The controversial reform of the Mexican judiciary, considered the most profound change to the judiciary in the last 30 years, is just a few steps away from becoming a reality.
The bill was approved on Wednesday in the Chamber of Deputies, where the government has a qualified majority that allows it to approve amendments to the Constitution without restrictions after its victory in the June elections.
In the coming days it will be discussed in the Senate, where the ruling party is one seat away from having those two-thirds of the legislature.
The reform is considered a fundamental part of the legacy that Andrés Manuel López Obrador will leave behind. On October 1, his term will end and he will hand over the baton to the president-elect, Claudia Sheinbaum.
The project has been the subject of harsh criticism from the opposition and specialized organizations, and has been voted on amid an unprecedented Indefinite strike of thousands of workers and judges of the Judiciary.
The deputies had to vote on the initiative in an alternative venue to the legislative building, after it was blocked by strikers who oppose the project because they consider that it attacks the independence of the establishment and weakens democracy.
The reform was presented to Congress in February, when the ruling coalition, Morena, did not yet have the necessary votes to approve it.
But now, that the new Congress began to functionthere were no obstacles to the approval of the initiative.
Although Morena does not have the same majority in the Senate as in the House, the need to negotiate a vote does not seem like a difficult task.
Here are three key points to help you understand what has changed with this historic reform to the Mexican judiciary.
1. What it consists of
The most controversial and novel aspect of the reform is the election by popular vote of magistrates and judges of the federal system, who number almost 2,000 people, starting next year.
The proposal is that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches present lists of candidates for which the people vote.
The text proposes that the presidency of the Supreme Court will be renewed every two years on a rotating basis, based on the number of votes obtained by each candidate in the election.
Under the current system, the Supreme Court justices (as the 11 jurists who comprise it are known) are the ones who elect its president. And in turn they are voted on in Congress and nominated by the president of the republic.
The bill includes reducing the terms of office of judges and ministers, as well as reducing the number of magistrates on the Supreme Court and the Electoral Tribunal.
It also provides for two elections to renew the positions of the Judicial Branch, the first of which will be extraordinary, in June 2025, and a second in 2027.
The elimination of the life pension for current and future ministers of the Court and an adjustment of their remuneration to the maximum limit established for the President are other measures that form part of the project.
On the other hand, a disciplinary and an administrative body are created for the Judiciary, independent of the Court, which would be in charge of issues related to the judicial career and internal controlas well as preparing the budget.
The new Judicial Administration Body will be made up of five people appointed for a period of six years. One of them is appointed by the Executive Branch, another by the Senate, and the remaining three by the Supreme Court.
This is a reform to the federal judiciary, and not to the entire justice system, since it does not affect local systems or prosecutors’ offices, which handle the bulk (80%, according to official data) of the proceedings in Mexico.
For this reason, analysts argue that a reform aimed at promoting changes at the local level, where most cases of corruption in the justice system usually occur, is still pending.
Opponents of the amendment argue that electing judges by direct vote at the ballot box will “politicize” justice.
In other words, instead of increasing the independence and transparency of judges, the reform will favour a political selection of candidates, leaving aside professional skills and promotions based on merit.
One of the most repeated criticisms is that the nomination of candidates will favor those who have a network of contacts, have financing or are politically aligned with the ruling party.
There is also fear that the reform will open the door for organized crime to finance candidacies or take advantage of less experienced judges (although that, in many ways, already happens).
In a letter sent to Congress, judges and magistrates warned that the judicial reform does not comply with the rules of the trade agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada (T-MEC) in aspects such as the commitment to establish and maintain “independent courts for the resolution of labor disputes.”
The internal controversy was joined by the Warning from the US embassy in Mexico, which described the proposal as a “major risk” to democracyadding that it could threaten the trade agreement between the three countries, which is due to be reviewed in 2026.
Among other adverse reactions, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers called for the bill to be reconsidered in order to safeguard “judicial independence.”
A similar argument was made by the human rights organization Human Rights Watch: the proposal, they say, undermines “judicial independence, privacy and accountability.”
Investors have also expressed their concerns about the reform, saying they are worried that the next government will have all the tools to push through laws that could harm the business sector, reduce legal security for long-term investments or increase the perception of risk.
Supporters, however, say that the transformation of the judiciary is a way to ensure that Sheinbaum governs without the legal obstacles that AMLO faced in advancing his “humanist” agenda.
The president has insisted on several occasions that The courts became a trench of opposition at the service of the most powerful.
3. Why AMLO considers it important for his legacy
During his term, AMLO has promoted an ambitious leftist project called the 4T, the “Fourth Transformation,” which – like the Independence, the Reform and the Revolution of 1910 – seeks to change “the foundations of Mexican society,” according to the ruling party.
In this context, judicial reform appears as an essential movement within its reformist agenda, which Claudia Sheinbaum seeks to continue.
To give impetus to the Fourth Transformation, AMLO has argued that the “corrupt” power structures that have dominated the country’s course for decades, including the Judiciary, must be eliminated.
His goal, he says, is to establish a true rule of law and to ensure that judges “are not at the service of a minority.”
The president has had tough clashes with the Supreme Court, after it blocked reforms in the past, such as one that expanded state participation in the energy sector.
The ruling party sees judicial reform as the cornerstone that will lay the foundations for implementing other changes in the country and that is why it considers it one of the fundamental pillars of its 4T.
Before leaving office, The president has less than a month to take advantage of the majority he achieved in the new legislature and thus approve the last projects that will allow him to strengthen his legacy before the new six-year term begins.
Politically inspired
Analysis by Daniel Pardo, BBC World correspondent in Mexico
What for some is democratization of justice, for others it is political co-optation of justice.
But regardless of the outcome, it is clear that the inspiration for the reform is political. Because, in practice, it aims to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and its ability to hinder the Executive, which during AMLO’s entire six-year term saw several of its reforms truncated with judicial arguments.
Although the reform, at first, may seem like a way to take advantage of Morena’s popularity to gain power, in the medium term, if its popularity drops, it could work against them.
In two countries in the hemisphere, judges are elected by popular vote: the United States, where it is only at the local level, and Bolivia, where abstention and boycott by the opposition have prevented a true democratization of the judicial system.
No one denies that Mexican justice must be reformed: It has remained unchanged for years, it has one of the highest rates of impunity, it inherited the vices of the one-party system and people do not understand or know it.
The selection of judges, moreover, only considers nominations made by the Executive. In other words, it is, in some way, politicized by definition today.
In any case, experts agree that most of the judicial problems are where nothing is being reformed: in the local prosecutor’s offices and system.
That it is now being approved without setbacks, but with occasional protests, is evidence the rupture between the traditional system, the judicial and political system, and the new Mexican majorities of the 4T.
It also seems clear that the opposition emerged from the June elections too fragmented and lacking a narrative to counterbalance a movement as popular as Morena.
AMLO will govern until the last day as he did from the first: leaving no one indifferent. The question is how this can affect his successor.
Click here to read more stories from BBC News Mundo.
You can also follow us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, X, Facebook and in our new WhatsApp channelwhere you’ll find breaking news and our best content.
And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and activate them.
- How AMLO wants to make the most of his last month in power with the “supermajority” in the Mexican Congress