Related Articles
-Editorial
Mexico’s ruling coalition secured the necessary votes to approve a controversial judicial reform bill, igniting a political firestorm in the capital. It was approved 86 votes in favor and 41 against. The proposed overhaul, which critics argue threatens the rule of law, gained momentum when opposition senator Miguel Angel Yunes of the National Action Party (PAN) broke party ranks to announce his support. This unexpected shift came as the ruling Morena party and its allies were just one seat short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a constitutional reform that would transform Mexico’s judicial system by allowing judges to be elected by popular vote.
As the announcement was met with boos from opposition lawmakers in the Senate chamber, Yunes’s decision to support the reform dealt a significant blow to an already weakened opposition effort to block it. Lawmakers from the opposition accused the ruling coalition of employing underhanded tactics to secure the majority, including attempted bribes and even the detention of a senator to prevent him from voting. However, the Morena party has vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
The intense political drama follows a day marked by protests, as demonstrators forced their way into the Senate building, signaling an escalation in the weeks-long wave of dissent against the proposed reform. The turmoil has not only captivated domestic audiences but has also raised concerns among Mexico’s major trading partners, the United States and Canada, who have warned that such changes could undermine the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and deter investment.
The backbone of the constitutional reform, championed by outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, seeks to replace the existing judicial appointment process with elections for over 6,500 judges and magistrates, including those on the Supreme Court. López Obrador has long criticized the judiciary, accusing it of obstructing his government’s initiatives, particularly in relation to infrastructure projects like the controversial Tren Maya.
In his tenure, López Obrador frequently clashed with the judiciary, alleging that it was controlled by a minority and complicit in white-collar crime. Following a series of legal challenges to his projects, including amparos granted by judges that halted tree felling and other activities, he announced plans for judicial reform on September 1, 2023, aimed at eliminating conflicts of interest and corruption.
The proposed reforms, collectively referred to as “Plan C,” were introduced in February 2024 as part of a broader package requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress for approval. Following the 2024 general election, the ruling coalition known as Sigamos Haciendo Historia, which includes the National Regeneration Movement (Morena), Labor Party (PT), and the Ecologist Green Party of Mexico (PVEM), secured a supermajority in the Chamber of Deputies, winning 364 out of 500 seats. However, in the Senate, the coalition fell three seats short, holding only 83 out of 128 seats.
The situation intensified when two senators from the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) defected, reducing the ruling party’s shortfall to just one seat. This shift prompted President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum to publicly commit to prioritizing judicial reform following her election victory. Despite general support for the reform among the public—approximately 80% of respondents indicated favorability in recent polls—many were reportedly unaware of the reform’s specifics.
During the last days of the LXV Legislature, the judicial reform was introduced to the Commission on Constitutional Points of the Chamber of Deputies, where it passed along party lines. However, the reform faced numerous legal challenges, including an amparo granted to striking court employees that temporarily blocked discussion and voting.
On September 1, during the first reading of the reform in the new LXVI Legislature, opposition groups attempted to declare the reading illegal due to the active amparo. Yet, supporters of the reform, including Morena’s parliamentary group, argued that amparos did not apply to constitutional reforms.
On September 3, as discussions were set to commence at the Legislative Palace of San Lázaro, protests by court employees and students blocked access, prompting the vote to be relocated to a gymnasium—a move criticized by opposition deputies. The reform ultimately passed in the Chamber of Deputies with a 359-135 vote, drawing fierce opposition from all non-Morena deputies.
In the Senate, a joint meeting of the Constitutional Points and Legislative Studies commissions voted to advance the reform, and it became apparent that Morena needed support from at least one opposition senator to meet the two-thirds requirement for passage. Ahead of the vote, opposition party leaders announced their unanimous opposition, raising alarms about external pressure and bribery aimed at swaying senators.
On September 10, as the Senate prepared to debate the reform, protests erupted anew, forcing the session to relocate. During the discussions, Yunes, having previously been seen as likely to oppose the reform, returned to the Senate and shocked many by announcing his decision to support it.
The proposed judicial reform includes significant changes to Mexico’s judicial landscape, mandating the popular election of judges at all federal levels, including the Supreme Court. Judges, with the exception of Supreme Court justices, would serve nine-year terms, with the possibility of one re-election. Oversight of judicial elections would fall to the National Electoral Institute (INE), with prohibitions on public and private funding and campaign contributions.
To qualify for candidacy, individuals must hold a law degree with a minimum GPA, possess at least five years of relevant professional experience, and meet additional qualifications. A special election is planned for 2025 to fill half of the judicial positions, with subsequent elections scheduled for 2027.
The reform also proposes to replace the Federal Judiciary Council with a Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, granting it the authority to sanction or remove judges. Notably, the number of justices on the Supreme Court would decrease from 11 to 9, with varying term lengths based on the number of votes received.
International observers, including U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar, have voiced apprehensions about the potential erosion of Mexico’s democratic institutions and the implications for U.S.-Mexico relations.