Mexico’s Judicial Elections: Populism or Democratic Erosion?

June 9th, 2025

Patrick Li

In a move originally pushed for by the Obrador Administration, Mexico has just embarked on its most pivotal judicial reform to date: instituting elections for virtually all judges on all levels of governance. On June 1st, Mexican citizens flocked to the polls and filled nearly 3,000 judicial positions—from local magistrates to all 9 Supreme Court justices—in a shift that has been both hailed as a "democratic victory" and denounced as an "erosion of checks and balances." While Morena and the Sheinbaum administration bask in victory, the reform represents a fundamental gamble—does democratizing Mexican courts with blanket votes cure institutional corruption, or does it risk the fundamental impartiality that judges were originally sworn in to? Let me explain.

To the broader Mexican constituency, this new system of judicial appointment is a double-edged sword. Proponents, specifically the current Sheinbaum administration and broader left, argue that democratization via popular vote curbs corruption and gives constituents more of a say in rulings—an understandable populist angle of attack given current public perception; nearly 66% of Mexicans perceive judges to be corrupt. In a recent interview, Sheinbaum defended the reforms, calling the elections “a complete success,” and proclaiming that “Mexico is the most democratic nation in the world.”

Yet critics argue that the reform, while ostensibly targeted at curbing corruption, also inadvertently compromises judicial independence and legitimacy; answering to voters makes judges more inclined to uphold solely popular laws (regardless of validity) and more likely to favor short-term gains over substantial and long-term rulings. Among those who have criticised this shift is Mexican Supreme Court Chief Justice Norma Pina: in a video posted on X the day of the elections (June 1st) she lamented that “the proposed model would generate tension between judges' duty to be independent and impartial and their need to make rulings which are popular in order to attract votes." Critics further claim that these elections give drug lords and gangs an easier way to influence the courts—in specifically local, county-level elections, where they are strong—by dictating who, exactly, can vote and run for office.

Regardless of the disputed claims of judge impartiality, the notoriously low voter turnout—only 13% of the currently 100 million eligible Mexican voters actually cast a ballot—raises further alarm about the democratic and inclusive representation of the newly elected judiciary (virtually all positions filled were Morena-backed candidates,) given that the biggest demographic of voters who participated were predominantly left-leaning Morena supporters—this is an intuitive trend; groups that push for reform are almost always more likely to be motivated to vote. This dynamic is perhaps seen most evidently in the election of Hugo Aguilar, a Mixtec lawyer from Oaxaca, who has now become the first indigenous Supreme Court justice in nearly 170 years. In a recent interview, he proclaimed that the justice system in Mexico “practically hasn’t existed for Indigenous people.” Thanks in part to him, that has now changed.

Sheinbaum’s judicial overhaul is truly profound. In successfully consolidating power across all branches of government: executive, legislative, and now judicial, her administration is rife with opportunity. Yet, while Morena and the broader Mexican left bask in victory, they also run the risk of eroding the very checks and balances that underpin a healthy and impartial democracy.

Extemp Analysis by Finian Knepper

Question: Will Mexico’s reform of the judicial system decrease corruption or erode justice?

AGD’s: When it comes to AGD’s, you’ll notice it’s most always a pick between “Sad and Happy.” A sad, personal story about someone affected by your question, or a fun little joke to lighten the room. However - with this issue it’s up in the air - because depending on what side you take - it will either be a good thing or a bad thing. If you believe judicial system reform will lead to decreased corruption - take a happy, hopeful angle. If you believe the opposite - that it will erode judicial foundations - take a more somber - but still not despairing, approach.

BOY that was a mouthful for a section on AGD’s. Now, moving on to;

BG: Your standard background details are important here - what happened, who did it, ect. But also, understanding the basics of Mexico’s political system will be valuable. Add some details about what judges do - and why making them elected positions is significant - will be a valuable asset in your speech. Secondly, add some context. What the Obrador administration’s main goals are (fighting corruption) and the reasons they decided that making “judge” an elected position is something important to add.

Thesis and main points: For this question, I recommend cause-effect substructure. Focus on a specific part of Mexico’s systems that will be changed here, and continue with how it will affect the surrounding foundations - either decreasing corruption or eroding justice.