Mexican president hails first judicial election a ‘complete success' after just 13% turnout
Around 13% of Mexicans likely turned out to vote in the country's first-ever judicial election, Mexico's INE electoral authority said on Monday, as the government hailed a successful process while analysts said the low turnout could undermine an already controversial reform.
President Claudia Sheinbaum estimated that some 13 million of around 100 million eligible voters cast ballots on Sunday to elect some 2,600 judges and magistrates, including all nine Supreme Court justices.
Counting is set to conclude on June 15, but INE officials estimated the turnout at between 12.57% and 13.32% using a calculation based on several samples taken across the country.
Sheinbaum called the process a 'complete success,' citing a free vote and a frugal campaign at a morning press conference.
'Everything can be perfected. We will draw conclusions from yesterday to make improvements for 2027,' she said, pointing to another vote in two years that is scheduled to fill over 1,000 more judicial positions.
Interior Minister Rosa Icela Rodriguez said that 'the voting took place in a climate of peace and tranquility across the length and breadth of the country.'
'Yesterday's turnout at the polls met expectations,' she said. 'It was an innovative process that generated interest among the participants.'
Voting in Mexico is not mandatory and there is no minimum turnout required to legitimize an election. Pollsters had warned of poor turnout over boycott calls by the opposition and the complexity of voting for a large number of candidates.
Goldman Sachs' chief Latin America economist, Alberto Ramos, said in a note that the low turnout took away from the process' legitimacy, and that the pre-selection process and logistical organization were 'fraught with controversy.'
'The vast majority of the roughly 3,400 candidates were largely unknown, many have limited legal experience and some questionable credentials for the seats they are seeking,' he said.
Bradesco analyst Rodolfo Ramos said he thought the turnout was surprisingly low, 'considering Sheinbaum's high approval rating and the fact that the majority of Mexicans were in favor of directly voting for judges.'
Sheinbaum, who inherited the judicial election project from her predecessor and mentor, former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has backed the vote as a way to democratize justice and root out corruption and nepotism.
However, critics say it could remove checks and balances on the executive power and allow for organized crime groups to wield greater influence by running their own candidates.
The run-up to the vote had been dominated by a scandal over some of the candidates, including a convicted drug smuggler and a former lawyer of drug kingpin Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman.
Late on Sunday, Mexico's Specialized Prosecutor's Office for Electoral Crimes said it had received 23 reports of possible electoral crimes related to the elections of nearly 900 positions at the federal-level judiciary.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Share of married LGBTQ Americans slips from 2016-2017 peak: Gallup
The share of married LGBTQ Americans has slipped from its 2016-2017 peak, according to Gallup, as the court opinion allowing same-sex marriages approaches the 10-year mark. Between June 2016 and June 2017, 10.2 percent of LGBTQ Americans were in same-sex marriages, according to polling from Gallup. From 2021 to 2024, Gallup found 8 percent of LGBTQ Americans in such marriages, a 2.2-point drop. Meanwhile, 11.3 percent were in a marriage with an opposite-sex spouse, in the most recent survey. But Gallup noted that overall, more same-sex marriages exist now, even considering the dip. 'Even though the percentage of LGBTQ+ adults who are married to a same-sex spouse has declined, the number of same-sex marriages in the U.S. is still likely higher than in the past. That is because the percentage of LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. population as a whole is increasing more than the marriage rate among LGBTQ+ adults is decreasing,' The Supreme Court's 2015 decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, a landmark moment for LGBTQ rights after years of effort from activists on the issue. The Gallup survey also noted that while Americans' support for same-sex marriage has risen to 70 percent, 'the percentage of Americans in favor of legal same-sex marriage appears to be leveling off, if not declining slightly, because of reduced support among Republicans.' In the last few years, the transgender community has been increasingly targeted by the right on the state and federal level. Shortly after returning to office in January, President Trump signed an executive order recognizing male and female as the only two sexes and directing federal agencies to halt promotion of the concept of gender transition. 'As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female,' Trump said in his inaugural address. The 2021-2024 Gallup polling featured 2,670 LGBTQ adults and plus or minus 2 percentage points as its margin of sampling error.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Migrant DHS accused of threatening Trump was framed: Prosecutors
A Wisconsin inmate is facing charges over allegations he forged threatening letters against President Trump in an effort to frame a potential witness in an upcoming criminal trial and get him deported before he could testify. Demetric Deshawn Scott was charged on Monday with identity theft, bail jumping and felony intimidation of a witness, according to a court filing. Prosecutors say Scott is responsible for several letters sent to U.S. officials that included threats to kill the president and ICE agents. The letters purported to be from Ramón Morales Reyes, whose name and return address were written in blue ink on each letter. 'The letters were all handwritten and, although not exactly the same, all wrote about immigration policy and threatening to kill ICE agents or President Donald Trump. Those letters also appeared to be written by the same person,' prosecutors said in the filing. Morales Reyes was arrested by ICE agents, and his arrest was publicized online by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which posted his image as well as one of the letters. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also issued a statement describing him as an 'illegal alien' and said he would remain in custody 'pending his removal proceedings.' 'We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans — we have done more for this count[r]y than you white people — you have been deporting my family and I think it is time Donald Trump get what he has coming to him,' one of the letters read, according to prosecutors. 'I will self deport myself back to Mexico but not before I use my 30 yard 6 to shoot your precious president in his head – I will see him at one of his big rall[ie]s' But, prosecutors say, after Morales Reyes was taken into custody, it soon became clear he could not have written the letters. Morales Reyes required translation assistance during the interview because he 'does not read, write, or fluently speak English.' Officials also compared a handwriting sample from Morales Reyes to the letter and there was no match. According to the court filing, investigators asked Morales Reyes, through a translator, who would want to get him 'in trouble.' Morales Reyes said the only person would be Scott, who was facing charges for robbing Morales Reyes. Investigators later listened to several calls from jail where Scott allegedly described plans to frame Morales Reyes.
Vox
2 hours ago
- Vox
A federal court's novel proposal to rein in Trump's power grab
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards. An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears civil servants' claims that a 'government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,' as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger. The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he'd 'been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,' and was working to get 'all probationary employees put back on the job [after] their unlawful firing' by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. Related The Supreme Court just revealed one thing it actually fears about Trump These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office. Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem. As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they've been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck. But the Fourth Circuit's Owen opinion argues that this 'conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.' That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to 'fulfill their roles prescribed by' federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants. For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit's decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to 'conduct a factual inquiry' into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice. If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating. The 'unitary executive,' or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protections Federal law provides that Dellinger could 'be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,' and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump's decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws. But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump's decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the 'unitary executive,' which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court. If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I've written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings. Related The legal theory that would make Trump the most powerful president in US history But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove 'principal officers' — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia's approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection. The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court's decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn't be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants. The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases. It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit's reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down. When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as 'severability.' Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid. The Fourth Circuit's decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court's conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit's conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes. If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functions The idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883. Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president's enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs. Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election? Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House 'before he even sat down to breakfast.' By the time Garfield had eaten, this line 'snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.' Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.
