In a landmark decision, Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies has approved a sweeping reform to the country’s Judicial Branch, marking the most profound transformation since 1994. The reform, strongly promoted by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and supported by the incoming president, Claudia Sheinbaum, seeks to fundamentally change how federal judges are appointed by instituting direct elections for judges, including ministers of the Supreme Court, through citizen voting.
This monumental shift has been supported by the ruling party, Morena, and its allies, the Labor Party (PT) and the Green Party (PVEM), which hold a commanding majority in the Chamber of Deputies. Despite opposition from the National Action Party (PAN), the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and Movimiento Ciudadano (MC), who have raised concerns about the implications of this reform, the Morena-led coalition has pushed the legislation forward, showcasing their ability to amend the constitution unimpeded by the opposition’s symbolic protests.
The amendment, which still requires ratification by the Senate, is poised to introduce the electoral system for federal judges as early as next year. If passed by the Senate, Mexico would be one of the few countries globally where judges are selected by direct vote, a process usually reserved for legislative and executive officials. This dramatic overhaul has raised both support and alarm across various sectors of society.
A Historic Vote Amid Tension and Protest
The vote took place under unusual circumstances in an alternative venue after the Chamber of Deputies’ main building in San Lázaro was occupied by workers from the Judiciary protesting the proposed reform. The legislative session was held in a sports pavilion on the east side of Mexico City, far from the parliamentary halls, and heavily secured by police. The unusual setup, which saw legislators seated on plastic chairs and tables in a makeshift hall, became a symbolic representation of the tension and opposition that has surrounded this reform.
The ruling party used the change of venue to its advantage, portraying the relocation as a reflection of their connection to “the people.” Ricardo Monreal, leader of the Morena faction, explained that the venue was chosen because it was a space where ordinary people gather to watch sporting events and shows, emphasizing the populist narrative of the reform.
Outside, protests continued, with law students and judiciary workers rallying against the changes. Inside, the ruling coalition celebrated the vote, applauding López Obrador and Sheinbaum for their roles in advancing the reform. Morena framed the changes as necessary to curb what they describe as a “dictatorship of the judges,” accusing the Judicial Branch of becoming an unelected legislative body. “The people are fed up with the dictatorship of the cap and gown, of the cryptocracy,” Monreal stated during the session.
Opposition’s Concerns Over Rule of Law and Democratic Stability
Opposition parties, including PAN, PRI, and MC, have sharply criticized the reform, describing it as a dangerous move toward consolidating power in the hands of the executive branch. PAN’s María Gamboa highlighted the irregularities of the session, noting the improvised nature of the venue and accusing the ruling party of avoiding legitimate debate. “This is a gymnasium that is not designed for debate. This is not the headquarters where we should be,” she argued.
Opposition members warned that electing judges could undermine the independence of the judiciary, a key pillar of Mexico’s democracy. PAN’s Héctor Téllez called the reform “a deadly blow” to the judiciary, warning that it could lead to the politicization of justice. “You are giving the judiciary a deadly blow,” Téllez said, emphasizing the risks of such a change. His remarks were echoed by other opposition figures who argued that while reform may be necessary, the path proposed by Morena would destroy the checks and balances essential to Mexico’s governance.
In an attempt to block the debate, the opposition cited legal rulings from two judges over the weekend, which had ordered a halt to the legislative process. However, Morena deputies pushed forward, asserting that their overwhelming majority allowed them to act in line with the people’s will.
Direct Election of Judges: A Controversial Move
One of the most controversial aspects of the reform is the introduction of direct elections for judges. The Morena coalition argues that this measure is aimed at democratizing the judiciary and reducing corruption. Monreal accused judges of interfering in legislative matters and suggested that this reform would restore balance by ensuring that judges are accountable to the people.
However, opposition lawmakers argued that such elections would undermine the judiciary’s independence and make judges vulnerable to political influence. MC deputy Juan Zavala warned that the reform could result in a system where judges are beholden to political forces rather than legal principles, stating, “If it bothers you so much who are ministers of the current Court, elect ministers with your majorities, but do not ruin an institution full of honest and dedicated people.”
Morena countered these claims by arguing that the judiciary had overstepped its role and that elected judges would ensure that the system is more representative of the people’s will. They assured critics that the labor rights of judiciary workers would not be impacted, another major concern for opponents. However, opposition members continued to raise alarms, accusing the ruling party of using the reform as a form of retribution against the judiciary for past rulings unfavorable to the López Obrador government.
Senate Vote on the Horizon
With the reform now passed in the lower house, attention turns to the Senate, where Morena and its allies are only one seat shy of the majority needed to approve constitutional changes. Given the overwhelming support in the Chamber of Deputies, it appears likely that the Senate will follow suit, although debates are expected to continue.
As Mexico braces for this fundamental shift, the implications of electing judges will likely resonate for years to come. Supporters of the reform see it as a long-overdue measure to bring the judiciary in line with democratic accountability, while critics fear it could signal the beginning of judicial politicization and the erosion of democratic institutions.
For now, Mexico watches as the judicial reform moves one step closer to becoming a reality, with the potential to reshape the country’s legal landscape for generations.
