Confusion and concern loom over Mexico's historic judicial election
On Sunday, Mexico embarks on an election believed to be the first of its kind: Voters will cast ballots for all of the country's judges, half now and half in 2027.
Judges of all levels will be in the running. Some candidates are competing to serve on the Supreme Court. Others are aiming for federal district or circuit courts. Still more are competing for the thousands of open positions on the state and local levels.
By one estimate, if a voter spent five minutes researching each federal candidate on their ballot, they would need more than 15 hours to complete the task.
Therein lies the dilemma, according to many election experts. While the Mexican government has touted the election as a milestone in democratic participation, critics fear the vote could in fact be vulnerable to political manipulation or criminal groups.
Julio Rios Figueroa, a law professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM), considers the election a step towards "democratic erosion".
He fears the vote "will eliminate the judiciary as a countervailing factor" that balances other more overtly political branches of government, like the presidency and Congress.
Then, of course, there's the sheer challenge of keeping track of all the candidates.
'For a citizen who has the time and the interest, it's a very difficult task," Ríos Figueroa said. "Now, there are many citizens who don't have the time or the interest."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Brazil's Supreme Court declines to arrest Bolsonaro over social media ban
The Brazilian Supreme Court has confirmed it has no plans to take former President Jair Bolsonaro into custody for now, after it warned earlier this week he could be arrested for a potential violation of a social media ban. On Thursday, Justice Alexandre de Moraes described the incident as 'isolated' and opted against an arrest warrant. De Moraes has overseen a case into whether Bolsonaro, a popular far-right figure, attempted a coup against the government of current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, following his defeat in the 2022 presidential election. The case has been a flashpoint in national and international politics, with Bolsonaro's supporters — among them, United States President Donald Trump — calling the prosecution politically motivated. Bolsonaro has long denied orchestrating a scheme to retain power after his four-year term came to a close in 2023. But prosecutors have accused the former president and his allies of scheming to topple Lula's incoming government by undermining confidence in the vote, declaring a state of emergency to suspend the government's functions, and ultimately holding a new election. Bolsonaro never publicly acknowledged his loss in 2022, and he left the country at the end of his term rather than hand over power to Lula. His supporters, meanwhile, stormed police headquarters in the capital, blocked highways, and eventually ransacked government buildings representing the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court, in an apparent attempt to spark a military uprising. In June, Bolsonaro testified for the first time in the case, forcefully rejecting the allegations against him: 'There was never any talk of a coup.' Prosecutors, meanwhile, have pointed to testimony indicating that Bolsonaro had received and edited a draft from his allies for the declaration of emergency. They say Bolsonaro even had a speech prepared to announce the alleged coup. The high-stakes trial has prompted a backlash from Trump, who threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian imports to the US, starting on August 1, to force an end to the prosecution. In a letter announcing the tariffs, Trump called the proceedings 'an international disgrace' and compared his myriad legal woes to Bolsonaro's. 'This trial should not be taking place,' Trump wrote. 'It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!' Justice de Moraes cited international pressure as he imposed a suite of restrictions last Friday to cut off Bolsonaro's interactions with foreign officials and curtail his movements. Already, Bolsonaro's passport had been confiscated, for fear he might be a flight risk. But to prevent him from fleeing abroad, de Moraes ruled that Bolsonaro should be placed under house arrest on nights and weekends. In addition, the justice decided that Bolsonaro needed to wear an ankle monitor and cease posting to social media, in addition to severing contact with foreign governments. Since that time, however, Bolsonaro has made media appearances to show off his ankle monitor and blast the Supreme Court's decisions, excerpts of which have been shared widely on social media. 'This is a symbol of the utmost humiliation,' Bolsonaro said of his ankle monitor. De Moraes accused Bolsonaro of having 'delivered a speech to be shown on digital platforms' and questioned whether it may have been a breach of the ban he imposed. He gave Bolsonaro's lawyers a window of 24 hours to respond to his concerns and warned that a violation could result in Bolsonaro's arrest. Bolsonaro's defence team, in response, denied breaching the social media ban and asked for clarity about its scope. The ban had restricted Bolsonaro's use of third parties to spread his messaging — but it was unclear whether news media fell within that category. In a court filing on Friday, de Moraes ultimately declined to detain Bolsonaro but warned that any future violations of his restrictions would culminate in his arrest. He clarified that Bolsonaro is not restricted from giving interviews to news outlets.
Al Jazeera
4 days ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court says Trump can remove Democrats from consumer safety panel
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump can remove three Democratic members of a consumer safety watchdog, handing him a win in his efforts to concentrate more power in the hands of the executive. The court's decision allows Trump to boot three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission appointed by his Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden. That ruling reverses a lower court decision barring Trump from doing so, on the basis that he had overstepped his authority by seeking their removals. Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr had sued the Trump administration in May after being terminated from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an independent body created by Congress. Their seven-year terms were set to expire in 2025, 2027 and 2028, respectively. In their lawsuit, they argued that Trump had exceeded his powers as president by firing them without cause. A 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey's Executor holds that the president cannot fire members of an independent board without providing a legitimate justification. The commission members also said that their firing would deprive the public of vital expertise and oversight. The Department of Justice, however, has maintained that preventing the president from firing members of the executive branch undercuts his constitutional authority. Even independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission fall under the executive branch, the Justice Department pointed out. The Trump administration's argument was dealt a defeat on July 2, when US District Judge Matthew Maddox issued an order blocking the dismissal of the three Democratic appointees while their case proceeded. But Trump's Justice Department made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority sided with the president in a brief, unsigned order. The majority wrote that the government risked greater harm by allowing fired employees to remain in the executive branch than by removing them, even wrongfully, while their court cases proceeded. The court's three left-leaning justices, however, issued a dissent that denounced the ruling as an erosion of the separation of powers. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the Consumer Product Safety Commission was created by an act of Congress and answers both to the legislature and the president. 'By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress's choice of agency bipartisanship and independence,' Kagan wrote. She added that the court's decision on Wednesday was part of a series of rulings that amounted to 'an increase of executive power at the expense of legislative authority'. The Trump administration has sought to exercise greater control over federal agencies created and funded by Congress, often using a maximalist interpretation of presidential powers to do so. The Supreme Court, which has six conservative members, has mostly ruled in favour of such efforts. In a similar case in May, the court allowed Trump to remove Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board as their cases moved forward. The Supreme Court also ruled earlier this month that the Trump administration's efforts to hollow out the Department of Education through a campaign of mass firings could move forward.
Al Jazeera
6 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Bolsonaro's son blasts top Brazilian court official over assets freeze
Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has ordered the freezing of the accounts and assets of former President Jair Bolsonaro's third son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, while the former president may now face arrest over his activities on social media. Eduardo, a Brazilian congressman who has been active in Washington, DC, drumming up support for his father's court battle, called the decision 'another arbitrary and criminal decision' by Moraes. 'Moraes relies on illegal decisions to protect himself from the consequences of his crimes. Like every dictator,' Eduardo Bolsonaro said in a post on X on Tuesday. 'If he thinks this will make me stop, I make it clear: I will not be intimidated, and I will not be silenced. I prepared myself for this moment,' he said. 'This is just another demonstration of abuse of power and confirms everything I have been denouncing in Washington and to authorities worldwide,' he added. CNN Brasil first reported that the confidential court decision was issued on Saturday as part of a probe into Eduardo Bolsonaro's conduct in the United States. In a separate court order issued on Monday, Justice Moraes, who oversees the criminal case in which the former president is accused of plotting a coup to overturn the result of the 2022 election, said any attempt to circumvent a court ruling in which he ordered Bolsonaro to wear an ankle bracelet and banned him from using social media could result in arrest. Brazilian news outlet G1 reported that Moraes summoned Bolsonaro's lawyers to clarify their client's alleged non-compliance with his court order restricting his use of social media. According to G1, Moraes gave the lawyers 24 hours to present an explanation, adding that if the defence does not adequately justify Bolsonaro's online behaviour, he may order the immediate arrest of the former president. On Friday, Bolsonaro described the decision by Moraes to prohibit his social media use as 'cowardice', and said he intended to continue engaging with the media to ensure his voice was heard. Vera Chemim, a Sao Paulo-based constitutional lawyer, told the Reuters news agency that she believed the country's former leader is now on shaky ground, noting that media interviews, while not explicitly mentioned in the court order, could still be used to justify Bolsonaro's arrest. 'Bolsonaro is now completely silenced,' she said. 'Any misstep could lead to a preventive arrest.' The tightening restrictions on Bolsonaro come after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Brazilian court officials, and specifically Justice Moraes, were conducting a 'political witch-hunt' against the former president. As a result, the US was revoking travel visas for 'Moraes and his allies on the court, as well as their immediate family members', Rubio said. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula swiftly labelled Washington's decision to impose visa bans on court officials 'arbitrary' and 'baseless', saying that foreign interference in his country's judiciary was 'unacceptable'. Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump threatened to impose a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods starting on August 1, as he called on Lula to drop the charges against Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, whose right-wing policies while in power earned him the nickname 'Trump of the Tropics ', has denied that he led an attempt to overthrow the government but acknowledged taking part in meetings aimed at reversing the 2022 election outcome.
