For weeks, Mexico has been in turmoil over President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s proposed constitutional reform to elect judges by popular vote. Fifty thousand judicial workers went on strike as legislators pushed through the legislation; The peso fell, and international banks issued dire warnings about the proposal’s impact on the economy.
US Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar also issued an unusual warning. The plan, he said late last month, presented “a major threat to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.” This The president replied The US angrily announcing the “break” of diplomatic relations with the embassy. A similar spat occurred with Canada.
But Mr. López Obrador’s successor, President-elect Claudia Schönbaum, who on Oct. 1, he has received a more reasonable response. Although she has consistently supported the plan, Ms. Sheinbaum instructed Mexico’s new Congress to give the plan more consideration, rather than fast-tracking it as the president and his colleagues have been urging. Lower House Majority Leader Ricardo Monreal suggested it could be approved as early as September 8.
Mexico’s leaders should do the right thing and abandon the plan altogether, given the damage it could do to the nation. If adopted, it would politicize the judiciary beyond recognition and make it toothless to prevent abuse of power. It would institutionalize the power that interest groups could exercise over the entire judiciary.
Electing judges can incentivize them to make decisions to win votes and satisfy political constituencies, rather than impartially deciding cases based only on facts and law. A politically captured judiciary unable to impartially protect property rights would be a disaster for business confidence and private domestic and foreign investment. More ominously, it could open the door to organized crime’s control over the judiciary and undermine the foundations of the rule of law in Mexico.
Mr López Obrador’s constitutional reform proposal is essential to almost all Judges including those sitting in the Supreme Court will be selected. Under the current system, candidates for federal judgeships in Mexico must pass a public exam, undergo training and be evaluated by the Federal Judicial Council, an oversight body, which then appoints them. Most nonfederal judges are nominated by state governors and approved by state legislatures; In some states, candidates are evaluated and appointed as judges by state judicial councils. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
The president’s plan claims it will democratize justice and tackle “corruption,” “impunity,” “directed power groups” and the “absence of true independence of institutions responsible for providing justice.” He cites the election of some judges in America to justify this plan.
But experience in the United States shows that the selection of judges will worsen these problems in Mexico. Although all federal judges in the United States are appointed, the most State judges are elected by popular vote. An Empirical Study Confirm that campaign contributions motivate judges to rule in favor of their donors, especially when they run for re-election. Study It also shows that judges are less likely to rule in favor of defendants and more likely to impose harsher sentences closer to an election.
Former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—who herself once served as an elected state court judge—became a tireless advocate for fair selection of state judges because she knew that voting for judges exposed them to “corrupting influence.” . Interest groups. Former US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told the American Bar Association that the judicial elections were “profoundly stupid” and “allowed football fans to pick the referees.”
The American Bar Association has long supported merit selection systems for selecting state judges on the grounds that “the administration of justice should not turn on the outcome of popularity contests.” He warned of “the corrosive effect of money on judicial election campaigns,” in which parties with an interest in the outcome of a case “could try to buy courtroom leverage by influencing the ballot box that would be the judges.”
The influence of money and power is no less corrupting in Mexico than in the United States. Indeed, Mexico is particularly vulnerable to such influence due to the control exercised by organized crime groups over much of the country.
Mexico’s current system for selecting federal judges is not perfect, and could be improved by making it more transparent and accessible to a wider range of candidates. But replacing that system with judicial elections would allow completely unqualified lawyers to become judges if they get enough votes. Unlike the United States, Mexico does not require a bar exam to practice law. The President’s plan requires no legal experience for trial court judges and only three years of experience for appellate court judges. It is unclear how voters will even learn to assess the merits of candidates.
The plan would also create a judicial disciplinary tribunal tasked with sanctioning judges, whose members are elected by popular vote with terms consistent with six-year presidential terms, and whose decisions will be unpopular. It would link the salaries of judges to the salary of the President. Both measures would further undermine the independence of the judiciary by politicizing its oversight and making it beholden to the executive branch.
Our latest reportJ explains how voting for federal judges in Mexico would compromise their independence, noting that the proposal’s threat to the rule of law does not come in a vacuum. The López Obrador government has attacked other independent institutions, such as the National Electoral Institute, which oversees elections, and the National Institute for Transparency, which guarantees public access to information and the protection of personal data. It has also gone after independent federal agencies overseeing antitrust and communications matters.
He has expanded executive power by systematically shifting control of civilian functions – operating trains, ports, airlines, airports and customs – to the military in the name of reducing corruption. It is also proposing to transfer the National Guard to military control, despite a previous Supreme Court ruling deeming the move unconstitutional. The judiciary’s new project seems to follow this pattern: to eliminate the separation of powers and system of checks and balances crucial to the survival of constitutional democracy.
President López Obrador is certainly not the only world leader taking a swing at judicial independence. Autocratic-minded leaders focused on consolidating their own power – including El Salvador, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Poland, Tunisia, Turkey, Venezuela and Zimbabwe – have also sought to undermine the judiciary that stands in their way.
Unlike some of the countries on that list, Mexico is still a functioning, if imperfect, democracy. Whether that case stands now rests in the hands of his new Congress and President-elect Sheinbaum. In an address to the nation on Sunday, Mr López Obrador said, “We are living in an authentic democracy, building a new homeland.” But, in tandem with his systematic attacks on checks and balances, his project to elect judges could lead to the death of democracy in Mexico.
Post Selection of judges in Mexico? It’s a bad idea. appeared first New York Times.