Mexico Votes in Sprawling, First-Ever Judiciary Election
Voters across Mexico went to the polls on Sunday to elect thousands of judges, from the local level to the Supreme Court, pressing ahead with one of the most far-reaching judicial overhauls ever attempted by a large democracy.
The process will transform the judiciary away from an appointment-based system, a change that leaders of the governing Morena party say will help root out corrupt officials, democratize the courts and give citizens a voice in who administers justice.
But although most Mexicans agree that their justice system is broken, the overhaul being enacted on Sunday has drawn sharp criticism from opposition figures and legal experts. They argue that it risks giving Morena extraordinary power over a third branch of government, throws out the old system's career requirements and opens the door to candidates who could be influenced by drug cartels.
Because the election is so ambitious — more than 2,600 judges and magistrates will be elected, out of more than 7,700 candidates — some election experts expected voter turnout to be low. As voting got underway, relatively few voters could be seen lining up to vote around the country.
In Tultitlán, in the state of Mexico, Jazmín Gutiérrez Ruiz, 37, was among those who cast ballots. She said that she hoped the election would root out corruption from the judiciary, and that her reasons were personal. Two of her brothers have spent two years in prison, accused of a murder 'they didn't do,' she said.
'I want the magistrates and judges to change, and for them to take the time to carefully look at the cases,' said Ms. Gutiérrez Ruiz, who works for a processed meat company. 'Just like my brothers, there are many people locked up unjustly.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Initiative to legalize adult cannabis use in Florida in 2026 qualifies for judicial review
Morgan Hill (center) from Safe & Smart Florida led the discussion with Leon County School Board member Darryl Jones (her immediate left) and former Democratic House Rep. Sean Shaw (immediate right) in Tampa on June 13, 2024. (Photo credit: Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) Smart & Safe Florida, the political committee working to get a constitutional amendment legalizing recreational marijuana use for adults before the voters next year, has collected enough petition signatures to trigger a review of its ballot language and financial impact – a significant step toward ultimately getting the amendment before voters in 2026. Smart & Safe Florida has collected more than 377,000 signatures. That's well above the number required to trigger a state Supreme Court review. Specifically, at a minimum Smart & Safe Florida needed to collect 220,016 signatures — or 25% of the 880,062 valid signatures from registered voters, with a minimum of 8% coming from voters in at least half of the state's 28 congressional districts. A similar proposal to legalize recreational cannabis in 2024 known as Amendment 3 received 56% of the vote, short of the 60% required for passage. Following that electoral loss, Smart & Safe secured approval to launch its campaign for the 2026 election. The petition drive process comes at the same time that Smart & Safe Florida and other organizations are fighting a new law passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature last month that will make it significantly more difficult for citizen-led constitutional amendments to make it on a ballot in Florida. Two weeks ago, Smart & Safe Florida and Florida Decides Healthcare, another group working to get a measure on the 2026 ballot, went before U.S. Federal District Judge Mark Walker to request that he block certain provisions of the law from taking effect – including the requirement that sponsors turn in completed petitions within 10 days after the voter signs the petition, a change from the previous deadline of 30 days. Tallahassee attorney Glenn Burhans Jr. said, prior to the new law taking effect, Smart & Safe Florida was collecting 78,000 signatures per week. Since the law took effect, he told Walker, the group was collecting between just 12,000 and 15,000 signatures per week. The next step in the process is for Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier to submit the proposed amendment's ballot language to the Florida Supreme Court so it can begin its review. The court's review is limited to whether the amendment conforms to a single subject and whether the ballot summary is clear. When then Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody transmitted her letter to the Florida Court regarding Amendment 3 two years ago, she also informed the justices that she opposed the measure. Uthmeier will likely do the same when he sends his letter to the Supreme Court. He chaired a political committee a year ago called Keep Florida Clean that was formed to oppose the weed measure.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lula vows to defend Brazil's Supreme Court as US threatens judge
By Manuela Andreoni SAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva vowed on Tuesday to defend his country's Supreme Court against attacks from the United States, in a sharp rebuke of potential sanctions from Washington against one of the top court's justices. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told U.S. lawmakers last month that President Donald Trump could slap economic sanctions on the judge overseeing the trial of Brazil's ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally accused of plotting a coup. "It is unacceptable for the president of any country in the world to comment on the decision of the Supreme Court of another country," Lula told reporters, adding that the United States needs to understand the importance of "respecting the integrity of institutions in other countries." Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has drawn fierce criticism from the Brazilian right while leading the court's aggressive curbing of what he has called threats to Brazil's democracy, both online and in an alleged coup plot. He started by ordering social media companies to take down posts from Bolsonaro supporters that he considered threats to democratic institutions, even suspending Elon Musk's social media platform X in Brazil until it caved to his orders. Musk and other right-wing platforms have accused Moraes of censorship. The judge also ordered the arrest of a conservative lawmaker who posted a video attacking the Supreme Court and oversaw a case against Bolsonaro supporters who vandalized government buildings after the former president lost the election. Moraes is now overseeing a case in which Bolsonaro is accused of leading an attempt to overthrow Brazil's democracy to reverse his loss in the 2022 presidential elections. He presided over the electoral court decision barring Bolsonaro from running for public office until 2030 due to behavior in that campaign. Several of those cases have involved criticism, threats and even an alleged assassination attempt targeting Moraes himself, but the Supreme Court has backed the judge's refusal to recuse himself, drawing further complaints from his critics. The setbacks for Bolsonaro's far-right movement led his son, lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, to take a leave from Brazil's Congress this year and move to the United States, where he vowed to lead a campaign against Moraes. Rubio's comments in Congress about Moraes were prompted by questions by Florida House Representative Cory Mills, with whom Eduardo Bolsonaro said he had met days earlier. Mills asked Rubio if he was considering sanctions against Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. president to impose economic sanctions against foreigners with a record of corruption or human rights abuses. "There is a great possibility that will happen," Rubio said. Eduardo Bolsonaro's role in advocating retribution against Moraes prompted the judge to open an investigation against the lawmaker, after prosecutors alleged judicial interference. Lula, in remarks to reporters on Tuesday, compared Eduardo Bolsonaro's efforts to "terrorist practices," adding that the lawmaker had left Congress to "try to lick Trump's boots."
American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Supreme Court allows AR-15, high-capacity magazine bans to continue
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed a Maryland ban on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and a Rhode Island ban on high-capacity magazines to remain in effect by declining two cases challenging the state bans on Monday. According to Fox News, the cases against Maryland's ban on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines were appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts previously upheld the bans. The outlet noted that Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Samuel Alito indicated that they would have agreed to review the cases challenging the two state bans. Fox News reported that the Supreme Court's decision not to review Maryland's ban against AR-15 rifles upholds the previous ruling made by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which claimed that states banning AR-15 rifles did not violate the Second Amendment. According to the outlet, the 4th Circuit claimed that allowing AR-15 rifles to be protected under the Constitution based on the weapon's popularity would potentially allow any weapon to 'gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it.' READ MORE: New gun law bans some semiautomatic guns in Colorado In a Monday statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that states such as Maryland that ban U.S. citizens from owning AR-15 rifles are 'somewhat of an outlier' since 41 of the 50 states allow people to purchase AR-15 rifles. 'In short, under this Court's precedents, the Fourth Circuit's decision is questionable. Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review,' Kavanaugh wrote. He added, 'Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term of two.' Thomas expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision not to review appeals against Maryland and Rhode Island's bans on Monday. Thomas claimed that the Fourth Circuit put 'too high a burden on the challengers to show that the Second Amendment presumptively protected their conduct. And, its determination that AR-15s are dangerous and unusual does not withstand scrutiny.' 'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,' Thomas wrote. 'That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.'
