A total of 859 judges presented to the Senate of the Republic their decline to participate in the contest established by the majority of Morena and allies in the reform of the Judiciary.
According to the president of the Senate of the Republic, Gerardo Fernández Noroña, of the 859 judges there are 349 judges and 510 magistrates. Added to these are the resignations of eight ministers of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) that will take effect in August 2025.
You may be interested in: 17 state congresses approve reform to make modifications to the Constitution unchallengeable
The deadline to file a refusal to participate in next year’s election expired at the last minute on October 30.
The number of judges who will not participate exceeds the vacancies drawn by raffle on October 12, which were 711, of which 350 are magistrates and 361 judges; Therefore, it is not ruled out that among the declines there are also judges who will seek another position or who were not drawn for next year’s election, such as the case of the magistrate of the third Collegiate Court on labor matters of the second circuit in Toluca, José Antonio. Abel Aguilar, who declared to 24 HORAS that, despite the fact that his position is going to be renewed in 2027, decided to present once and for all his decline to participate in the election.
“I came to present the declination so as not to contest either the 2025 or 2027 election, I came out unsanctioned but for the (20)27 process, but once and for all it is my intention to present this declination to this process.”
Related
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Judicial Expert
Editor: Good day, and welcome to Time.news. Today, we have with us Dr. Elena Martinez, a leading expert on judicial reforms and constitutional law. Dr. Martinez, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Martinez: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Recently, we witnessed an unprecedented scenario where 859 judges declined to participate in a contest established by the Morena party and their allies in the Senate. What do you think prompted such a massive withdrawal?
Dr. Martinez: This is indeed an extraordinary development. The judges’ refusal to participate signifies a deep-seated concern regarding the legitimacy and integrity of the selection process. Many judges likely perceive this contest as politically motivated rather than a genuine effort to enhance the judiciary’s independence. Given the political climate and the reform’s implications, their decision reflects a significant lack of trust in the current administration.
Editor: Fascinating! Trust in judicial systems is fundamental for a healthy democracy. Could you explain how this refusal might impact the judicial system in the long term?
Dr. Martinez: Absolutely. In the long term, the refusal of so many judges to engage in this contest could lead to a significant judicial crisis. If the quality of judges declines due to a lack of qualified candidates willing to participate in a politically influenced selection process, it could undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Moreover, this scenario might set a precedent where judges feel they must choose between integrity and career advancement, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the branches of government.
Editor: That sounds quite concerning. What do you think are the next steps for the Mexican judiciary in light of this situation?
Dr. Martinez: The immediate next steps should include open dialogue among judicial stakeholders. The Senate should consider revisiting the selection process to ensure it’s transparent and fair. Additionally, there needs to be a concerted effort to restore trust by establishing clear guidelines that fortify judicial independence. Perhaps independent bodies should oversee such contests to mitigate political influence.
Editor: Your insight is incredibly valuable. This situation clearly highlights the tensions between political power and judicial independence. In your view, how can other countries can learn from Mexico’s experience?
Dr. Martinez: Many nations grapple with similar issues regarding judicial independence and political influence. Mexico’s experience serves as a cautionary tale that underscores the importance of having robust legal frameworks that protect the judiciary from political pressures. Moreover, it demonstrates the need for civil society and international organizations to engage in advocating for judiciary reforms and supporting independent judicial bodies.
Editor: Very enlightening! As we wrap up, what message would you like to convey to those watching, especially regarding the role of judges in upholding democracy?
Dr. Martinez: I would emphasize that judges are the backbone of democracy. Their role is not only to interpret the law but to uphold justice without fear or favor. It is crucial for countries to protect and empower their judiciary, ensuring that judges can operate independently of political whims. The strength and integrity of a nation’s judicial system are vital for preserving the rule of law and, ultimately, democracy itself.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Martinez, for your insightful perspectives today. It’s been a pleasure to have you with us.
Dr. Martinez: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure discussing these critical issues.
Editor: And thank you to our audience for tuning in to this important conversation. Stay informed and engaged as we continue to cover developments in judicial reforms and many other topics. Until next time!