Mexico’s judicial elections raise alarms over democratic institutions and the rule of law

Only 13% of the electorate voted to select the judges of Mexico’s highest federal courts, including all Supreme Court ministers

On June 1, Mexico conducted its first judicial election, selecting 881 federal and 1,800 local judges. Results will be announced between June 10-15. This was the country’s largest and most controversial election in its history, with critics accusing the governing party (MORENA) of implementing the judicial election to erode checks and balances and centralize power. Multinational companies (MNCs) should prepare for a political and judicial system that is becoming increasingly centralized, with implications for political stability, as well as regulatory and legal affairs.

Details

• Vote counting could take up to 10 days, with the official results due by June 15. Unlike previous elections, where votes were tallied at individual polling stations, this time the count will be conducted centrally by the National Electoral Institute (INE). Most of the winning candidates are expected to be supported or endorsed by MORENA and its allies.
• The INE announced a participation of ~13% of the electorate, a low figure compared to an average of 60% in previous federal elections.
• Days before the election, the INE and various media outlets documented the widespread distribution of so-called “_acordeones_”—printed or digital voting guides instructing voters on which candidates to select. Although presented as study aids, these materials effectively directed the vote and, under Mexican law, could constitute an electoral crime. The guides primarily listed candidates supported by MORENA. In response, the INE’s General Council voted unanimously to halt their distribution, arguing that they improperly “induced” the vote.
• On June 1, citizens marched in Mexico City and other major cities to protest the judicial elections. Business leaders, former presidents, and civil society organizations joined the demonstrations, referring to the date as “Black Sunday” and denouncing the elections as an “electoral farce.” The leader of an opposition party, the PAN, described it as a “day of national mourning,” citing concerns over its impact on the rule of law and democratic institutions.
• The election selects the entirety of the Supreme Court (SCJN), the Disciplinary Tribunal, Electoral Courts, Circuit and District Courts, as well as local courts in 19 out of 32 states. The following federal posts were up for election: 100% of the SCJN (9 ministers), 100% of the Disciplinary Court (5 members), 28% of the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court (2 members), 100% of the Regional Chambers of the Electoral Court (15 members), 50% of Circuit Courts (464 members), and 50% of District Courts (386 members). In sum, there were 881 federal positions up for election, with 3,423 candidates.
• The voting ballot did not list political parties, and candidates were selected by committees from the executive and legislative branches, as the representatives from the judiciary resigned from the selection process in January 2025. With MORENA controlling the executive and holding a supermajority in the legislature, the ruling party was able to influence the nomination of most candidates.
• President Sheinbaum declared the election “a success,” said Mexico is the world’s most democratic country, and that each day it becomes more just and democratic.
• Each voter had to cast at least six federal ballots, while those in states also selecting local judges could cast up to thirteen. Voters in CDMX had to elect 51 posts with 293 candidates. Critics of the process—including former INE presidents—argued that the complexity of the voting procedure and the overwhelming number of candidates worked against a transparent and informed electoral process.
• The unprecedented judicial election was established through a Constitutional reform enacted in September 2024, days after the new legislature with a MORENA-led supermajority was sworn in (September 1), and weeks before President Claudia Sheinbaum took office (October 1).

Business implications

Short term

• The judicial election will likely deepen political tensions, as a significant share of the population opposes the elections and views them as an attack against democratic institutions. Despite this, the MXN remains strong, at 19.21 MXN: USD.
• The judicial transition could lead to additional delays in legal proceedings. Even before the elections, courts were reportedly overwhelmed, receiving more than 2 million new cases annually. Moreover, newly elected judges may have less training and experience, potentially exacerbating the existing backlog.
• An uncertain political and judicial outlook could continue harming investment, employment creation, and economic growth. This can continue at least until September, when new judges take office.
• The new judiciary system could complicate the renegotiation of the USMCA, which is up for revision in 2026, as well as US-Mexico security cooperation. The Trump administration has not commented on the judicial elections.

Long term

• The new judicial system is likely to weaken democratic checks and balances by further centralizing power under the ruling party, MORENA, which could gain effective control over the executive, legislative, and now judicial branches. Additionally, local judicial systems may be vulnerable to capture by powerful regional actors.
• Companies will have fewer legal avenues to contest government intervention or resolve disputes. The most exposed sectors include energy, telecommunications, public infrastructure, mining, agriculture, and those that rely heavily on government contracts.
• The new system is likely to undermine the professionalism of the judiciary. While the previous model had significant flaws, it offered a structured civil service pathway for selecting judges based on merit, experience, and academic credentials. In contrast, the new approach involves significantly lower professional requirements and relies on a politicized selection process.
• Another risk is the potential infiltration of interest groups into the judiciary, as some may support specific candidates in exchange for future loyalty. Media reports have exposed judicial candidates with alleged ties to organized crime, raising concerns about the integrity and independence of the future courts.

Our View:

The outcome of the judicial election will likely favor MORENA, even if candidates were listed without a party affiliation on the ballots. This is because MORENA controlled the candidates’ selection process, and the opposition called for abstention. Moreover, a 13% voter participation is hardly representative of the electorate, while the overwhelmingly complex voting process is unlikely to yield democratically legitimate results. Therefore, companies can expect a centralization of power under MORENA with rapidly eroding checks and balances. Businesses should continue assessing their legal and government relations strategies in Mexico, as the political system concentrates power under a single party.