05/19/2025 (written by spoli) – In September of 2024, then President Andrés Manuel López Obrador officially established a major constitutional reform to overhaul the Mexican Judiciary. The most ambitious of these reforms is the requirement that all federal and state judges across Mexico be elected by popular vote.
Campaigning for these unprecedented judicial elections, in which Mexicans will vote to fill a total of 881 seats in the Judiciary Power of the Federation (PJF), began on March 30 and will continue until May 28—a total of sixty days as established by Morena’s “Plan C” constitutional reform. The special elections will take place on Sunday, June 1.
Amid growing criticism of the reform’s potential efficacy and convoluted electoral process, we examine election guidelines and their implications for both candidates and voters.
How Will Candidates Establish a Platform, Voters Make Informed Decisions?
With 3,414 candidates hoping to fill these openings and narrow campaign regulations limiting publicity, candidates and voters alike will face significant challenges, the former in garnering recognition and the latter in researching the people they will ultimately vote for on election day.
All candidates are obligated to create a profile on the National Electoral Institute’s (INE) centralized “¡Conóceles!” page, where voters can find standardized information on and “get to know” prospective justices, magistrates, and judges. These profiles consist of a basic biography, educational background, and candidate-formulated statements detailing their values and objectives, should they be elected, and give a brief synopsis of candidates’ platforms, detailing things like their motivation for holding public office, their vision for the role of a member of the judiciary, their vision for imparting justice, and three main proposals they will embody.
The campaigning laws laid out by the reform limit the use of traditional campaigning tactics through various financial and accessibility guidelines that aim to prevent partisanship and reconcile inequity across the nearly 3,500 hopefuls. The Official Journal of the Federation details these guidelines and the INE website summarizes a few of the most crucial ones:
- Candidates must pay campaign expenses out of pocket and cannot receive any public or private funding.
- Candidates are not allowed to proselytize, nor are they allowed to align themselves, be it positively or negatively, with another candidate.
- Candidates can promote their campaigns via free or subsidized character interviews and debate forums that adhere to INE guidelines on fairness and equity.
- Candidates may use social media for promotion so long as no money is spent to boost their content.
Although these restrictions intend to depoliticize the judicial elections, the extent to which they limit campaigning methods raises concerns surrounding voter competence. As Justice in Mexico Director David Shirk points out in an article for the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute,
In the absence of party labels or “cues” and in the face of such a large number of candidates, voters will have to carefully research candidates’ educational backgrounds, career histories, and public statements to determine who is fit to serve. More likely, though, many voters […] are likely to make their decision based on very limited informational cues (like gender, name recognition, or physical appearance), or simply stay home from the polls. In this sense, López Obrador’s grand experiment with judicial democracy may lead to poorly-informed choices or simply greater abstentionism in judicial elections.
Such concerns have become increasingly poignant in light of recent congressional pushback surrounding some twenty-odd candidates who were flagged as having a “dubious reputation,” per El País. They report that 18 of them are currently under investigation for felonies including sexual assault, embezzlement, and involvement in organized crime. Significantly, every nominee was subject to an evaluation committee before being confirmed as a candidate—and, before these findings came to light.
What Will Ballots Look Like?
There are a total of 3,414 candidates in the running to fill 881 PJF positions across the 31 Mexican states and Mexico City. Once at the polls, a voter in any given district will face the task of electing around 40 candidates across six different ballots. These figures do not include local judicial elections, which complicate the matter even further (in Mexico City, for example, there will be three additional ballots for the local judiciary). The six main ballots comprise the different levels of Mexico’s judiciary:
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation – Nine vacancies and 64 candidates. Voters will elect five female ministers, and four male ministers.
The Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal – Five vacancies and 38 candidates. Voters will elect three female magistrates and two male magistrates.
The Superior Court of the TEPJF* – Two vacancies and 15 candidates. Voters will elect one female magistrate and one male magistrate.
Regional Courts of the TEPJF* – Fifteen vacancies and 94 candidates across Mexico’s five regional subdivisions. Voters in each subdivision will elect three magistrates in total, two female and one male.
Circuit Courts – Four hundred and sixty-four vacancies and 1638 candidates across Mexico’s thirty-two judicial circuits. Voters in each circuit will elect somewhere between eight and 10 magistrates, depending on where they live–half of whom will be female and half of whom will be male.
District Courts – Three hundred and eighty-six vacancies and 1564 candidates across Mexico’s 300 judicial electoral districts. Voters in each district will elect somewhere between eight and 10 magistrates, depending on where they live–half of whom will be female and half of whom will be male.
* the Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF)
Additionally, circuit magistrates and district judges run under one of 13 specializations (e.g., civil, criminal, administrative, etc.) depending on the available positions in their region.
The INE has disseminated various resources, instructions, and memos in an attempt to educate voters and prepare them for the June 1 election day, including a voting simulation where the public can practice filling out ballots online; however, this complicated process may have already turned many Mexicans away from the polls.
Who Will Vote?
INE president Guadalupe Taddei estimates that the first ever judicial elections in Mexico will only see between 8% and 15% voter turnout. This constitutes a steep dropoff compared to the roughly 60% turnout seen in the June 2024 presidential and parliamentary elections.
Additionally, the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) notes that people in pretrial detention are barred from voting despite being “one of the populations most affected by the justice system.” WOLA also points out that budget constraints have made it difficult to establish voting infrastructure–it is expected that a mere half of the 170,000 polling stations from the 2024 presidential elections will be available.
The lack of voting infrastructure and extremely low projected turnout immediately calls into question Morena’s promise of increased public input and decreased corruption within the judiciary. Without significant participation in the election, whether it be a product of choice or because of accessibility constraints, it would be difficult to conclude that newly elected magistrates and judges accurately reflect the will of the Mexican populace. As Dr. Shirk puts it, “[the reform] may instead undermine judicial independence, impair the functioning of the courts, and erode the fragile foundations of Mexican democracy.”
Conclusion
As Mexico approaches its first-ever judicial election, the tension between democratic aspiration and logistical reality is becoming increasingly apparent. While the reform promises a more transparent and participatory justice system, the barriers to entry—both for candidates and voters—raise serious concerns about its implementation and impact. With a complex voting process, limited avenues for campaigning, and historically low turnout projections, the question remains whether this ambitious experiment will serve as a step toward judicial accountability or a cautionary tale of overreach and underpreparedness.
That being said, it is important to point out that some states are taking steps to mitigate many of these concerns. México Evalúa’s “Radar Judicial” policy brief highlights several state-level reforms that serve as models for enhancing the integrity of the judicial selection process. For instance, states like Aguascalientes, Coahuila, Jalisco, and Zacatecas have implemented mandatory knowledge exams for judicial candidates, ensuring that candidates who appear on the ballot meet a certain level of competency. Additionally, states such as Chihuahua, Michoacán, and Nayarit have introduced “3 de 3” declarations against gender-based violence, promoting transparency and accountability among candidates. These initiatives demonstrate that, even within the constraints of the current reform, there are avenues to bolster the credibility and fairness of the judicial election process.
Sources
Brewer, Stephanie. “The Road to the Judicial Elections in Mexico.” Washington Office on Latin America. May 12, 2025.
Maza, Alfredo. “Elección judicial de la CDMX: cómo serán las boletas y qué hacer para no anular accidentalmente el voto.” Animal Político. May 12, 2025.
INETV. “¿Ya conoces las especialidades por las que podrás votar este primero de junio?” INE. May 8, 2025.
Castillo Jiménez, Elia. “El Congreso comienza la batalla jurídica en el INE para impugnar una veintena de candidaturas judiciales de dudosa reputación.” El País. May 5, 2025.
Foro Jurídico. “1er foro de Propuestas de Candidatas y Candidatos al Poder Judicial Federal.” Foro Jurídico. April 4, 2025. (Note: much of the ballot information was retrieved from the introduction given by the forum’s host Dr. Elías Huerta Psihas.)
Shirk, David A. “Mexico’s 2024 Judicial Reform: The Politicization of Justice.” Wilson Center Mexico Institute. March 20, 2025.
Campos, et al. “Radar judicial: monitoreo de impacto de la reforma judicial en los estados.” México Evalúa. March 2025.
INE. “Hoy inician campañas de candidaturas a elección del Poder Judicial de la Federación.” Central Electoral. March 2025
INE. “Acuerdo del Consejo General del Instituto Nacional Electoral, por el que se emiten los Lineamientos para la fiscalización de los Procesos Electorales del Poder Judicial, Federal y Locales.” Diario Oficial de la Federación. January 30, 2025.
Cardona, Ibeth. “INE estima entre el 8 y 15% de participación para la elección judicial; hasta 10 minutos para emitir un voto.” El Universal. January 16, 2025.
Consejo de la Judicatura Federal. “Circuitos Judiciales.” Consejo de la Judicatura Federal. 2025.
INE. “Cargos a elegir en la elección Poder Judicial 2025.” Instituto Nacional Electoral. 2025.
International IDEA. “Voter Turnout Database: Mexico.” International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. 2025.
INE. “Sistema de Información Geográfica Electoral (SIGE).” Central Electoral. May 21, 2019.
INE. “Circunscripciones.” Instituto Nacional Electoral. 2017.
Contraloría Interna del Congreso de la Cuidad de Mexico, I Legislatura. “Declaración 3 de 3.” Congreso de la Ciudad de México, I Legislatura. 2016.
