logo
Mexico's ruling party headed toward control of newly elected Supreme Court, vote tallies show

Mexico's ruling party headed toward control of newly elected Supreme Court, vote tallies show

The Hindu2 days ago

Mexico's ruling Morena party appeared to be heading toward control over the Supreme Court, preliminary vote tallies of the country's first judicial election indicated.
While votes were still being counted for the majority of the 2,600 federal, state and local judge positions up for grabs in Sunday's judicial elections, results rolled in for the nine Supreme Court positions.
The majority of the newly elected justices share strong ties and ideological alignments with the ruling party, shifting a once fairly balanced high court into the hands of the very party that overhauled the judicial system to elect judges for the first time.
Increased control of governing party
Experts warned the shift would undercut checks and balances in the Latin American nation: The governing party would now be close to controlling all three branches of government, and President Claudia Sheinbaum and her party also would have a easier path to push through their agenda.
'We're watching as power is falling almost entirely into the hands of one party,' said Georgina De la Fuente, election specialist with the Mexican consulting firm Strategia Electoral. 'There isn't any balance of power.'
Some of those headed toward election were members or former members of the party. A number of them, who were Supreme Court justices prior to the election, were appointed by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Sheinbaum's mentor who pushed through the judicial overhaul last year.
Others were advisers to the president or the party or campaigned with politically aligned visions for the judiciary.
Not all of the prospective winners were explicitly aligned with Morena. One standout was Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, an Indigenous lawyer from the southern state of Oaxaca. He has no clear party affiliation, though Sheinbaum said repeatedly she hoped to have an Indigenous judge on the court.
Control on judiciary
That Morena would emerge from the election with control of the judiciary was what critics had feared.
The vote came after months of fierce debate, prompted when López Obrador and the party jammed through the reforms for judges to be elected instead of being appointed based on merits. The overhaul will notably limit the Supreme Court as a counterweight to the president.
Critics say the judicial reform was an attempt to take advantage of high popularity levels to stack courts in favor of the party. Sheinbaum and her mentor have insisted that electing judges will root out corruption in a system most Mexicans agree is broken.
'Whoever says that there is authoritarianism in Mexico is lying,' Sheinbaum said during the vote. 'Mexico is a country that is only becoming more free, just and democratic because that is the will of the people.'
The elections were marred by low participation — about 13% — and confusion by voters who struggled to understand the new voting system, something opponents quickly latched onto as a failure.
De la Fuente said Morena is likely to use its new lack of counterweight in the high court to push through rounds of reforms, including electoral changes.
Early Tuesday, nearly 87% of the ballots had been tallied and counting was continuing.
— Hugo Aguilar Ortiz was the big surprise from the election. The Indigenous lawyer led all vote-getters, including several sitting Supreme Court justices. He's known as a legal activist fighting for the rights of Indigenous Mexicans and has criticized corruption in the judiciary.
— Lenia Batres was already a Supreme Court justice and was appointed by López Obrador. Previously a congresswoman, she's a member of Morena and clearly an ally of Mexico's president.
— Yasmín Esquivel is a Supreme Court justice who was appointed by López Obrador. She focused her campaign on modernizing the justice system and has pushed for gender equality. She was at the center of a 2022 controversy when she was accused of plagiarizing her thesis. She is considered an ally of the Morena party.
— Loretta Ortiz is a justice on the Supreme Court who was appointed by López Obrador. She also served in Congress and resigned from Morena in 2018 in a show of independence as a judge. Despite that, she's considered an ally of the party.
— María Estela Ríos González is a lawyer who acted as legal adviser to López Obrador, first when he was mayor of Mexico City and later when he became president. She has a long history as a public servant and work in labor law and on a number of Indigenous issues.
— Giovanni Figueroa Mejía is a lawyer from the Pacific coast state of Nayarit with a doctorate in constitutional law. He currently works as an academic at the Iberoamericana University in Mexico City. He's worked in human rights. While he holds no clear party affiliation, he supported the judicial overhaul pushed forward by Morena, saying in an interview with his university that the overhaul 'was urgent and necessary in order to rebuild' the judiciary. He said some of his work in constitutional law was cited in justifying the reform.
— Irving Espinosa Betanzo is a magistrate on Mexico City's Supreme Court and has previously worked as a congressional adviser to Morena. He campaigned for the country's highest court on a platform of eliminating nepotism and corruption and pushing for human rights.
— Arístides Rodrigo Guerrero García is a law professor pushing for social welfare with no experience as a judge, but who has worked as a public servant and has experience in both constitutional and parliamentary law. He gained traction in campaigns for a social media video of him claiming he's 'more prepared than a pork rind.'
— Sara Irene Herrerías Guerra is a prosecutor specializing in human rights for Mexico's Attorney General's Office. She's worked on issues like gender equality, sexually transmitted infections and human trafficking. In 2023, she worked on the investigation of a fire in an immigration facility in the border city of Ciudad Juárez that killed 40 migrants.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Election of Mexico's first indigenous supreme court justice in 170 years raises hope, scepticism
Election of Mexico's first indigenous supreme court justice in 170 years raises hope, scepticism

The Hindu

time2 hours ago

  • The Hindu

Election of Mexico's first indigenous supreme court justice in 170 years raises hope, scepticism

In his campaign for Mexico's Supreme Court, Hugo Aguilar sent a simple message: He would be the one to finally give Indigenous Mexicans a voice at one of the highest levels of government. 'It's our turn as Indigenous people... to make decisions in this country,' he said in the lead up to Sunday's (May 31, 2025) first judicial elections in Mexican history. Now, the 52-year-old Aguilar, a lawyer from the Mixtec people in Mexico's southern Oaxaca state, will be the first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in nearly 170 years in the Latin American nation, according to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. He could lead the High Court. The last Indigenous justice to do so was Mexican hero and former President Benito Juárez, who ran the court from 1857 to 1858. For some, Mr. Aguilar has become a symbol of hope for 23 million Indigenous people long on the forgotten fringes of Mexican society. But others fiercely criticize his past, and worry that instead of representing them, he will instead stand with the ruling party, Morena, that ushered him onto the court. Top vote getter in controversial contest Supporters cite Mr. Aguilar's long history of working on Indigenous rights, while critics say that more recently he's helped push the governing party's agenda, including former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador's massive infrastructure projects, at the expense of Indigenous communities. Mr. Aguilar's team said he would not comment until after official results were confirmed. 'He's not an Indigenous candidate,' said Francisco López Bárcenas, a distinguished Mixtec lawyer from the same region as Mr. Aguilar, who once worked with him decades ago. He applauded the election of an Indigenous justice, but said, 'He's an Indigenous man who became a candidate.' Mr. Aguilar was elected in Mexico's first judicial election, a process that's been criticised as weakening Mexico's system of checks and balances. Mr. López Obrador and his party overhauled the judicial system the populist leader was long at odds. Instead of appointing judges through experience, voters elected judges to 2,600 federal, state and local positions. But the vote was marked by a very low voter turnout, about 13%. Mr. López Obrador and his successor and protege President Claudia Sheinbaum claimed the election would cut corruption in the courts. Judges, watchdogs and political opposition called it a blatant attempt to use the party's political popularity to stack courts in their favour, and gain control of all three branches of Mexico's government. While votes are still being counted in many races, the tally of results for nine Supreme Court justices came in first. The vast majority of the justices hold strong ties to the ruling party, handing Morena potential control over the high court. Mr. Aguilar's name was among those that appeared on pamphlets suggesting which candidates to vote for, which electoral authorities are investigating. A focus on Indigenous rights Mr. Aguilar scooped up more than 6 million votes, more than any other candidate, including three who currently serve on the Supreme Court. The victory opened the possibility of Mr. Aguilar not just serving on the court, but leading it. Critics attributed his win to Mexico's highly popular president repeatedly saying she wanted an Indigenous judge on the Supreme Court in the lead up to the election. On Wednesday (June 4, 2025) she said she was thrilled he was on the court. 'He is a very good lawyer,' she said. 'I have the privilege of knowing his work not just on Indigenous issues, but in general. He has wide knowledge and is a modest and simple man.' The Supreme Court has handed down decisions that, for example, establish the right of Indigenous people to be assisted by interpreters who speak their native language and defence attorneys in any legal process. But there remain significant outstanding issues like territorial disputes in cases of mega-projects. Mr. Aguilar began his career in Oaxaca's capital, working for SERmixe, an organization advocating for Indigenous rights as a law student in his mid-20s. Sofía Robles, a member of the organization remembers young Mr. Aguilar being passionate, choosing to be a lawyer to advocate for Indigenous communities often living in poverty and out of reach of the law. 'He had this conviction, and there were many things he wouldn't conform with,' 63-year-old Robles said. 'From the very beginning, he knew where he came from.' Despite coming from a humble working-class family, he would work for the organisation for free after his law classes. He later worked there as a lawyer on agrarian issues for 13 years. After the Zapatista uprising in 1994, a guerrilla movement fighting for Indigenous rights in southern Mexico, Mr. Aguilar worked to carry out constitutional reforms recognising the basic rights of Mexico's Indigenous people. Ms. Robles said she believes he will bring that fight she saw in him to the Supreme Court. 'He gives us hope,' she said. 'Aguilar is going to be an example for future generations.' Ties to governing party But others like Romel González Díaz, a member of the Xpujil Indigenous Council in a Mayan community in southern Mexico, cast doubt on if Mr. Aguilar would truly act as a voice for their community. Mr. Aguilar's work came under fire when he joined the government's National Institute of Indigenous Peoples at the beginning of Mr. López Obrador's administration in 2018. It was then that he began to work on a mega-project known as the Maya Train, fiercely criticised by environmentalists, Indigenous communities and even the United Nations. The train, which runs in a rough loop around the Yucatan peninsula, has deforested large swathes of jungle and irreversibly damaged an ancient cave system sacred to Indigenous populations there. Mr. Aguilar was tasked with investigating the potential impacts of the train, hearing the concerns of local Indigenous communities and informing them of the consequences. That was when Mr. González Díaz met Mr. Aguilar, who arrived with a handful of government officials, who sat down for just a few hours with his small community in Xpujil, and provided sparse details about the negative parts of the project. Mr. González Díaz's organisation was among many to take legal action against the government in an attempt to block train construction for not properly studying the project's impacts. The environmental destruction left in the project's wake is something that continues to fuel his distrust for Mr. Aguilar. 'The concern with Hugo is: Who is he going to represent?' González Díaz said. 'Is he going to represent the [Morena] party or is he going to represent the Indigenous people?'

BJP worker murder case: SC allows Karntaka Congress MLA Kulkarni to place additional documents
BJP worker murder case: SC allows Karntaka Congress MLA Kulkarni to place additional documents

Hans India

time2 hours ago

  • Hans India

BJP worker murder case: SC allows Karntaka Congress MLA Kulkarni to place additional documents

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday granted a day's time to Congress' Karnataka MLA and former Minister Vinay Kulkarni to place on record additional documents against the state government's plea for cancellation of his bail in connection with the murder of BJP worker Yogesh Gowda over allegations of witness-tampering. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request of Kulkarni's counsel to adjourn the hearing till next week for bringing certain documents which were filed before the trial court. After much persuasion, the Justice Karol-led Bench adjourned the hearing till Friday, and in the meantime, asked Kulkarni's lawyer to bring on record the additional documents. "It shall be open for the respondent (Vinay Kulkarni) to place on record any document either during the course of the day or hand over the same during the course of the hearing tomorrow," ordered the apex court. Earlier on Wednesday, the Justice Karol-led Bench restrained the trial court from examining any witnesses till further orders, and listed the matter for hearing on June 5. Kulkarni, presently the Chairman of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, was accused of conspiring in the murder of BJP Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Gowda in 2016. He was then a cabinet minister in the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government. Though his name came up, no action was initiated against him. The BJP made it an issue, and former Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa vowed at election rallies that he would send Kulkarni to jail if the BJP was voted to power. Later, the case was handed over to the CBI, and Kulkarni was arrested. He spent more than 9 months in jail and finally obtained bail from the Supreme Court. Last year, the Karnataka High Court had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to complete the inquiry and questioning of witnesses in the case swiftly. Kulkarni, who is deemed close to Siddaramaiah, was elected from the Dharwad Assembly seat in the 2023 state polls, despite the court banning his entry into the constituency, and his wife and daughter campaigning on his behalf.

How the new Trump travel ban on 12 countries differs from his previous ‘Muslim ban'
How the new Trump travel ban on 12 countries differs from his previous ‘Muslim ban'

Indian Express

time2 hours ago

  • Indian Express

How the new Trump travel ban on 12 countries differs from his previous ‘Muslim ban'

Effective Monday (June 9), citizens from 12 nations, primarily from Africa and the Middle East, will be denied entry into the US, following a proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on Wednesday (June 4). The move revives an effort from his first term (2017-21) to ban entry to vast numbers of immigrants and visitors. Citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be banned from entry. The proclamation also announced restrictions on people travelling from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. While Trump has batted for banning entry to Muslim migrants and visitors during his first term, his efforts to institute a travel ban faced a Supreme Court challenge before it was implemented in a limited capacity. This ban was revoked by Joe Biden when he became President in 2021. The current ban, while expected, is expected to hold up against court challenges, and builds on an executive order signed on his first day, authorising US national security agencies to conduct 'a robust assessment of the risk that countries posed to the United States, including regarding terrorism and national security.' The present move comes on the heels of a terror attack by an Egyptian man in Colorado earlier this week, with the Trump administration officials promising a crackdown in its aftermath. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' Trump said while announcing the travel ban. 'We don't want them.' Here is what to know about the new ban, and how it compares to his efforts from his first term. In a Fact Sheet shared by the White House, the Trump administration said that the country-specific bans would 'encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country's unique circumstances'. This opens the possibility for each country to seek bilateral talks and discussions with the US to ease the restrictions, in an effort similar to the trade deals following Trump's tariff announcements. The countries thus far have been identified based on: This rationale has also been used to restrict entry to people from seven nations, without instituting an outright ban. Countries Identified Travel Ban State-sponsored terrorism, or a safe haven for terrorists Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan Cuba Lack of a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents Afghanistan, Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen Venezuela High visa overstay rate Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Sudan Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela Not accepting their removable nationals Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Iran, Somalia Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Venezuela The fact sheet explicitly calls Iran and Cuba state sponsors of terrorism, and Somalia a terrorist safe haven. Interestingly, it recognises that Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, without outright condemning them. The fact sheet also sees 'hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens' who entered the US during Biden's term as a national security threat. It also notes that the governments in Yemen and Somalia lack command and control of their territories, with Somalia in particular standing out for the extent to which this is the case. The ban exempts certain categories of individuals from the travel ban: For one, the current ban must be viewed in the context of Trump's larger, systematic crackdown on immigration. Since his return to the White House in January, he imposed a national emergency at the country's southern border, denying entry to asylum-seekers, has authorised nationwide immigration raids, and barred international admissions to Harvard University. Legal experts cited in a report in The New York Times believe the current iteration of the travel ban would withstand legal scrutiny better than the efforts in his first term. 'They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,' Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center told the NYT. 'But a lot will depend upon how it's actually enforced — and whether it's applied in ways that are themselves unlawful or even unconstitutional.' Vladeck noted that the announcement came after several months of Trump's inauguration, compared to the ban in the first term that came into place just a week after he became President. In the run-up to the 2016 US elections and after becoming President in 2017, Trump repeatedly expressed his desire to impose a 'Muslim ban', a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.' This was accompanied by incendiary rhetoric, with Trump saying 'Islam hates us' and that the US was 'having problems with Muslims coming into the country.' Further, this iteration of the travel ban does not single out Muslim nations, but focuses on administrative issues like visa overstay, or a threat to national security from political instability from the other nation. Trump enacted his first travel ban on January 27, 2017, barring entry to citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for a 90-day period. This was overturned by a federal judge the next month. A second attempt at a travel ban on all these countries, barring Iraq, was made that March, and spared individuals with an existing green card or valid visa. This was overturned by two federal judges that month, who ruled that it was illegal to ban travel from half a dozen countries. A third travel ban was announced in September 2017, barring entry to most citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The move exempted Iranian nationals with valid student and exchange visitor visas. Chad was subsequently removed from this list after its administration reached out to the US. This ban was finally upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018, which said the president has authority over national security concerns relating to immigration. A fourth travel ban was announced in January 2020, banning entry to immigrants from Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. Tourists and visitors entering the US temporarily were exempted. All travel bans were subsequently revoked by Biden, upon assuming the presidency in 2021.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store