EXPERT Q&A

U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar issued a warning to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador stating that Mexico’s democracy faced a “major risk” due to the president’s plan to reform the federal judicial system and allow voters to pick judges.

During a news conference, Salazar expressed that the proposed change would harm Mexico’s democracy and threaten the relationship between the two countries. In response, Mexico’s incoming economy minister, Marcelo Ebrard Casaubón, argued that the reform does not jeopardize democracy, pointing out that it is a tradition in the United States—in 42 states—which has served to strengthen its democratic system.

The congressional vote on the judicial reform is scheduled for September and aims to have judges, including Supreme Court justices, elected by popular vote. President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, who takes office in October, defended López Obrador’s judicial proposal, stating her agreement that judges should be elected.

López Obrador—also known by his initials, AMLO—insists that the reform, aiming for judge elections in 2025 and 2027, will help curb impunity and corruption.

Edgar Franco-Vivanco, assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan, discusses his insights on the proposed judicial reform in Mexico and its potential implications.

Why did the president of Mexico recently pause relations with the United States and Canada?

AMLO argues that the U.S. and Canada are trying to influence Mexican politics, which he considers an interventionist practice. There has been constant tension between AMLO’s government and the U.S. since the beginning of his administration.

One prominent example is the capture of retired General Cienfuegos in the U.S. in 2020, which prompted a diplomatic crisis between the two countries. The U.S. argued that the general had connections with drug trafficking organizations and facilitated their operations through corruption. AMLO was outraged by the fact that Mexican authorities were not in the loop. On that occasion, AMLO succeeded in securing Cienfuegos’ release by threatening to halt cooperation with the DEA. Eventually, Cienfuegos did not face charges in Mexico.

This case exemplifies the general dynamic of distrust between the two governments. On one side, the U.S. fears that the corruption of Mexican officials will derail any attempts to get things done. On the other, the top level of the Mexican government feels that the U.S. wants to have too much influence in Mexico.

The case of judicial reform is just another chapter in this saga. Once again, the U.S. fears that electing judges instead of appointing them would weaken the Mexican judicial system, with consequences not only for Mexican democracy but also for U.S. interests. Meanwhile, the Mexican government feels that the U.S. is overstepping and pursuing an interventionist agenda.

How can the proposed reforms affect Mexico negatively when the U.S. elects judges by popular vote?

While it is true that the Mexican judicial system has many problems, the proposed reform allowing judges to be selected by popular vote would probably exacerbate them rather than fix them. AMLO’s argument for promoting this reform is that corruption is rampant in the judicial system and that it mainly serves the interests of the rich. Although there is some truth to these statements, it is also true that the judicial branch has served as a counterbalance to his administration.

Currently, thousands of judges and court workers around the country are appointed through a system based on specialized training. The reform implies that anyone with a law degree could be elected if they win the popular vote, including Supreme Court judges. This system may dilute the lines between the judicial branch and the other branches, politicize the system and likely lower the quality of appointments.

In a sense, Ebrard is right in calling out the hypocrisy of the ambassador given that the U.S. selects some judges by popular vote. In fact, around the world, only the U.S. and Bolivia use elections to select judges for courts with constitutional jurisdiction.

However, an important difference is that this is not true for federal judges in the U.S., as the Mexican reform proposes. Moreover, the criminal justice system in the U.S. is far from being fair and impartial, and selecting judges by popular vote is a subject of debate. There are concerns about the influence of donors and money on judicial decisions. Judges tend to make different decisions when elections are approaching, and penalties are also harsher during election times, disproportionately affecting minority populations.

In sum, both systems are deeply flawed. However, it is more likely that by maintaining the judicial branch isolated from politics, it can work as a check and balance to the other branches. If the objective is to improve the quality of judgments and eliminate corruption, other policies can be implemented, such as strengthening the merit selection process.

How would these judicial reforms impact the fight against corruption and impunity in Mexico?

It is unclear whether judges elected by popular vote will have the required experience and training. Popular selection may also compromise their decision-making process by creating conflicts of interest and tying them to a particular party. Other elements of the reform also seem problematic. For example, by reducing judicial tenure and synchronizing it with the electoral cycle, the selection of judges might not be based on their merits but on electoral rhetoric.

In sum, although the judicial system in Mexico faces many challenges, the election of judges might create even more problems and jeopardize the independence of the judiciary.

Does Mexico have the right to reform its laws?

Of course! Mexico is a sovereign country and, last time I checked, a democracy, even if a flawed one. The core issue here is that AMLO’s administration has undercut the system of checks and balances. His attempts to centralize power within the executive branch have been successful. Moreover, after the June elections, his party enjoys a super-majority in the lower house (and close in the Senate), which will give the incoming president, Claudia Sheinbaum, substantial leeway to implement constitutional reforms.

There is a general sense that in this scenario, international actors, particularly the U.S., might be among the last remaining checks and balances that can moderate the weakening of Mexican institutions. However, there is not much the U.S. can do to influence voting in the Congress.