Mexico’s historic June 1, 2025 judicial elections drew just 12% turnout. Analysts warn flaws, rule changes, and political interference have undermined legitimacy and judicial independence.
On Sunday, June 1, 2025, Mexico conducted its first-ever nationwide judicial elections—an unprecedented move designed to replace the traditional appointment system for federal and state judges with a popular vote. Despite the reform’s lofty promises, turnout hovered at about 12%, calling into question both the election’s legitimacy and its impact on judicial independence. Analysts speaking to Deutsche Welle argue that a confusing reform, beset by improvisation and rule changes, failed to energize voters but succeeded in securing control of what had been the last relatively independent branch of government.
The reform originated under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador but has been carried forward by his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum. It aimed to democratize the judiciary, reduce corruption, and foster accountability. Yet, with approximately 2,681 judicial seats—including Supreme Court justices and specialized tribunals—up for grabs, the electoral process quickly grew unwieldy. What critics describe as “irreparable design flaws” saw the National Electoral Institute (INE) scramble to organize ballots, train poll workers, and educate a largely disinterested electorate. Even so, the ruling Morena party pushed forward, leveraging state machinery to oversee candidate lists and campaign guidelines.
Many voters simply stayed home. Independent observers estimate participation between 12.57% and 13.32%—the lowest turnout in Mexico’s electoral history for a federal contest. Without any minimum threshold to validate the election, all positions will still be filled, despite the glaring absence of broad public endorsement. As the INE begins an extended vote count—expected to last ten days, making it the longest tally in its history—attention has shifted to questions of both substance and optics. Observers note that the prolonged delay only deepens concerns about transparency, especially given that, for the first time, no citizen “scrutineers” will monitor the count—a safeguard that civil society fought to establish in the 1990s.
Errors and Inconsistencies Abound
Judge Emilia Molina, president of the Mexican Association of Female Judges, criticized the entire process as “scruffy, illegal, with a historic reversal of democratic guarantees, not to mention judicial independence”. She pointed to a litany of irregularities witnessed on election day. In several states, senior citizens—many of whom rely on a government-sponsored pension—were told by Morena operatives that voting was a requirement to continue receiving benefits. “Voting guides,” known colloquially as “accordions,” were distributed freely, complete with instructions and lists of favored candidates. Electoral law permits assistance only for voters with severe disabilities; yet poll workers helped fill out dozens of forms in states where ballots required selections for up to seven separate judicial posts.
Molina also noted that some ballots contained fewer fields than required, forcing voters to make selections in boxes that didn’t exist. In certain regions, only one candidate appeared on the ballot for each position—rendering choice meaningless. To make matters worse, at least a dozen candidates had known criminal records or links to drug trafficking—a reality that stood in stark contrast to the principle of electing judges on professional merit alone. Most specialized courts—such as those overseeing economics, broadcasting, and telecommunications with national jurisdiction—were elected by Mexico City residents only, violating the principle of equal representation. Many experts view these discrepancies as part of a broader pattern of political interference.
Electoral Institutions Under Pressure
Despite widespread acknowledgment of these flaws, the INE appears unlikely to invalidate the election. Molina argues that the INE has been “threatened and partly co-opted” by the ruling party, which now looks poised to hold sway over judicial appointments via its legislative and executive majorities. There is speculation that, in coming weeks, Morena leadership may attempt to shift blame onto the INE for any perceived failure, while simultaneously proposing further reforms to cement their influence over the electoral body itself.
Juan Jesús Garza Onofre, a law professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), pointed out that low turnout indicates voters are not “stupid,” despite President Sheinbaum’s popularity. “They will not follow everything those in power want,” he told DW. Yet, in a perverse twist, the absence of a minimum threshold means that low turnout has not invalidated results; rather, it has facilitated the ruling party’s objective. “Ethically and politically, it’s a defeat for Morena,” Garza Onofre said, “but they gain power”. Because candidate lists were drawn up by Congress and the presidency—both dominated by Morena—the party effectively ensures that its preferred judges will secure seats on the Supreme Court and the new Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, which oversees judges’ conduct and can suspend or even imprison them.
Experts warn that shifting power over the Supreme Court and disciplinary bodies into the hands of a single party imperils the separation of powers and undermines the rule of law. Mexico already grapples with a 95% impunity rate. Targeting judges, rather than addressing systemic flaws in policing, prosecutors’ offices, and legal education, represents a “short-sighted and minimalist reform” that will yield no substantive benefit for ordinary citizens, says Garza Onofre. “Judiciary is a complex branch,” he emphasized. “Focusing only on judges is not enough. This is a missed opportunity”.
A System Rife with Impunity
Emilia Molina underscores that the root of impunity lies not with judges but with investigative failures. “Ninety percent of crimes go unreported, and of those that are reported, 90 percent go uninvestigated,” she explained. “And if they do come before a judge, they arrive with flaws—confessions extracted under torture by the Prosecutor’s Office.” By electing judges through a politicized and haphazard process, Mexico risks creating a judiciary ill-equipped to correct those systemic deficits.
AMLO’s Return and the Accordion Phenomenon
Mexico remains unique as the only democracy to hold popular elections for judges—a reform that drew near-universal condemnation from international experts, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Judicial Independence. The idea was conceived under Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), who clashed repeatedly with the Supreme Court during his presidency (2018–2024) when justices blocked several of his reform initiatives as unconstitutional. Supporters saw direct elections as a way to democratize a deeply distrusted judiciary. Critics foresaw a politicized process vulnerable to manipulation by both parties and criminal networks.
In a striking return to the public eye, AMLO cast his own vote in the ancient Mayan city of Palenque on June 1, brandishing an “accordion” list of candidates—a symbolic endorsement of the process he championed. Yet many Mexicans viewed his participation as a propaganda exercise. With political parties and local governors freely distributing cheat sheets, some residents wondered whether the election reflected the popular will or simply the will of those in power.
What’s Next?
The INE will release preliminary results in mid-June, with final tallies expected by June 10. However, even a clean win for Morena-backed candidates will offer little solace to critics. Without reforms addressing investigative and prosecutorial dysfunction, a newly elected judiciary—no matter how popular—stands to inherit a broken justice system. Meanwhile, the lack of public engagement suggests that most Mexicans either do not understand the stakes or have grown cynical of the process altogether. As Garza Onofre warned, “Nothing will improve for citizens” unless systemic issues are tackled head-on.
In the coming months, legislators from opposition parties—most notably PAN and PRI—have pledged to challenge both the election’s legitimacy and the broader judicial reform. They plan to file complaints with domestic and international bodies, accusing the government of undermining democratic guarantees. For now, however, the newly elected judges will assume office in September, presiding over a judiciary whose independence remains in serious doubt.
