Mexico’s Historic Election of Judges Marked by Low Voter Turnout

Mexico has made a historic move by electing all judges through a popular vote, but turnout was only 13%. President Sheinbaum praised the event, while critics raised concerns about politicization and corruption. The election process, less straightforward due to various ballots, resulted in low participation despite nearly 8,000 candidates. Reforms have adjusted Supreme Court membership and created a Disciplinary Tribunal, with further elections planned for 2027.

Mexico has made history by becoming the first country to have all of its judges elected through a popular vote. However, this landmark election, which took place on June 1, was marred by an unexpectedly low turnout, with only about 13 percent of eligible voters participating. President Claudia Sheinbaum hailed the event as a success, stating, “The historic election of the judiciary has been a complete success. Nearly 13 million Mexicans went out… to decide who should be the new Supreme Court justices, appellate judges, and local judges.” The president emphasized this moment as a significant step towards democratization, claiming, “Yes, Mexico is the most democratic country in the world.”

In context, while countries like the United States and Switzerland have been electing judges through popular votes in some areas, and Bolivia arranges elections for heads of its judicial branch, Mexico stands out for utilizing universal suffrage across 2,681 courts in a nation of 130 million people. Nearly 8,000 candidates contended for these positions, but a majority remained unfamiliar to voters. The voting process involved six different colored ballots, which may have complicated participation and likely contributed to the turnout falling below the predicted 15 percent.

This initiative for direct elections of judges was championed by former president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, from 2018 to 2024, who is affiliated with the ruling Morena party. After retiring from public life following the presidency handover to Sheinbaum on October 1, Lopez Obrador re-emerged to cast his vote in Chiapas. He expressed satisfaction with the democratic process, stating, “I’m very happy to live in a free and democratic country.”

Nevertheless, the election has faced scrutiny. Opposition parties, human rights organizations—both national and international—and even officials from the United Nations voiced concerns over the risks of politicizing judicial appointments. Critics contend that selecting judges based on popularity rather than qualifications could lead to criminal organizations exerting influence over the judiciary, especially in areas they control.

Proponents within the ruling party argue that this new system not only enhances democracy but also serves as a means to fight judicial corruption, which afflicts around 90 percent of reported crimes in certain regions. Results from the election are anticipated to take about ten days to be announced, as the counting is conducted at centers managed by the National Electoral Institute rather than polling stations. The counting sequence begins with Supreme Court justices, followed by circuit, district, and municipal judges.

Significantly, recent reforms approved by Congress will reduce the number of Supreme Court members from 11 to nine, with their terms shortened to 12 years from the current 15. Only three of the existing Supreme Court members, who are perceived to align with the ruling party, chose to run in this election. The remaining eight stepped down, opposing the reforms due to concerns about judicial independence.

Another critical aspect of the reform is the establishment of a Disciplinary Tribunal for the judiciary, consisting of five members to oversee judicial conduct, with the power to impose sanctions on judges. The ruling party supports 30 of the 38 candidates running for this tribunal. Looking to the future, Mexico aims to elect an additional 1,000 judicial positions by the year 2027.

In summary, Mexico’s unprecedented election of judges through popular vote, although hailed as a democratic breakthrough, faced substantial challenges due to low voter turnout and concerns over politization. With historical ramifications, this election and accompanying reforms may reshape the judiciary in Mexico, emphasizing the balance between democratic participation and judicial independence. As the nation gears up for future elections, the implications of the first judicial election remain a pivotal point of discussion.

Original Source: havanatimes.org