Mexico Holds First Judicial Elections, Sees Low Voter Turnout

Between 12.57% and 13.32% of registered voters participated in Mexico’s first judicial election, says Guadalupe Taddei, President, INE. This estimate was calculated by statisticians using a sample of 1,664 polling stations across the country, representing about 2% of the total and providing a 95% confidence level.

In a national address, Taddei emphasized that thousands of officials are working to ensure transparency and accuracy in vote counting. The INE began the district-level vote counts on election night but will release official results between June 3 and June 10.

The counting process will first focus on selecting ministers for the Supreme Court, with final results expected by June 3. Subsequent counts will include five magistrates for the Judicial Discipline Tribunal from June 3 to June 4; two magistrates for the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary, from June 4 to June 5; 15 magistrates for Regional Chambers from June 5 to June 6; magistrates of Circuit Courts from June 7 to June 8; and district court judges from June 7 to June 10. The INE will officially validate the election results in a session scheduled for June 15.

First Judicial Elections

Mexico held its first-ever judicial elections on June 1 as part of a reform aimed at reducing impunity and democratizing the justice system. However, the reform remains controversial. Approved by MORENA last year, the reform sparked financial market concerns and drew warnings from the United States and other foreign governments about potential threats to judicial independence and democratic checks and balances.

Key changes include electing judges and magistrates by popular vote, reducing the number of Supreme Court ministers, shortening their terms, and removing age and experience requirements. The reform provoked a strike by judicial workers and increased tensions with the United States, while raising concerns about the country’s business environment.

Supporters argue that judges have long been controlled by political nominators, contributing to impunity rates above 90%. Critics counter that the new electoral system could increase judicial exposure to political, private, and criminal influences.