Mexico’s former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) left the country divided by one of his final adjustments, which he enacted just before leaving office. AMLO’s judicial overhaul will completely redesign the judiciary, shifting from an appointment-based system to an electoral system. In turn, 7,000 federal and Supreme Court justices will be directly affected. This law will reshape the Supreme Court, reducing the number of justices from 11 to nine and shortening term limits to 12 years. These changes will not be carried out immediately, but gradually, as a large portion of the judiciary would be up for election in 2025 with the rest due in 2027. The overhaul passed in the Senate chamber with 86 votes in favor and 41 in opposition. Since Obrador’s political party, Morena, maintains a majority in most state legislatures, the measure will be carried out in the coming months under the new president. Despite this relatively straightforward legislative path, the drastic proposal has been met with distinctly aggressive opposition and support from citizens and the media. 

Obrador concluded his six-year tenure with the reform, championing his reworked court system as a way to effectively curtail graft and nepotism. Obrador’s successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, assumed office on October 1 and has stressed her complete endorsement of the plan. Morena’s rise in power throughout Obrador’s term has certainly aided in the former president’s success, as his ability to transform institutions and infrastructure has earned his presidential term the title of “transformative.”  Citizens in favor of the plan celebrated the chance to participate in electing magistrates, as many argued the judicial system was overdue for a change. Proponents’ main argument in favor emphasizes the corruption that the changes would rectify: Obrador has said that elections would help prevent judges from ruling in favor of powerful people to secure favors, and according to government surveys, 66 percent of Mexicans perceive judges as corrupt. This change is seen by many as modernization, as an opportunity to reaffirm people’s trust in the justice system. 

Despite the Morena party’s emphatic support of the overhaul, it has also been widely opposed since its proposal. During an earlier Senate debate in Mexico City, protestors stormed the chamber, shattering the glass door and forcing senators to relocate. Over 50,000 judges and court employees have been on strike across the country since August 19, emphasizing the fear surrounding the proposed changes. One of the largest concerns is for a loss of judicial independence. Experts and citizens alike have expressed apprehension that electing judges would politicize the court system, reducing its predictability and potentially giving magistrates reason to decide rulings according to what their voters want. Adriana García, expert advisor to Stanford Law School’s Rule of Law Impact Lab, explained one controversial revision to the justice system that eliminates a number of requirements necessary to become a judge. She said that allowing individuals to run with only a law degree and a few years of experience is “going from one moment where we’re choosing them based on their merits and abilities to one where we’re choosing them based on popularity.” The loss of a transparent, merit-based appointment system calls into question the court’s legitimacy in unbiased decision making.  The measure is also potentially detrimental to Mexico’s economy, as a number of international businesses have put investments on hold. Luis de la Calle, head of an economic consulting firm in Mexico and former trade negotiator said, “The perception you don’t have an independent judicial branch will limit the investments you attract.” In the foreign service, individuals are concerned that this could threaten trade agreements, which rely on investor’s confidence in Mexico’s legal framework. Mexico’s diplomatic relations with the U.S. have suffered since August of this year, when U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar released a statement saying the measures posed a major risk to Mexico’s democracy. In response, Obrador said that Salazar’s words “reflected a crude interventionist attitude” and imposed a pause on relations with the U.S. Embassy. 

Interestingly enough, a system of electing judges was previously attempted in Mexico. Until the current constitution was established in 1917, Mexico’s constitution of 1857 utilized elections to select judges. The framers of the current constitution reasoned that elected judges led to corruption, and the system was changed. In the 1990s, Mexico also began appointing justices as the United States does at a federal level. The framers emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, one of the primary concerns of protestors opposing the current overhaul. 

 As Claudia Scheinbaum steps into power as the first woman president of Mexico, she inherits a set of challenges not limited to AMLO’s  judiciary overhaul. In particular, her ability to control the growing Morena party has been questioned, and in the wake of the contentious redesign, her ability to grapple with public opinion will be tested. One judicial worker, Alejandro Navarrete, was present at the Senate protests. He argued that magistrates, judges, and clerks know the “danger the reform represents” and feel that the decision is a “sell out for political capital.” Despite allegations of abandoned ideals, she stands firm in her decision to further the ideas and projects of Obrador, and told reporters that “There is no possibility of reversing the reform.”