Mexico president defends world-first judicial vote despite low turnout
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum hit back Monday at criticism of her country's unprecedented election of judges, after most voters skipped a ballot that her opponents called a farce.
Sunday's election followed highly contentious reforms making Mexico the only country in the world to let voters select all of their judges, including Supreme Court justices.
As officials began the long process of tallying votes, Sheinbaum hailed the "complete success" of an exercise she said was needed to clean up a judiciary mired in corruption.
The National Electoral Institute said around 13 percent of eligible voters took part in a poll that critics said would erode democratic checks and balances and leave judges more vulnerable to criminal influence.
The low participation rate compared with turnout of around 60 percent in presidential elections last year that Sheinbaum won by a landslide.
The veteran left-winger told Mexicans on Monday that they have "nothing to fear."
"Mexico is a free, democratic country -- that won't change. Nothing will change, except access to justice," she said at her daily news conference.
Sheinbaum pushed back at claims "that we're heading toward authoritarianism and that the president will have a lot of power because she'll control the judiciary."
"Now the judges, magistrates and justices answer to the people," she said, rejecting comparisons to authoritarian states like Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
- 'Dark day' -
The leader of the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), Alejandro Moreno, denounced the vote as a "farce" and called it a "dark day for democracy."
The elections showed Sheinbaum's Morena party was "willing to do anything to concentrate power. They weaken the justice system, trample on institutions, and block the way to democratic debate," he said.
Many voters seemed daunted by the long list of largely unknown candidates in an election for around 880 federal judges as well as hundreds of local judges and magistrates.
Another election for the remainder will be held in 2027.
Arturo Giesemann, a 57-year-old retiree, said his main reason for voting was "the disgust I have with the current judiciary because of its corruption."
In the western state of Jalisco, 63-year-old housewife Maria Estrada said she used her "intuition" because she did not know the candidates.
Hundreds of opponents of the reforms marched through Mexico City waving flags and banners with slogans including: "Hands off our democracy" and "No to electoral fraud."
The elections send the judiciary "to its grave," said Ismael Novela, a 58-year-old company worker.
"It was the last counterweight we had against the totalitarianism of the executive branch."
- 'Good reputation' -
Rights group Defensorxs had identified around 20 candidates it considered "high risk," including Silvia Delgado, a former lawyer for Sinaloa Cartel co-founder Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman.
Another aspiring judge, in Durango state, spent almost six years in prison in the United States for drug crimes.
Candidates were supposed to have a law degree, experience in legal affairs and what is termed "a good reputation," as well as no criminal record in Mexico.
To do a good job, voters would have had "to spend hours and hours researching the track record and the profiles of each of the hundreds of candidates," said David Shirk, an expert on Mexico's justice system at the University of San Diego.
The judicial reforms were championed by Sheinbaum's predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who frequently clashed with the courts before stepping down last year.
The main reason for the elections seems to be "because Lopez Obrador had a grudge against the judges," Shirk said.
bur-dr/bjt
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations. In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit. The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise. 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF). 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.' The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'. The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers. Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people. Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014. The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms. The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice. That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad. In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC. But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country. The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers. 'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote. 'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.'' On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. 'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement. Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'. But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
Trump Travel Ban Punishes Victims of the U.S. War Machine
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation banning travelers from 12 countries from entering the United States and partially restricting visitors from seven other nations. 'We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court,' wrote Trump in a written statement. The restriction goes into effect on Monday, June 9. The full ban applies to foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The partial ban applies to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. In a video address posted on social media, Trump said a recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, '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.' He added, 'We don't want 'em.' The man charged with that attack is from Egypt, which is not one of the countries listed in the travel ban. The list overlaps with the sites of U.S. military and CIA misadventures stretching back more than a century, including Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered many who have worked to resettle its people in America. The travel ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, or SIV — a classification granted to people who worked closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. That still leaves many former allies and their families on the outside looking in. The ban also comes as the Department of Homeland Security's termination of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Afghanistan is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. During America's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. government helped evacuate around 80,000 Afghans who aided U.S. forces, ranging from interpreters to CIA-trained fighters and their families, including members of so-called Zero Units implicated in the killings of civilians. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day back in office. Andrew Sullivan, a U.S. Army veteran and the executive director of No One Left Behind, which advocates on behalf of SIV applicants, expressed gratitude for the Trump administration's exemption for Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders. 'However, there are still many allies who served shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States who are being left behind because they do not qualify for the SIV program,' he said. 'This includes those who were injured in the line of duty and were unable to complete a full year of service, the women and men of the Afghan National Army who trained and served with U.S. Special Forces, and many more.' 'People in other nations fall victim to the same cycle — trusting U.S. promises, only to be abandoned when perceived strategic interests shift.' Trump's Afghan abandonment isn't unique, however. It follows in a long tradition of American desertion of wartime allies that includes partners from Southeast Asia — like Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia — to the Middle East. 'This isn't a Trump-era phenomenon; it's a pattern that spans decades, from Vietnam to Afghanistan and from Kurds to Ukrainians,' said Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy, an advocacy group critical of mainstream Washington foreign policy. 'It's no secret that ostensible American partners in the developing world often end up worse off as a result of Washington's actions. Yet time and again, people in other nations fall victim to the same cycle — trusting U.S. promises, only to be abandoned when perceived strategic interests shift.' Afghanistan was not part of Trump's first-term travel ban but, in the time since, fell to the Taliban when the U.S. withdrew its forces in 2021 under the Biden administration. This resulted from a peace deal with the Taliban signed by the Trump administration in 2020. Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.' He also cited its visa overstay rates as a reason for the nation's inclusion in the new travel ban. Sullivan said many U.S. allies would be harmed by the restrictions. 'They stood by us in war but now face danger because of their service with no clear way out,' he told The Intercept. 'We must keep our promise to them as well.' Earlier this week, around 100 members of Congress called on the Trump Administration to reverse its decision to end TPS for Afghans. 'This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country,' they wrote, noting that it would negatively impact approximately 9,000 Afghan nationals. 'Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions.' Sperling said the United States should be upfront about its history of abandoning its partners when they outlive their usefulness. 'If American policymakers are serious about building durable soft power around the world, they should reckon with this history and ensure that future allies understand the risks before taking U.S. advice,' he told The Intercept, noting that America's latest exercise in ally abandonment may have far reaching consequences. 'Many Afghans reasonably relied on U.S. promises and put their trust in the U.S.-backed plans for their country,' he said. 'Turning our back on them now is both immoral as well as a strategic blunder that will undermine U.S. interests in the region for the foreseeable future.'
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Straight Woman In ‘Reverse Discrimination' Case
Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
