An independent judiciary is essential to any democracy. Yet, the judicial reform introduced by Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and adopted in September 2024 has sparked widespread concern domestically and internationally. These reforms promise to “democratize” the judiciary, but at what cost?
While elections may appear to be inherently democratizing, judicial selection by popular ballot demands careful scrutiny. Who is qualified to run, and who makes this determination? How will competence, merit, and ethics—the gold standard criteria for judicial selection—be ensured? What safeguards will prevent corrupting influences from powerful economic actors? How will the transition to the new framework be managed? Can a country replace almost its entire judiciary—including many of its most experienced jurists—without harming the quality of its legal system?
In neglecting these critical questions, the reform risks becoming a Trojan horse—appealing on its face but dangerous to the judicial system and, therefore, to society as a whole.
As a special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, I warned of these dangers in a formal communication to the Mexican government before the constitutional amendments were adopted. My concerns were amplified due to the climate of deep mistrust surrounding the judiciary in Mexico. Though the Mexican judiciary is not perfect, a campaign of scapegoating by then-President López Obrador was launched after the judiciary blocked several of his signature programs. For months, the president used his daily press conference to hurl allegations against specific federal judges who were singled out by name and accused of corruption and influence peddling. This was not a method for addressing real issues of corruption or ineptitude—it was a way to turn judges into the perceived enemy.
The independence of justice: A pillar of democracy
The problem with Mexico’s reform is basic: it fails to ensure the independence of the judiciary. This independence is not a privilege for those who wear the robe—it underpins fundamental rights that ensure every person’s equal access to a fair trial. Judicial independence is essential to democratic governance, checking excesses by other government branches and ensuring that no one—no matter how powerful—is above the law. Dismantling it deals a blow to the human rights protections all Mexicans are entitled to under international law.
In my 2024 report to the UN Human Rights Council, I highlight the ways autocratizing governments target judicial independence to weaken checks and balances. My latest report to the UN General Assembly warned that powerful economic actors are undermining judicial independence by interfering in judicial appointments and lobbying judges to act in ways that align with their interests. A major avenue for this kind of interference is the election of judges.
These patterns are terribly relevant for Mexico, where the judicial reform creates fertile ground for undue influence by political and economic actors alike.
The popular election of judges: A shift away from merit and ethics
One of the most controversial aspects of the Mexican reform is the shift from merit-based judicial appointments to the popular election of judges, including judges of the highest courts. This marks a striking departure from the system constructed over the past few decades to ensure that the most qualified candidates are appointed. In this now-discarded system, judicial candidates were evaluated through rigorous written and oral exams, testing their general knowledge of jurisprudence and law as well as their capacity for analytical reasoning, with parts of the assessments conducted anonymously. While there was certainly much more to be done—issues of corruption and undue influence by powerful actors were still a problem—this system was bearing fruit: Mexico’s judiciary was increasingly made up of the most qualified legal minds in the country.
In place of this competency-based system, the new system requires recommendation letters from neighbors or friends. The reforms provide no clarity on whether any specific relevant experience is required or how selection among the approximately 25,000 registered candidates for judicial positions will be carried out (at the time of publication, no official figures have been provided by the government). Other fundamental questions likewise remain unanswered: How will the process guard against the influence of organized crime? What measures will be implemented to attract qualified and sufficiently experienced jurists? What role will civil society play in the process?
These issues demonstrate that while elections may be celebrated as a democratic ideal, their application to the judiciary is rarely fit for purpose. International law requires that judges be competent and of integrity, selected through methods safeguarding against improper motives. By their nature, judicial elections risk prioritizing popularity over impartiality and competence. And without regulations on campaign conduct and appropriate transparency, they open the door to undue influence from political and economic elites or—even worse—to organized crime.
Far from earning international praise, judicial elections have drawn criticism from the Human Rights Committee, and the mandate of the special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers has expressed concerns about judicial elections, advocating for methods designed to ensure that judicial selection is based on professional excellence and merit.
Judicial (in)security
The reform also raises serious legal and practical concerns by mandating the termination of the terms of over 1,800 judges and officials as soon as newly elected officials take office unless they compete—and win—in the upcoming judicial elections.
However, removing sitting judges before the completion of their terms violates the principle of security of tenure, which prohibits the removal of judges from office arbitrarily or without individualized just cause. This guarantee that judges must be free from premature dismissal ensures their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities without fear of political reprisal or interference.
Beyond its legal implications, such abrupt removal en masse threatens to disrupt the judiciary’s ability to function effectively. The dismissal of an enormous number of experienced judicial officers may create delays in pending cases, denying timely justice to citizens awaiting court decisions—potentially violating citizens’ right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by human rights law.
Disciplinary tribunals: A dangerous precedent
The reform’s proposed disciplinary tribunal, composed of judges likewise appointed through popular election, raises additional serious concerns. The tribunal will be granted the jurisdiction to adopt disciplinary decisions against judges based on vague concepts such as having committed “acts or omissions contrary to the public interest, or the proper administration of justice.” Further, its decisions are not subject to appeal before an independent body.
The past offers a cautionary tale: such mechanisms—purportedly designed to ensure judicial accountability—could function instead as tools of political control, intimidating judges and consolidating government influence over courts.
International standards on judicial disciplinary processes are unequivocal: they must follow clear, established criteria and uphold judges’ right to appeal to an independent body. This individual right of each judge is designed to also protect the right of all to access an independent and impartial judiciary.
Overlooked dimensions of the reform
Months after I raised these concerns to the Mexican authorities, the debate on the judicial reform remains as contentious as ever.
While concerns grow over the National Electoral Institute’s request for a staggering 40 billion pesos to fund next year’s judicial elections, members of civil society brought the matter to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Mexico’s human rights community argues that while judicial reform is indeed vital, the government’s approach is flawed. Why, Mexican advocates ask, does a reform claiming to address corruption and democratize justice sideline key issues such as impunity, dysfunctional law enforcement, and systemic problems in prosecutors’ offices?
The path forward
As Mexico’s sweeping judicial reform takes effect, the consequences for the rule of law remain uncertain. I fear that we will see similar campaigns in other countries by leaders using the language of democracy to mask efforts to capture the judiciary. In the face of such efforts, it is essential to remember the fundamental role of judges in a democratic society. By promising to be loyal to the constitution and the rule of law, judges protect the most marginalized by upholding their human rights and checking abuses by the most powerful, ensuring that no one is above the law.