Mexico will be the only country that all its judges prefer | Mint

On June 1, Mexicans will vote to elect judges to 850 federal posts, nine seats of the Supreme Court, 22 powerful tribunal posts and thousands of roles in lower courts. In 2027, the rest of Mexico’s judiciary will be filled. A few countries choose a handful of judges, mostly to lower the courts. Mexico will become the first country in the world where every judge is chosen by popular votes in just about every court. The Mexico Congress passed the constitutional changes required for this revolution in September last year. It was Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s final act as president and achieved one of his most cherished goals. His successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, followed in his footsteps. Their party, Morena, argues that the election of judges will make the judiciary more democratic, corruption and nepotism will purify and increase access to justice. “The public is not stupid,” said Olivia Aguirre Bonilla, a candidate for the Supreme Court. “If we trust voters to choose a president, why not judges?” The country’s legal system was in a bad form. Although the federal judiciary has become more professional over the past thirty years, more than 90% of the crimes are not reported. Only 14% of the reports lead to beliefs. Some judges are corrupt. But there are good reasons why so few democracies ask voters to choose judges. Must election topics reviewers seek for the warping power of public opinion. Chosen judges are less likely to maintain the law if it is not popular. It is also less likely to make politicians account for if the politicians follow the public’s mood. “Nobody chose me,” said Martha Magaña, a sitting federal judge who is not eligible. “So if I issue a decision, I owe anyone anything.” The election of all judges is a bad idea ‘full stop’, says Julio Ríos, a political scientist at Itam, a university in Mexico City. The only place where judges are currently elected to higher courts is Bolivia. The Supreme Court judges have been elected since 2011. The selection mechanism was a disaster, with the authority of the court undermined by an endless political twitter to control it. Two fifths of the Bolivians who voted in the most recent judicial election spoiled their ballots. In Mexico, judicial elections pose a Graver danger as mere chaos: control of the legal system by drug gangs. Criminal gangs are pleased to kill or threaten public officials to get what they want. The gangs have already held their own candidates in the local election. More quotidian corruption of judges by business people and officials, also endemic, is likely to expand. It is difficult not to see the election as a last step that hedge Morena as the political hexemon of Mexico. Mr. López Obrador came to power and rejected judges as elitist and partly. By blocking several of his signature reforms, such as an attempt to hand over the national guard to the army (subsequently penetrated by constitutional amendment), the Supreme Court became a target. Gerardo Fernández Noroña, a morena politician leading the Senate, claims that judges in Mexico’s old, appointment-based system do not apply the law. “They respond to political and economic interests,” he says. “These are the ones who have broken the rule of law.” The chances of coercion and corruption have been increased by the limp process by which candidates come to the ballot. They only need a law degree with good grades, five years of legal experience and five letters of recommendation. In a little over six weeks, three committees investigated 24,000 candidates. Interviews often only lasted a few minutes. In addition, the committees were drawn from the executive, legislature and judiciary, which means two of the three were dominated by Morena. As a result, some candidates with well -known criminal ties came on the ballot, acknowledging a facts. This led to Farce. The Senate insists that only the election authority has the power to remove the gang-linked names. The election authority says we can’t do it. Instead, the names of infected candidates appear to appear on ballots, but that if one of them wins a right, their victories will be void. In the midst of the chaos, it is difficult to suggest that the gangs have failed to slip into some of their own people, or those who control them, in at least some of the thousands of races that are unnoticed. Institutional knowledge will be lost. Only a minority of sitting federal judges stand for election. Only three of the current 11 Supreme Court judges are underway. In a study by Mr. Ríos was found to have taken on average 24 years to become a magistrate. From June, matters on constitutional law and commercial disputes of a million dollars will be heard by people who may have never been sitting in a courtroom. Morena is unlikely to suffer many defeats in the new courts. Not only does it have a big swing that candidates come to the ballot. It also has some control over the behavior of the judges via its people on the disciplinary tribunal as soon as they are elected. “We can expect the government not to lose the issues it cares about,” says Mr. Ríos. And although Morena says the election is about democratic liability, the rise is expected to be very low. Only 7% of voters showed up in 2021 to be in the referendum of Mr. López Obrador to vote on whether to prosecute a handful of former presidents. In contrast, the rise in the presidential election of last year was 61%. Even some Morena fans recognize the flaws of judicial elections. But the time for resistance has passed. Mauricio Flores Castro, a lawyer who sits on the Supreme Court, says there are two options: “Critize from the sidelines or get involved and try to improve things.