Justices aligned with Mexico’s leftist governing party now dominate the Supreme Court. Party loyalists control a new tribunal with the power to fire judges and the court that decides federal election disputes.
Leaders of the Morena party, which already holds the presidency and Congress, had insisted that their contentious judicial overhaul, among the most far-reaching ever tried by a large democracy, would not be a power grab. On the contrary, they said, it would make judges accountable to voters and begin to fix a system that most Mexicans say is marred by corruption, nepotism and widespread impunity for criminals.
But Mexico’s shift away from an appointment-based system to having voters elect judges has, at least for now, amounted to a crucial step in Morena’s consolidation of power, according to election results made available on Sunday.
Candidates with Morena’s stamp of approval sailed to victories in Mexico’s most powerful courts and in court circuits across the country, showcasing critics’ fears that the election could eliminate the last major check on Morena’s power.
“You now have an administration that controls the presidency, that controls the Congress with supermajorities in both chambers and that now controls the judges,” said María Emilia Molina, a circuit magistrate and president of the Mexican Association of Women Judges.
She and 13 other judges have challenged the overhaul through an international human rights commission, filing a case that contends that it violates judicial independence and the rights of sitting judges.
Judge Molina, 53, said she planned to resign sometime this year.
“I won’t be part of this circus,” she said. “I am absolutely grieving inside.”
Many questions remain about how the system will change in practice, especially since the overhaul did not address elements that many Mexicans criticize as corrupt or unresponsive, like prosecutors and the police.
Another untested factor is the new Tribunal for Judicial Discipline, which has broad powers to investigate and even impeach some judges — powers that critics say could be used to remove uncooperative judges.
Celia Maya, a Morena member and the tribunal’s president, dismissed such criticism, saying in an interview that the body was “created to combat corrupt practices: the abuse that exists in the justice system to favor powerful groups.” She added, “That’s what this court is here to do. To prevent these things from happening so that correct and independent justice prevails.”
But calculations of political power were also at the core of the changes, analysts say.
As president last year, Andrés Manuel López Obrador marshaled support for electing judges after courts tried to block some of his major projects and plans.
Timing, and Morena’s current unrivaled popularity, were also pivotal factors. Cementing the party’s dominance, Claudia Sheinbaum won last year’s presidential election in a landslide as party allies unexpectedly won the majorities needed in Congress to change Mexico’s Constitution.
But while polling showed support for the overhaul, nearly 90 percent of voters abstained from casting ballots in the vote this month — one of the lowest turnouts in any federal election since Mexico transitioned to a democracy in the early 2000s.
The dismal turnout, only 13 percent of 100 million voters, fueled concerns over the election’s legitimacy, especially as it became clear that many voters also invalidated their ballots or left them blank.
Factors that contributed to the low turnout included the dizzying number of options on the ballots, a limited budget to organize the election, and relatively little understanding of what judges do, said Ernesto Guerra, a political analyst.
“Evidently, people were not interested in this process,” Mr. Guerra said.
The voting also provided a glimpse into potential fissures emerging within Morena. In numerous states, voters veered from Morena’s guidance to select candidates who were less inclined to align explicitly with the governing party — even if these candidates were also not aligned with the opposition.
“Those fractures could widen as time goes by,” Úrsula Indacochea, a judicial expert at the Washington-based Due Process of Law Foundation, said.
“That’s the proof that the judicial election was a bad idea, even for those who proposed it,” she said. “By politicizing justice, judges act like politicians — and politicians switch sides.”
President Sheinbaum recently seemed to acknowledge some criticism, especially regarding turnout.
“We need to see what can be refined to make it easier for Mexican men and women to vote,” she said. But, she added, “I’m convinced that this election will clean up the judiciary.”
The opposition, which seems to be on life support in much of the country, will not have a chance to challenge Morena’s dominance in the courts until 2027, when voting will take place in the judicial elections’ second phase.
“There won’t be any institutional check on Morena’s power for at least the next two years,” Juan José Garza Onofre, a constitutional law researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, said.
By then, Mexicans will also have had a chance to reshape other parts of the government, too, casting ballots for 17 new governors, 500 seats in the lower house of Congress, hundreds of mayors and over 1,000 local legislators.
Emiliano Rodríguez Mega is a reporter and researcher for The Times based in Mexico City, covering Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.
Simon Romero is a Times correspondent covering Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. He is based in Mexico City.
The post In Mexico, Thousands Ran for Office, Few Voted and One Party Dominated It All appeared first on New York Times.
