Mexico’s controversial judicial reform requiring direct election of judges and magistrates emerged mostly unscathed on Tuesday from a Supreme Court vote on whether it violated the country’s constitution.
The failed attempt to roll back some of the reform’s key elements was a victory for recently inaugurated President Claudia Sheinbaum and also appeared to avert the threat of an institutional crisis pitting the executive against the judicial branch.
After several hours of debate on the constitutionality of the judicial reform, passed by lawmakers in September, only seven of the court’s 11 justices voted to support a measure to roll back some parts of the reform, one vote short of the eight required to pass it.
A later effort by Supreme Court president Norma Pina to lower the majority needed to oppose parts of the reform to six votes from eight votes also failed to garner the needed support.
Sheinbaum had argued the court has no authority to review the reform.
The draft ruling voted on by the Supreme Court would have scaled back some of the elections by popular vote of judges and magistrates, one of the most controversial aspects of the reform proposed by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and supported by Sheinbaum.
The draft measure also questioned the validity of a section of the reform that allows judges to work anonymously on cases involving organized crime.
Mexico’s lower house of Congress in October voted to approve a constitutional change that makes reforms to the constitution “unchallengeable,” raising questions about what impact the Supreme Court’s decision would have had and the principle of separation of powers.
“There is no institution in our country that is above the Constitution,” said Supreme Court president Norma Pina.
The judicial reform requires elections be held in June 2025 to replace a wide range of judicial positions across the country, including all Supreme Court justices, which will be reduced to nine members.
Supreme Court justice Alberto Perez voted against the measures seeking to block the changes, saying: “It is not a matter that concerns the Supreme Court.”
