Mexico"s constitutional reform: a battle over judiciary independence

Mexico is currently facing significant constitutional reforms aimed at overhauling its judiciary system. The proposed changes, which include electing judges through popular vote rather than appointing them, have sparked widespread protests and strikes among judges and judicial staff. Supporters of the reform, including President López Obrador and his allies, argue that this shift will enhance accountability and reduce corruption within the judiciary, which they claim is currently influenced by organized crime and powerful business interests. The reforms have gained traction in Congress, with the lower house approving the measures by a substantial margin. However, the proposed changes have faced legal challenges, including injunctions from federal courts attempting to halt the reforms. Despite these obstacles, lawmakers from the governing party have continued to push forward, asserting that the judiciary must be more responsive to the public. Historically, the current constitution, established in 1917, viewed the election of judges as a potential source of corruption, advocating for a judiciary that operates independently from political pressures. Critics of the reform warn that moving to an elected judiciary could undermine judicial independence and lead to further corruption, echoing concerns raised by judiciary workers. The debate surrounding these reforms reflects deeper tensions within Mexican society, as various factions vie for power and influence. The outcome of this constitutional reform process will have lasting implications for the rule of law and the balance of power in Mexico's democratic framework.