• Mexico held its first judicial elections, allowing voters to elect judges for the first time.
• Despite claims of success, only around 13% of eligible voters participated.
• Concerns have arisen about candidates with ties to organized crime influencing the judiciary.
• President Claudia Sheinbaum defended the elections as a move to combat corruption.
• Critics warn the elections may weaken democratic checks and balances.

In a groundbreaking yet contentious event, Mexicans participated in their first judicial elections aimed at transforming the nation’s judiciary from an appointment-based system to one elected directly by voters. This election comes as part of sweeping reforms introduced by the ruling Morena party, led by President Claudia Sheinbaum, who claims that allowing citizens to choose judges will help root out corruption and bolster democracy. However, the election process has faced significant backlash amid fears that it may politicize the judiciary and allow organized crime to exert influence, as several candidates have known ties to criminal entities, according to India Times and Reuters.

The elections resulted in a startlingly low turnout, with estimates indicating that only 12.6% to 13.3% of eligible voters cast ballots, the lowest since Mexico's transition to democracy in the early 2000s. Many voters reported being overwhelmed by the complexity of the election and the number of candidates, which exceeded 7,700 vying for over 2,600 judicial positions. As one voter noted, “If even discerning people with access to social media aren’t checking the candidates, imagine the people who don’t have this access,” emphasizing the widespread confusion that characterized the election, as reported by SCMP and Al Jazeera.

Amid the chaos, President Sheinbaum heralded the elections as a "complete success," arguing it reflects the will of the people and their desire for a more transparent judiciary. Critics, including the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), labeled the event a "farce," asserting that it serves as a means for the Morena party to consolidate power and erode necessary checks and balances within the government. They highlighted the risks posed by the emergence of candidates linked to organized crime, stating that the elections could further compromise the already fragile integrity of the judicial system, according to TRT Global and NY Times.

Observers have voiced concerns that the candidates' inability to openly campaign or disclose their party affiliations, coupled with the haziness surrounding voter information, may have aided in fostering a climate ripe for manipulation and voter coercion. Laurence Pantin from the organization Juicio Justo raised alarms regarding apparent irregularities during the polling process, including voters appearing with prepared candidate lists, further clouding the legitimacy of the election outcomes, as detailed by India Times and NY Times.