have a point.

How Did We Get Here?

Let us start with a shared diagnosis: in Mexico, access to justice is a challenge for the public due to high costs and the technical legal language used in rulings. As in much of the region, the judiciary suffers from a lack of public trust.

According to the Latinobarómetro report, trust in the judiciary across Latin America has fluctuated between 1995 and 2024, reaching a high of 37% in 2006 and a low of 22% in 2017, stabilizing at 28% in 2024. In Mexico, public trust in the judiciary was 35% in 2024.

This raises a fundamental question: What is the best path to rebuild trust?

To address this, it is helpful to examine electoral behavior. Over 99.7 million citizens will be able to vote at one of the 84,022 polling stations set up nationwide.

Currently, the electorate is divided: some will vote because they believe the reform is crucial for democratizing the judiciary; others will cast their ballots reluctantly, hoping the most capable candidates are elected; some will abstain in protest against the Fourth Transformation; and many will stay home out of the electoral apathy seen worldwide.

Interpretations of high or low voter turnout will vary depending on the observer’s perspective. What is clear is that, unlike other elections requiring a minimum turnout to validate results, this vote requires only a single ballot to be binding. As always, the legitimacy of the process will be up for debate.

Amidst this electoral uncertainty, one thing is clear: starting June 2nd, justice in Mexico will undergo a profound transformation. The Mexican experience is likely to be studied by other countries in the region and beyond. And like any revolutionary reform, it will take time to assess its democratic impact

Dolores Gandulfo is the Director of the Electoral Observatory of the Permanent Conference of Political Parties of Latin America and the Caribbean (COPPPAL) and of the Advanced Diploma in Comparative Electoral Systems at the National University of Tres de Febrero (UNTREF). She is a member of the Observatory of Political Reforms in Latin America and the Network of Female Political Scientists. Additionally, she is part of the Latin American Advisory Council of the Institute for Democratic Transitions (IFIT), the Argentine Association of International Relations Studies (AERIA), and the Juan Atilio Bramuglia Peronist Foreign Policy Center.