Mexican Congress Advances Constitutional Overhaul to Elect All Federal Judges by Popular Vote

Legislators in Mexico are moving forward with a sweeping package of constitutional amendments designed to fundamentally overhaul the country's judicial system. The proposed legislation seeks to replace the existing merit-based appointment system for federal magistrates with popular elections. If enacted, the measures would alter how the judiciary operates at both federal and state levels, marking one of the most substantial structural reorganizations of the Mexican legal framework in recent decades. Under current Mexican law, federal judges are appointed through competitive examinations and evaluations administered by the Federal Judicial Training School. Candidates who pass rigorous technical assessments and demonstrate administrative competency can secure long-term posts and eventually obtain lifetime tenure after six years of judicial service. The reform package, initially drafted under former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and maintained on the legislative agenda, removes lifetime judicial tenure entirely in favor of fixed nine-year terms decided by public ballot. Under the proposed rules, candidates for judicial office would no longer be selected solely through professional exams. Instead, the presidency, the federal Congress, and the Supreme Court would compile candidate lists for voters to choose from in periodic local elections within each judicial district. The plan would require the replacement of approximately 1,650 currently sitting federal judges across two distinct election cycles. State legislatures would also be mandated to amend their local constitutions within 180 days to apply the popular election model to roughly 5,000 state judges and magistrates. The reform package also restructures the highest bench in the nation, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The legislation reduces the total number of Supreme Court ministers and shortens their official terms of service. It additionally calls for a nationwide election to replace all active members of the court, while introducing specialized judicial procedures that allow magistrates handling certain organized crime cases to preside without public disclosure of their identities in court filings. Beyond direct judicial restructuring, the constitutional initiative includes provisions that expand the list of crimes subject to mandatory pretrial detention. Current human rights protocols established by international bodies generally discourage automatic detention without individualized judicial review. The proposals would require judges to order immediate detention for several specific offenses, regardless of flight risk assessments or specific case evidence presented during preliminary hearings. The reform efforts have sparked significant legal debate among jurists, bar associations, and civil society organizations across the Americas. Juanita Goebertus, the Americas director at Human Rights Watch, voiced formal concerns regarding the legislative package, stating that replacing career judicial paths with political ballots risks eroding the structural independence of the courts. Human rights monitors emphasize that international standards require judicial appointment processes to remain strictly rooted in professional merit, objective evaluation, and insulation from external partisan pressure. In response to the legislative initiative, judicial branch employees, federal clerks, and magistrates organized widespread strikes and public demonstrations in Mexico City and regional capitals. Legal staff unions argue that removing career protections undermines decades of work spent professionalizing court administrative personnel. Protesters maintained that open elections could expose local judges to outside pressure from well-funded political groups or private interest organizations operating within contentious regional jurisdictions. Supporters of the constitutional overhaul maintain that popular elections are essential to curbing institutional corruption and restoring citizen trust in the justice system. Government advocates argue that the traditional judicial career structure became insular and failed to respond quickly to public complaints regarding legal access and administrative backlog. Proponents contend that submitting judges to public ballots will make courts directly accountable to everyday citizens rather than legal insiders and unelected administrative committees. International legal bodies are observing the legislative process closely, citing binding human rights treaties ratified by Mexico. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has previously evaluated Mexican detention mechanisms, ruling in prior judgments that mandatory pretrial detention without individualized hearings violates fundamental rights to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence under the American Convention on Human Rights. Observers note that further legal challenges could emerge before international courts if the final legislation conflicts with regional treaty obligations. The debate in the Mexican Congress occurs alongside discussions over companion measures, including the proposed dissolution of the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Data Protection. As legislative debates continue, federal lawmakers, judicial workers, and constitutional scholars are closely watching the proceedings to see how the final text addresses judicial terms, ballot logistics, and constitutional protections across Mexico's justice system.