Judges are also elected in Bolivia. How does the model compare with Mexico?

Thirteen years ago, Bolivia became the first country in the world to have judges elected by popular vote. Mexico is currently preparing a reform along the same lines. Both systems share the idea of ​​democratising the election of judges, but Bolivia has already implemented the model with questionable results, while in Mexico the reform is still an open debate, with concerns in some sectors about judicial independence and the risks of politicisation.

Below is a comparison between the two models.

Political and legal context

Bolivia:

– In 2011, Bolivia became the first country in the world to elect judges and magistrates by popular vote, as part of a process promoted by the government of Evo Morales to democratize the judicial system and reduce the influence of the elites.

– Judges of national courts, such as the Supreme Court of Justice, the Constitutional Court, the Council of the Judiciary and the Agro-Environmental Court, are directly elected by citizen vote.

Mexico:

– Mexico’s reform – already approved by Parliament and the majority of the 32 states – seeks to have federal judges, magistrates and members of the Electoral Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation elected by popular vote, which would be a radical change in a system in which traditionally judges and magistrates are appointed by the Judicial Council, and the president nominates the members of the highest courts to the Senate.

– The reform is being promoted by sectors seeking to reduce political and presidential influence over the judiciary.

Election process

Bolivia:

– Candidates for judges and magistrates are selected by the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, which proposes lists of candidates based on criteria of merit and experience. These lists are then submitted to a popular vote.

– The election is universal and no legal training is required to participate as a voter, although the political campaign is strictly limited, which restricts advertising and media coverage of the candidates.

Mexico:

– The reform in Mexico eliminates the so-called judicial career and establishes that the candidates proposed by the three branches of government are to be directly elected by popular vote. In 2025, the ministers of the Supreme Court and half of the judges and district magistrates would be elected, and the other half in 2027.

– If approved, the reform is expected to include a pre-selection of candidates by a judicial or legislative body before submitting the candidates to a public vote.

Transparency and legitimacy

Bolivia:

– The Bolivian system has been criticised for its lack of independence, as the pre-selection of candidates is in the hands of the Legislative Assembly, which is generally controlled by the majority party, which introduces a political bias.

– The low turnout in the judicial elections (with a high percentage of spoiled and blank votes) has raised doubts about the legitimacy of the process.

Mexico:

– The reform in Mexico raises similar questions about judicial independence, since if candidates are pre-selected by political bodies, it could compromise the impartiality of the process.

– The reform has also sparked debate over whether judges elected by popular vote will be less technical and more susceptible to political and populist pressures.

Objectives and arguments

Bolivia:

– The stated aim is to democratise the judicial system and allow citizens to have a direct say in the election of judges, thereby combating corruption and elite interests.

– However, critics argue that the process has not significantly improved the administration of justice or reduced political influence in the courts.

Mexico:

– Proponents of reform in Mexico argue that popular election of judges would strengthen judicial independence by reducing executive and legislative intervention in appointments, and would combat nepotism, which they believe has taken hold within the judiciary.

– Opponents fear that the reform will further politicize justice and that judges, when elected, may lean toward populist positions instead of interpreting the law impartially, and some sectors even warn of the risk of organized crime penetration.

Impact on the judicial system

Bolivia:

– The implementation of the popular vote has resulted in a judicial system that continues to face criticism for its inefficiency and lack of independence.

– The election of judges by popular vote has not resolved the chronic problems of corruption or the negative public perception of the justice system in Bolivia.

Mexico:

– The impact is still uncertain, but critics warn that direct election of judges could lead to further politicisation of the judicial system, and could even undermine legal certainty, which is needed to secure foreign investment.

– If approved, the reform could change the nature of justice in Mexico, influencing how judges interpret the Constitution and laws, depending on electoral dynamics. In addition, the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal could act against judges whose rulings were not to the liking of the Executive.

Citizen participation

Bolivia:

– Participation in judicial elections has historically been low. Even though voting is compulsory in Bolivia, many citizens choose to spoil their vote or cast a blank ballot, which shows a general distrust of the system.

Mexico:

– Citizen participation is expected to be a central theme. Critics say the complexity of judicial issues, with more than 1,600 vacancies and at least six candidates for each, could make it difficult for citizens to make an informed choice.