Introduction
Through a controversial constitutional reform, Mexico has adopted an unprecedented system in which all judges across the country’s judicial branches will be elected by popular vote. As we’ve previously noted, this new model risks facilitating political capture of the courts and entrenching punitive populism.
The first judicial election day is now approaching. On June 1, Mexican citizens will be called to vote for 881 federal judicial positions—approximately half of the posts in the federal judiciary (Poder Judicial de la Federación, PJF). The other half will be up for election in 2027.
The candidates running in the June elections include:
- 64 candidates for the 9 seats on the Supreme Court (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, SCJN);
- 38 candidates for 5 magistrate positions on the new Judicial Discipline Tribunal (Tribunal de Disciplina Judicial), which will have the power to investigate and sanction judges;
- 110 candidates for 17 magistrate positions on the Federal Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación, TEPJF);
- Over 3,000 candidates for 850 positions as circuit magistrates and district judges.
In 19 states, there will also be state-level judicial elections, with nearly 2,000 positions up for grabs.
Civil society organizations and academic institutions have launched initiatives to monitor both the electoral process and its implications for the justice system. Accredited national and international observers will also monitor the elections.
In addition to the logistical challenges of organizing the judicial elections with a reduced budget, the early stages of the process have already sparked controversy. Below, we highlight some key developments so far and point to areas that warrant attention during and after election day.
Candidate Selection
At the federal level, the Evaluation Committees of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches—responsible for assessing applicants’ qualifications and selecting the top candidates—received tens of thousands of applications. The three Committees analyzed the applications using differing methodologies, which have been criticized as inadequate.
An unexpected twist occurred when the Judicial Branch’s Committee resigned in January 2025, citing court rulings that ordered a suspension of the judicial election process. By order of the TEPJF, the names of the eligible candidates under the Committee’s review at the time were sent to the Senate without having undergone an evaluation of suitability (idoneidad) for the posts to which they were applying. The names were then sorted by a lottery system as needed and/or included directly on the ballot.
The final lists of federal and state-level candidates have drawn criticism from civil society and the media, with concerns ranging from the past performance of public officials to allegations of ties between candidates and organized crime or other serious offenses.
In some states, other concerning situations have emerged. For instance, in Durango, all three branches of the state government are proposing the same 49 candidates for the 49 available judicial positions, leaving voters with no actual choice between candidates.
Campaigns
Campaigns officially kicked off at the end of March. Candidates are prohibited from accepting public or private funding and must self-finance their campaigns, a model that tends to favor those with personal resources. They are also forbidden from purchasing ads or paying for publicity. So far, the most visible candidates have often been those who already hold public office and/or have media platforms available.
The National Electoral Institute (Instituto Nacional Electoral, INE) has launched an online portal featuring profiles and proposals of around 3,400 federal candidates. Many candidates are also promoting their platforms through social media. However, experts caution that virality on social media is not the main predictor of success, and that support from vote-mobilization structures, such as unions, will likely play a more decisive role.
Concerns also exist about the potential for organized crime to interfere in the judicial elections, particularly through violence, given the high levels of violence seen in recent electoral processes.
Ballots
The newly designed judicial election ballots are more complex than those used in past elections, which could lengthen the voting process and increase the risk of errors. Voters will use six different federal ballots, plus additional ones in states holding local elections. Each federal ballot contains lists of names, divided into women and men, with candidate numbers, nominating branch, and, if applicable, legal specialization. Voters must write the corresponding numbers in boxes, which are color-coded by specialization where applicable.
Mexico’s federal judicial system is divided into 32 judicial circuits, which roughly overlap with the country’s 32 states. For the judicial elections, the INE has divided those circuits into 60 judicial electoral districts. Specifically, the INE subdivided 15 of the judicial circuits into multiple districts each. Thus, in each of those districts, the ballots will include only a portion of the candidates within the larger judicial circuit.
Election Day
According to the INE’s president, voter turnout for the judicial elections is expected to be between 8 and 15 percent of the electoral roll. Notably, people in pretrial detention—one of the populations most affected by the justice system—will not have the ability to vote, in contrast to progress made in this area in other recent elections.
Even with low turnout, the election will require nationwide geographic coverage. Yet due to budget constraints, only about half of the 170,000 polling stations approved and installed in the 2024 presidential elections are expected to be set up.
The vote-counting process will also differ from traditional elections. For example, citizen poll workers will not count each candidate’s votes at polling stations, which has traditionally been a mechanism to minimize the chance of irregularities and increase trust in the results. Instead, vote counting will take place at the INE’s district council facilities.
Results
Once the results are announced, it will be important to evaluate whether the judiciary’s new composition reflects closer alignment with the ruling political party, as well as to analyze gender parity—especially steps taken to ensure parity if it isn’t achieved through voting.
Another key area to watch will be the institutional transition period, as new judges take office and new institutions begin their work. The transition process can be expected to delay ongoing judicial cases, potentially requiring oral trials to be restarted, and will likely necessitate time for training and adaptation.
Finally, the judicial elections are not expected to bring progress against impunity in Mexico. Among other reasons, this is because impunity for crimes reported by the population occurs mainly at the stage of investigation by prosecutors’ offices, an area that the judicial reform fails to address.
Conclusion
This judicial election cycle will offer lessons on how to improve the rules and logistics for the 2027 judicial elections, though such improvements won’t resolve deeper concerns about the use of elections to select judges.
The judicial reform’s true impacts on judicial independence and access to justice in Mexico remain to be seen. Key indicators will include the rulings issued by the country’s new judges and the behavior of the new Judicial Discipline Tribunal. Documenting these impacts and pushing for improvements to address both longstanding institutional weaknesses and new challenges created by the reform will be a crucial task moving forward.
