Mexico Approves Groundbreaking Reform Allowing Voter-Elected Judges at All Levels Despite Protests

Mexico became the first country in the world to allow voters to elect judges at all levels on Wednesday, after protesters invaded the upper house and suspended debate on the matter.

Outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador had strongly advocated for the reform, criticising the current judicial system for serving the interests of the political and economic elite.

The reform was approved with 86 votes in favour and 41 against, securing the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, in an upper chamber dominated by the ruling Morena party and its allies.

Debate on the reform sparked mass demonstrations, diplomatic tensions, and investor concerns.

Senate leader Gerardo Fernández Noroña declared a recess after demonstrators stormed the upper house and entered the chamber, chanting, “The judiciary will not fall.”

Lawmakers were forced to relocate to a former Senate building, where they resumed their debate as demonstrators outside shouted, “Mr. Senator, stop the dictator!”

Obrador, who sought approval of the bill before being replaced by his close ally Claudia Sheinbaum on 1 October, stated that the protesters were defending the interests of the political elite.

“What worries those who oppose this reform the most is that they will lose their privileges because the judiciary serves the powerful, serving white-collar crime,” the leftist leader said at a press conference.

‘Demolition of the Judiciary’
Opponents, including court employees and law students, have held protests against the plan, under which even Supreme Court and other high-level judges, as well as those at the local level, would be elected by popular vote.

Around 1,600 judges would have to stand for election in 2025 or 2027.

“This does not exist in any other country,” said Margaret Satterthwaite, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.

“In some countries, such as the US, some state judges are elected, and in others, such as Bolivia, high-level judges are elected,” she told AFP.

Mexico’s overhaul places it “in a unique position in terms of its method for judicial selection,” Satterthwaite said ahead of the vote.

In an unusual public warning, Supreme Court Chief Justice Norma Piña stated that elected judges could be more susceptible to pressure from criminals, in a country where powerful drug cartels regularly use bribery and intimidation to influence officials.

“The demolition of the judiciary is not the way forward,” she said in a video released on Sunday.

Piña added last week that the top court would discuss whether it has jurisdiction to halt the reforms, though López Obrador has claimed there is no legal basis for such action.

The reforms were passed last week in the lower house by ruling party lawmakers and their allies, who were forced to meet in a sports centre after protesters blocked access to Congress.

‘Dangerous Proposals’

The United States, Mexico’s main trading partner, has warned that the reforms could threaten the relationship, which relies on investor confidence in Mexico’s legal framework.

The changes could pose “a major risk” to Mexican democracy and enable criminals to exploit “politically motivated and inexperienced judges,” US Ambassador Ken Salazar said last month.

Financial market analysts say investor concerns about the reforms have contributed to a sharp decline in the value of the Mexican peso, which has hit a two-year low against the dollar.

Satterthwaite has also voiced “deep concerns” about the plan, describing access to an independent and impartial judiciary as “a human right essential for protecting rights and checking power abuses.”

“Without strong safeguards to prevent the infiltration of organised crime into the judicial selection process, an election system may become vulnerable to such powerful forces,” she warned.

Human Rights Watch had called on lawmakers to reject what it described as the “dangerous proposals,” stating that they would “seriously undermine judicial independence and contravene international human rights standards.”