Judicial Reform: Political Clash Over the Future of Mexico's Courts

The proposed reform of the judiciary dominates the Mexican political scene, pitting the ruling party's transformative vision against stern warnings from opponents and experts about the risks to democracy and the independence of the courts.

The Mexican political arena is in full swing ahead of the imminent discussion of a sweeping reform of the judiciary. Promoted by the ruling party and President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, the initiative is presented as a crucial tool to "cleanse" corruption in the justice system. However, voices from the opposition and various expert circles are raising alarms that point to potential dangers for the independence of the courts and the country's democratic balance, shaping a political battle with a guarded outlook.

From the ruling party's perspective, reform is a necessary and urgent step. President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum has been emphatic in her objective: "We want to end corruption in the judiciary." This narrative is based on the perception that the current system is slow, costly, and, in many cases, inaccessible to ordinary citizens, as well as susceptible to special interests.

The popular election of ministers, magistrates, and judges is seen by its proponents as a mechanism to provide greater legitimacy and accountability to those responsible for justice, bringing them closer to the public. This idea is complemented by symbolic proposals, such as the elimination of the robes for Supreme Court justices, seeking to project an image of greater simplicity and connection to the people. Morena and its allies in Congress are expected to firmly support this initiative, considering it a key element in the continuity of their transformation project.

This reform can be interpreted not only as a quest for efficiency or integrity, but also as a strategic move to align the judiciary—which has sometimes functioned as a counterweight to government initiatives—with the dominant political agenda. If candidates for popular election are filtered or promoted primarily by the ruling party, there is a risk of securing judges who are more sympathetic, which would have direct consequences for the balance of power.

Contrary to the official view, a broad spectrum of jurists, academics, civil society organizations, and opposition parties have expressed serious concerns. Jurist Diego Valadés warns that the reform could place judges in an "extremely vulnerable" position and lead the country to "ungovernability."

Criticisms focus on several key points. An analysis attributed to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation highlights that popular election does not guarantee either the quality of judicial decisions or the technical competence of those elected. Furthermore, there are fears that citizens' legal security will be compromised. The tension generated by the reform was palpable even within judicial circles, as demonstrated by the booing of Bernardo Bátiz, a Federal Judiciary Councilor who is sympathetic to the reform, during a Judicial Branch event, where he was called a "hypocrite!" This incident illustrates the deep divisions and discontent the proposal provokes.

While one of the stated goals is "prompt and expeditious" justice, critics argue that the proposed changes could achieve this speed at the expense of the quality of rulings and procedural guarantees for those seeking justice. The lack of expertise of popularly elected judges or the actions of disciplinary bodies without effective checks and balances could result in swift but arbitrary justice.

The political debate focuses on fundamental aspects of the proposal:

• Election of Judges: This is the most controversial element. Questions revolve around how candidates will be selected, who will oversee the process, and how judicial campaigns will be prevented from becoming mere exercises in popularity or political patronage, rather than an assessment of technical capacity.
• Replacement of the Federal Judicial Council: The creation of a new judicial administration body and a disciplinary court whose decisions could be unassailable raises alarms about a possible concentration of power and the elimination of oversight and review mechanisms.
• Judicial Independence vs. Popular Sovereignty: At its core, there is a dilemma about how to balance the necessary technical independence and impartiality of the judiciary with the principle of popular sovereignty invoked to justify the direct election of judges.

The approval of this constitutional reform will not be a simple process. It requires a supermajority in both chambers of Congress (two-thirds of the legislators present) and the support of at least two-thirds of the local legislatures. The new balance of political forces resulting from the recent elections will be crucial in determining the future of the initiative. Intense negotiations and intense lobbying by all involved parties are anticipated.

This clash of visions about the future of justice in Mexico has a direct impact on public perceptions. The manner in which the debate unfolds, the transparency of the process, and the ability of proponents and critics to communicate their arguments clearly and convincingly will determine the legitimacy of any change implemented. Trust in democratic institutions, already fragile in many sectors, is at stake. Public discussion thus becomes a key element, where the virality of pro- and con-narratives could significantly influence the outcome.