Mexican Judges Will Now Be Appointed Through Popular Election; It Could Be Beneficial For Cartels

Mexico has passed a significant judicial reform that will result in over 1,600 federal judges being chosen by popular vote, raising concerns about the potential infiltration from organized crime groups, including cartels.

The Supreme Court upheld the reform on November 5, approving the budget for the initial round of elections, now set for June 2025. This move follows approval from Congress in September.

The reform changes the current model of appointing judges, which is based on professional examinations, effectively lowering the requirements for holding judicial positions. Critics warn that this shift could undermine human rights and economic stability, with some experts suggesting that it could lead to a constitutional crisis.

Lisa Sánchez, executive director of Mexico United Against Crime (MUCD), discussed these concerns in an interview with InSight Crime, noting the potential impact on the integrity of the judiciary and the risk of organized crime gaining influence over the court system.

Sánchez explained that the reform does not address underlying issues such as corruption, nepotism, and impunity. Instead, it introduces new regulatory changes that could negatively affect criminal cases, particularly those involving organized crime.

Under Mexico's adversarial criminal system, a judge must remain on a case once it reaches trial. If a judge is removed mid-trial, the process restarts, posing significant risks to high-profile cases involving drug trafficking, corruption, or kidnappings.

Sánchez highlighted that lowering the professional requirements for judges would lead to a decline in technical expertise. This could further compromise the handling of complex cases and damage the judicial system's credibility, she added.

The use of anonymous or "faceless" judges was raised as a potential safeguard for organized crime cases, but Sánchez was skeptical of its effectiveness. Drawing from examples in Italy and Peru, she noted that anonymity could lead to corruption and arbitrariness. Moreover, the limited number of federal criminal judges makes it unlikely that anonymity could be maintained, potentially leaving them vulnerable to threats from criminal organizations.

Corruption concerns are further exacerbated by the electoral process for judges. Sánchez pointed out that the validation of candidate lists is conducted through a political process involving the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, which could allow criminal interests to influence nominations. Campaigns are unregulated in terms of funding, leaving judges dependent on personal resources or financial support that may come from dubious sources, including criminal groups.