The Face of Mexico After June 2nd
On June 1st, a new Judiciary was elected by popular vote in Mexico, ranging from nine positions in the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN), the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, and the Electoral Tribunal, to more than 800 circuit and district courts at the federal level and more than 1,800 at the local level, in 19 states.
The election of judges is neither new nor innovative, as it has been carried out in the United States since 1862 without any conflict, as is also the case in Switzerland, Japan, and Bolivia. However, like any political process, it triggers diverse narratives and reveals vested interests, such as the ties of outgoing judges to businessmen or criminal groups, or the ties of incoming judges to Morena and the current regime.
The opposition, in its marginal soliloquy, called for people not to vote, arguing that this was the most induced election in history, and indeed, 83% of those registered to vote decided not to do so. Some were perhaps disappointed by the incipient reform, others encouraged by the opposition’s narrative, and others, perhaps the vast majority, demotivated by the combination of a sense of distance from the judiciary and the real complexity that framed the election among so many unknown profiles.
In contrast, nearly 13 million people turned out to vote on Sunday, a significant group mobilized by the government structure linked to Morena, reflecting the power and capacity provided by pensions, scholarships, and other social programs, and the legitimacy of the President and the new regime, which genuinely calls for a change in the structure of the judiciary.
The election of Justices of the most important Supreme Court and Tribunals at the national level concluded as expected, with a notable shift in the balance of power toward Morena, including the symbolic possibility that an Indigenous lawyer committed to the people could preside over the Supreme Court of the Nation, changing the face of an institution historically captured by conservative thinking.
Is it true that this is the end of checks and balances? Partially, yes, since those who will serve on the courts were promoted by the regime and owe their tenure to Morena, specifically to President Claudia Sheinbaum, the President of the Senate, Adán Augusto López, and the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Ricardo Monreal, and of course to President López Obrador, the driving force behind this reform and the moral leader of the movement.
However, we cannot forget that the vast majority of the Mexican people voted for Morena, for the President and her list of Senators and Deputies, and therefore feel more represented by this political group than by the economic, foreign, and other interests oriented toward the people, which were represented by the Supreme Court of Justice and a cascading majority of judges.
This is why the opposition narrative of the crisis of democracy and the rule of law, despite the relatively low voter turnout, does not penetrate the majority of society, as the new political-judicial agreement is part of a new regime legitimately established since 2018.
The quality of justice has been so poor in recent years that a blow to the judicial table like the one on Sunday is perceived by the majority as necessary, regardless of the low turnout, as legitimacy lies not in the number of votes, but in the commitment that the new regime imposed on the people has demonstrated.
On June 2, the country wakes up without any counterweights, with a much-reduced right wing and a potential internal crisis within Morena. A new political era is born with the hope that judges will be held accountable through politics and that the influence of wealthy businessmen will be reduced.