Mexico’s Judicial Reform: A Test of Democracy Under Sheinbaum’s Leadership

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) introduced the country of Mexico with a judicial reform that elects judges through popular vote, aiming to reduce corruption and rebuild public trust in the judiciary. Since AMLO came into power in 2018, his agenda has focused on addressing systemic corruption and the 2024 judicial reform aligned with his vision. Legal experts and civil society groups, both domestically and internationally, have widely protested and criticized this judicial shift. It is argued that prioritizing popularity over expertise could threaten judicial independence and weaken institutional integrity. Moreover, this judicial change could increase cartel influence over populations, ultimately posing serious challenges to Mexico’s democracy.

Mexico’s Troubled Judicial System

Corruption, high rates of impunity for crimes, and public distrust have long been features of Mexico’s judicial system. Alongside these factors is the lack of accountability that has fueled public discontent, leading to skepticism about the judiciary working for the interest of the elites. To address these systemic issues, Mexico transitioned from an inquisitorial to an adversarial criminal justice system in 2008. This shift led to greater transparency, efficiency, and due process to legal proceedings. Specifically, the adoption of “innocent until proven guilty,” oral trials, and a separation between the prosecutor and judicial functions.

While the 2008 transformation demonstrated a step forward for the country, many regions struggled to adapt to the change and the issue of corruption was not addressed. In 2018, AMLO and his anti-crime rhetoric assured the nation that the dysfunctions within Mexico’s judiciary would be resolved, however the recent passing of this reform sparked significant controversy.

The Controversy Under Sheinbaum

Clauudia Sheinbaum’s presidency inherited the judicial reform from AMLO this past October, igniting controversy over its potential to jeopardize judicial independence and the rule of law. Critics contend that this judicial strategy favors popularity over qualifications and experience, potentially placing unqualified individuals in important judicial positions. Organized crime groups could interfere with the judicial elections, particularly in regions where cartels wield significant power. Additionally, political interference is heightened with candidates aligning their political agendas in a way to secure votes. The broader implications for democratic governance are concerning if a judiciary is not able to act as an unbiased check in executive and legislative power, due to its vulnerability and external pressures.

Although her administration demonstrates commitment to eradicate corruption, concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary have only intensified. Critics worry that President Sheinbaum’s alliance with AMLO’s views may undermine the independence of Mexican courts, while supporters argue that her position will address the deep-rooted problems in Mexico's legal system.

A Pivotal Moment in Democratic Evolution

Although this judicial reform is presented as a means to combat corruption, the decision to elect judges by popular votes runs the risk of undermining the judiciary’s independence by making it more vulnerable to the influence of organized crime and political influence. The impartiality and qualifications of judges can be undermined, posing a threat to the rule of law. The future of Mexico’s judiciary rests on Sheinbaum’s ability to strike a balance between the public’s demand for accountability and the need to preserve the integrity of its democratic institution.

Image Source: PeoplesDispatch