Today the Mexicans coordinate about who will occupy the state’s federal courts in the future. The judges’ election is the central element of a controversial judicial reform that was decided last year. It is the first time that judges of these levels are determined in a democratic presidential system in a popular election. For supporters, it is an act of democratization – an attack on the separation of powers for critics. The election leads to a complete renovation of the court system. Hundreds of judges are elected, including nine of the eleven judges of the Supreme Court, 15 members of the Supreme Court, the members of a newly created disciplinary chamber for judges as well as 464 appeal judges and 386 district judges at the regional federal courts. In addition, there is a consultative vote on the future direct election of the General Prosecutor’s Office. Around 98 million people are called up for election. How did the reform come back to the former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Despite the great resistance from the judiciary, opposition and business, López Obrador has managed to bring the project through the congress, which has been controlled by its left-wing nationalist Morena party since the parliamentary elections. Transformation of your predecessor. It is a profound conversion of the political and institutional system. The judicial reform is considered a central element for this. For the government of Claudia Sheinbaum and her party Morena, the judges’ election is a step towards more democracy and transparency. According to the central allegation, the judiciary has so far been elitist, corrupt and the interests of economic and political power groups, and needed “moral renewal”. The judiciary should no longer be an inaccessible place for privileged, said Sheinbaum in March. “The citizens should decide who watches over their rights.” Who can be elected? Candidates must be Mexican citizens, have a completed law degree and have at least 15 years of professional experience in the legal field. You may not have practiced a party office or elected political mandate in the past four years. In addition, they must not be involved in ongoing legal proceedings. The selection process is criticized. Because the candidates were not nominated directly, but were chosen by the congress. Many of the ten candidates, which are on the ballot paper for each judge position, have a certain closeness to the government or the Morena party, which dominates the congress. The candidates hardly know many voters. There were no debates, hardly any election advertising and little reporting. The government dominated public communication about the election. The government’s influence ensures sharp criticism on the part of the opposition, judge associations and other organizations that complained about a “judiciary in campaign mode”. Even before the reform vote last year, there had been repeated demonstrations of the opposition, which fears an ever greater concentration of power in the hands of the Morena party. With regard to the judge’s election, critics warn in particular of politicization and polarization of the judiciary and subsequently of a loss of judicial independence. International observers are surprised to concern. The Council of Europe called the reform “a structural attack on the separation of powers”, while the UN Human Rights Commissioner pointed out that Mexico had to protect judicial independence against political ballot logic. The Inter -American Human Rights Commission described the judges’ election as a “regression in the institutional structure of Latin America”. How independent are the candidates? This is shown by the high number of candidates with a political past. The current political dominance of the Morena party is likely to expand to the judiciary, which would weaken the separation of powers. The majority of the candidates for the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court are considered close to the government. Some were even part of Sheinbaum’s consultant staff, but not only politics senses their chance to take the judiciary, but also the organized crime. This has already deeply infiltrated the Mexican state at the regional level. The election of judges now opens the cartels a gateway into the judicial apparatus. According to reports of investigative Mexican media, several candidates are suspected of working for cartels. A candidate for a regional Federal Criminal Court is a man who has already served several years of prison because of drug trade. “This choice opens the doors for political and criminal influence on the judiciary,” said Mexican security expert and UN consultant Eduardo Buscaglia in an interview. Mexico risk a “normalization of the state of emergency”. What are the possible consequences for the Mexican constitutional state? The judge election could lead to a politicization of the judiciary, which has far-reaching consequences: legal counterweights in the event of constitutional disputes are lost. Politically colored judgments could increase. This should lead to an increase in legal uncertainty, which could have a negative impact on the investment climate. The economy and important trading partners of Mexico, such as the United States, have also been warning of the radical judicial reform for a long time. The Morena party is likely to expand its hegemony to the judiciary. This means that there would be no effective control instance compared to the executive in Mexico. Constitutional lawyers warn of the end of the republican separation of powers in Mexico. The Morena party has not been wrongly compared to the old “institutionalized revolutionary party” (Pri) for a long time, which has been controlled as a “perfect dictatorship” for decades and, for example, has been referred to as “perfect dictatorship” by writer Vargas Losa.
