Texas Border Business
Texas Border Business
In 2024, Mexico enacted a historic judicial reform that fundamentally changed how Supreme Court justices and all federal judges are selected, shifting from a nomination and Senate confirmation process to direct popular elections. This transformation, signed into law by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and supported by President Claudia Sheinbaum, has made Mexico the first country to elect its federal judiciary by popular vote. Proponents argue the reform democratizes the judiciary, but critics, including officials in the United States and Canada, have voiced concerns over its potential impact on judicial independence.
Historically, Supreme Court justices in Mexico served 15-year terms after being nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. This system was designed to protect judges from political influence. Under the new law, however, judicial candidates must campaign for seats like politicians, with elections beginning in 2025. Judicial terms are also reduced from 15 to 12 years, and certain retirement benefits are curtailed to mitigate financial motivations in judicial decision-making.
The reform is rooted in López Obrador’s vision of a judiciary that better represents the public and addresses systemic corruption. Proponents argue that judicial appointments have historically favored elites, fostering a disconnect between the judiciary and the broader population. They contend that the new electoral process will enhance transparency, ensuring that judges serve the interests of ordinary citizens rather than those of privileged groups.
Despite its stated aims, the reform has triggered concern from the U.S. and Canada, Mexico’s primary trade partners. Officials in both countries argue that popular elections could undermine judicial independence, making judges more susceptible to political pressures and potentially influencing their rulings to align with popular opinion. Observers also worry that electing judges could expose the judiciary to influence from powerful entities, including political groups and organized crime, threatening the rule of law and investor confidence in Mexico.
The U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, warned that the reform could “pose a major risk to Mexican democracy,” citing the potential for judicial decisions to become politicized.
United States Statement:
- Salazar, Ken. Statement on Mexico’s Judicial Reform. U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, 2024. Ambassador Ken Salazar expressed concern that Mexico’s move to elect judges could “pose a major risk to Mexican democracy,” highlighting the potential for judicial decisions to be influenced by popular opinion, thereby compromising judicial independence.
Similarly, Canadian officials have expressed reservations about the future integrity of Mexico’s judiciary, emphasizing the importance of impartial, independent courts for upholding the rule of law and fostering stable international trade relations.
Canada Statement:
- Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Canadian Response to Judicial Reforms in Mexico.” Government of Canada, 2024. Canadian officials expressed reservations about the impact of judicial elections on the impartiality of Mexico’s judiciary, emphasizing that an independent court system is crucial for rule of law and maintaining stable trade relations under the USMCA framework.
The reform has also sparked significant domestic backlash. Numerous judges and legal professionals have protested, arguing that popular elections could weaken the judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter and make it more vulnerable to external pressures. Many judges fear that without independence from political and public influences, the judiciary’s ability to protect fundamental rights could be compromised.
As the first judicial elections approached in mid-2025, Mexico’s unprecedented move drew attention worldwide. Supporters see it as a necessary step toward an accountable judiciary that aligns with democratic principles. However, domestic and international critics raise critical questions about whether this change will erode the judicial system’s impartiality, a cornerstone of democratic governance. The ongoing debate underscores the challenge of balancing democratic accountability with judicial independence, as Mexico’s judicial reform sets a new precedent with wide-reaching implications.
See related story:
