In Mexico, Thousands Ran for Office, Few Voted and One Party Dominated It All

Mexico’s Supreme Court is now largely composed of justices who are ideologically aligned with the nation’s ruling left-wing party, Morena. In addition, political allies from Morena have assumed control of a newly established judicial tribunal empowered to dismiss judges, as well as the federal court responsible for resolving electoral disputes.

Despite these sweeping changes, Morena’s leadership has repeatedly asserted that their ambitious and controversial judicial reform is not a political power grab. Rather, they argue, the overhaul is designed to democratize the judiciary by making judges answerable to the public. The goal, they claim, is to correct a justice system widely perceived by Mexican citizens as riddled with corruption, cronyism, and a chronic failure to hold criminals accountable.

However, the transition from an appointment-based judicial selection process to one where judges are elected by popular vote has, according to analysts and observers, become a key milestone in Morena’s broader consolidation of political authority. This conclusion is supported by final election results released on Sunday, which confirm a significant political shift in the judiciary.

Candidates endorsed by Morena won a majority of the top judicial positions throughout Mexico, both in the highest courts and across numerous regional judicial circuits. These victories appear to confirm fears long held by critics: that the judicial election could effectively remove the final institutional check on the governing party’s dominance.

“We now face a situation where the executive branch, both chambers of Congress, and the judiciary are all under the control of a single political movement,” said María Emilia Molina, a circuit magistrate and president of the Mexican Association of Women Judges.

Molina, along with thirteen other judges, has filed a complaint with an international human rights commission, arguing that the new system undermines judicial independence and violates the rights of current judges. She indicated that she plans to resign from her post later this year, describing the situation in emotional terms.

“I cannot continue to participate in this farce,” she said. “This is heartbreaking for me.”

There is still considerable uncertainty about how the judicial system will operate under the new rules. The reform left untouched many areas Mexicans frequently criticize, such as the country’s prosecutorial agencies and the police — institutions often seen as inefficient, corrupt, or both.

Adding to the unease is the newly established Tribunal for Judicial Discipline. This body holds broad authority to investigate, discipline, or even remove judges from their posts — powers that critics worry could be wielded to purge judges who resist political pressure or fail to fall in line with Morena’s agenda.

Celia Maya, a member of Morena and the current president of the disciplinary tribunal, dismissed these concerns. In a recent interview, she emphasized that the institution’s main purpose is to confront and eliminate corruption within the judiciary.

“Our justice system has been manipulated to benefit powerful interests for far too long,” Maya said. “This tribunal exists to ensure fairness, integrity, and independence in the courts.”

Despite such assurances, political analysts note that power calculations were central to the reforms. Former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador became a vocal advocate for electing judges only after courts began blocking some of his high-profile legislative initiatives and infrastructure projects.

The timing of the reform also aligned with Morena’s rising political fortunes. In last year’s elections, Claudia Sheinbaum secured the presidency by a wide margin. Her landslide victory was accompanied by Morena allies unexpectedly winning the congressional majorities required to amend Mexico’s Constitution — a development that paved the way for the judicial overhaul.

Although public opinion surveys indicated broad support for the idea of electing judges, actual voter turnout told a different story. Nearly 90 percent of eligible voters chose not to participate in this month’s elections, resulting in one of the lowest participation rates in a federal vote since Mexico began transitioning to democratic governance in the early 21st century.

Out of approximately 100 million eligible voters, only 13 percent cast valid ballots. This low turnout has cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the election, particularly as a significant portion of ballots were either intentionally spoiled or left blank.

Several factors contributed to the lackluster participation. According to political analyst Ernesto Guerra, many voters were confused by the extensive list of candidates, while others simply lacked understanding of the judiciary’s role in governance. Moreover, the budget for organizing the election was relatively small, further hampering outreach and public awareness.

“It was clear that most people didn’t feel engaged or interested in the process,” Guerra said.

The election results also revealed potential cracks within Morena itself. In several regions, voters opted for candidates who did not fully align with the party’s official endorsements, even if those candidates were not affiliated with opposition groups either. This suggests a degree of internal divergence that may grow in the future.

“These internal differences could become more pronounced over time,” said Úrsula Indacochea, a judicial reform expert at the Due Process of Law Foundation in Washington, D.C. “Ironically, the reform may end up backfiring on those who pushed for it. When justice is politicized, judges begin to behave like politicians — and politicians can change sides.”

President Sheinbaum has acknowledged some of the criticisms surrounding the elections, especially the disappointing voter turnout.

“We must look into how we can improve the system to make it easier for Mexican citizens to participate,” she stated. Nonetheless, she maintained that the electoral process was a necessary step toward cleaning up the judiciary.

Meanwhile, the political opposition — now considerably weakened across much of the country — will not have another opportunity to challenge Morena’s judicial dominance until 2027. That year will mark the second phase of the judicial election process.

“There is no meaningful institutional counterweight to Morena’s power at least for the next two years,” said Juan José Garza Onofre, a constitutional law scholar at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

However, by that time, voters will also have the opportunity to reshape other parts of the government. The 2027 elections will include the selection of 17 state governors, 500 members of the lower chamber of Congress, hundreds of mayors, and more than a thousand local legislators.

Until then, the political landscape in Mexico appears increasingly one-sided, raising critical questions about the future of judicial independence and the long-term implications of merging politics and the law in one of the world’s largest democracies.