Mexico judicial elections on June 1 spotlight candidates with criminal pasts—including ex-smuggler Leopoldo Chavez and ‘El Chapo’ attorney Silvia Delgado—fueling debate over vetting and trust.
Mexico is set to hold its first-ever popular vote for judges on June 1, and the inclusion of candidates with criminal backgrounds has ignited a fierce debate over the integrity of the process. At least four contenders facing serious allegations or convictions have qualified for the ballot, including Leopoldo Chavez, who served nearly six years in a U.S. prison for methamphetamine smuggling, and Silvia Delgado, best known for defending Sinaloa cartel boss Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán in 2016.
Leopoldo Chavez, a native of Durango in Mexico’s Golden Triangle, was convicted in 2015 for trafficking more than four kilograms of methamphetamine into the United States. He completed his sentence in an American federal prison and returned home, where he is now campaigning to become a federal judge. “I’ve never sold myself as the perfect candidate,” Chavez told voters in a video message shared on his Facebook page. “I served my time and have nothing to hide.”
In Jalisco, Francisco Hernandez is vying for a seat as a criminal magistrate despite being dismissed in 2023 by the Federal Judiciary Council amid allegations of sexual abuse and corruption. Hernandez insists the claims are “slander and defamation” and challenges Mexicans to judge him at the polls. Meanwhile in Nuevo León, Fernando Escamilla argues his experience advising lawyers for the ultra-violent Los Zetas cartel on extradition law proves his legal acumen rather than tarnishing his reputation. “My work demonstrates the ability and knowledge needed for this role,” he said in an interview.
The judicial overhaul, championed by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and endorsed by his successor, President Claudia Sheinbaum, aims to root out corruption by transferring appointment power to citizens. Under the reform passed in September 2024, Mexicans will vote on more than 840 federal positions—from circuit court magistrates to Supreme Court justices—drawn from a field of roughly 5,000 candidates. Supporters say direct elections will hold judges accountable and restore public faith in the judiciary; critics counter that the process lacks the safeguards needed to maintain independence.
Human rights organizations and judicial watchdogs have flagged at least 20 candidates with criminal indiscretions, corruption allegations or cartel ties, and more than 130 candidates are poised to win unopposed in districts with sparse competition. Observers warn that lengthy and complex ballots listing hundreds of names could confuse voters and skew outcomes in favor of better-funded or more notorious personalities.
Detractors also point to significant changes in eligibility rules that they say weaken professional standards. The reform reduces Supreme Court terms from 15 to 12 years, cuts the bench from 11 to 9 justices, abolishes the minimum age threshold of 35, and halves required legal experience to five years. It also replaces some benefits for judicial staff with a new five-member disciplinary tribunal—seen by critics as too small to oversee Mexico’s 50,000-strong judiciary.
Miguel Meza, president of rights group Defensorxs, argues that the vetting committee rushed its work and failed to check foreign criminal records or past professional engagements. His group is reviewing candidate profiles and has already uncovered additional problematic cases it plans to publicize ahead of the vote. “We’re exposing these risks so voters can make informed choices,” Meza said.
Election authorities and the National Electoral Institute (INE) acknowledge the flaws but say it is too late to remove names from ballots. Instead, INE has pledged a post-election review: any victor proven ineligible must be disqualified and replaced by the runner-up. Electoral advisor Claudia Zavala cautioned that formal complaints must be lodged by June 15, when election results are finalized. “Our role now is limited to clear evidence and timely investigations,” she said.
Judicial associations fear the contest could undermine rule of law if criminal interests gain footholds in the courts. Juana Fuentes, national director of the Mexican Association of Magistrates and Judges (JUFED), called the election “dangerous” and warned of cartel coercion in contested regions. Senate leader Gerardo Fernández Norona dismissed eligibility concerns as a “media war” aimed at discrediting the reform, arguing that any ineligible winners could be dealt with after the vote.
As Mexico approaches June 1, the judicial election stands as a test of the country’s fight against corruption and organized crime’s influence. Observers will watch closely to see whether voters embrace the experiment or retreat amid fears that criminals might don robes and preside over the very courts meant to check them.