The parties and the judicial reform: electing judges and amparo

The judicial reform changed twenty articles of Mexico’s Constitution and is the topic on which the parties are furthest apart. In September 2024 an amendment was published under which all federal judges, from Supreme Court justices to district judges, are elected by popular vote. The first judicial election was held on 1 June 2025. The second was due to coincide with the 2027 elections, but a new amendment, published in the Official Gazette (DOF) on 2 June 2026, moved it to the first Sunday of June 2028.

So no judges are elected on 6 June 2027, either federal or local: only the Chamber of Deputies and each state’s local offices. What is decided in 2027 is the Chamber that will be able to amend, or not, the laws on the Judiciary, and the parties have made their positions clear with their votes and their documents.

The test covers these questions in the topic “Justice and the judiciary”. Three statements are part of the main test; a fourth, on the effects of amparo rulings, is only asked as a tie-breaker. These are the eight parties’ positions, each based on a roll-call vote in the Chamber, a platform, a founding document or, for SOMOS, the 2025 ten-point plan of the organization that applied for its registration. An asterisk (*) marks an estimated position: the party has not spoken directly on the matter and its position is inferred from what it has said on related topics. Of the 32 positions, 4 are estimated, all of them Partido PAZ’s.

SOMOS and Partido PAZ were registered in 2026, have no deputies and do not yet have an electoral platform: their positions come from their founding documents and are provisional until they register their platforms with the INE in January 2027.

Timeline

What changed in 2024

The amendment published on 15 September 2024 changed almost all of the federal Judiciary (DOF):

• All federal judges are elected by popular vote: Supreme Court justices, judges of the Electoral Tribunal and of the new Judicial Discipline Tribunal, circuit judges and district judges. Candidates are put forward by the three branches of government, after an evaluation and a public draw.
• A nine-member Supreme Court (there used to be eleven), with a twelve-year term and no re-election. The presidency rotates every two years and goes to whoever won the most votes.
• The Federal Judicial Council is abolished: discipline of judges passes to the Judicial Discipline Tribunal and administration to a judicial administration body.
• No general effect in amparo cases against laws: in such cases, rulings will “in no case” have general effect (Article 107).
• Two staggered elections: in the special election of 2025, the whole Supreme Court, the Judicial Discipline Tribunal, the vacant seats of the Electoral Tribunal’s Superior Chamber and its regional chambers, and half of the judges; the other half and the Superior Chamber in the federal election of 2027.

In the election of 1 June 2025, the INE estimated, from a sample of 1,664 polling stations, that between 12.57% and 13.32% of registered voters took part (Expansión Política, 1 June 2025). The national tally of the Supreme Court election and the allocation of its nine seats are in agreement INE/CG563/2025 (DOF, 30 June 2025).

In the autumn of 2024 the Chamber passed two more pieces of the reform: the amendment to electoral law that regulates the judicial election, and the amendment to Articles 105 and 107 of the Constitution, known as the “constitutional supremacy” or “non-challengeability” amendment. The latter states that constitutional challenges against amendments to the Constitution are inadmissible, that no amparo may be brought against them and, as the September decree already did, that in amparo cases against laws rulings will “in no case” have general effect (DOF, 31 October 2024).

What changed in 2026

The amendment published on 2 June 2026 keeps the popular election and changes its timetable and several rules (DOF):

• The 2027 judicial election moves to 2028. Federal and local posts not renewed in 2025, and vacancies, are elected “without exception” on a single day, the first Sunday of June 2028. Judges whose term was due to end in 2027, and the Electoral Tribunal’s Superior Chamber judges in the same position, remain in office until 2028. Those elected will be sworn in on 1 September 2028, and the judges elected that year will serve eight years, until 2036.
• New rules for candidacies: each evaluation committee picks the four best-rated people for each post and a public draw reduces them to two; each branch of government nominates two people per post.
• Judicial voting takes place at the same locations as that year’s regular elections, without party representatives, and votes are counted at the polling station.
• Other changes: the Supreme Court may sit in two sections; vacancies among circuit and district judges are no longer filled by the runner-up, as they still are on the Supreme Court and the Electoral and Discipline tribunals, but at the next judicial election; and a recall vote on the president, if requested, would be held on the first Sunday of June of the fourth year of the presidential term, together with that year’s elections (Article 35).

How the groups voted in the Chamber

These are the roll-call votes of the current legislature (the 66th) on the judicial reform and amparo. Each cell shows how many of the group’s deputies voted for and against; abstentions, where there were any, are in the note. SOMOS and PAZ have no deputies.

All are votes in general. Abstentions: one from Morena on 30 October 2024, one from Morena on 5 February 2025 and, on 14 October 2025, one from Morena and two from the PT. On the reserved articles of the 2026 amendment, voted with changes to Articles 35 and 94 and the fourth transitional article, 22 Morena deputies abstained and 223 voted in favor (Parliamentary Gazette, tabla2ex1-2).

In all eight votes, the three groups of the governing coalition voted in favor and the three opposition groups against, with almost no split votes. It is the same line that runs through the test’s statements.

The parties’ positions

Electing judges by popular vote

“The election of judges, magistrates and Supreme Court justices by popular vote should be reversed.” Four parties are in favor of reversing it, three against and one is neutral. Only Partido PAZ’s position is estimated.

Against, the three parties of the governing coalition voted for the 2024 amendment and for the 2026 one, which postponed the next election without abolishing it. Morena’s program of action calls for “judges elected by the people of Mexico who are not subject to any political or economic power” (p. 6). The PT’s 2024 platform already proposed the “election, by popular vote, of justices, magistrates and judges” (p. 27), and the PVEM’s, “establishing new mechanisms for the election of judges” (p. 18).

In favor of reversing it, the PAN, the PRI and Movimiento Ciudadano voted against both amendments. The PRI’s 2024 platform says it “firmly opposes the election of judges by popular vote” and advocates “a selection process based on merit and qualifications” (p. 127). The PAN’s program of action declares itself “in favor of the full independence of the Judiciary” (p. 16), and Movimiento Ciudadano’s platform calls for “full autonomy of the judiciary and professionalization of the bench” (p. 5) and a judicial career service (p. 51). SOMOS proposes, in the 2025 ten-point plan of the organization that applied for its registration, “repealing the recent authoritarian judicial reform” and a judicial career based on merit and public competitions (p. 6); its program of action calls for a system for selecting judges “free of political considerations” (p. 5).

Partido PAZ’s neutral position is estimated: its founding documents do not address the election of judges. Its declaration of principles calls the Judiciary “the guarantor of the Republic” and says it should keep being strengthened with new reforms (p. 23).

Suspensions in amparo cases

“The suspensions that judges grant in amparo proceedings against laws and government acts should be limited.” Amparo is the legal action people use to defend themselves against a law or an official act that violates their rights; a suspension halts that act while the case is decided. Three parties are in favor of limiting them, four against and one is neutral.

In favor, Morena (238 to 0, with one abstention), the PVEM (60 to 1) and the PT (46 to 1, with two abstentions) voted in October 2025 for the amendment to the Amparo Law that changed the rules on suspensions, and in February 2025 they had voted for another amendment to that law (Parliamentary Gazette, 14 October 2025). That amendment requires judges to weigh the appearance of good law against the public interest before granting a suspension, adds cases in which it cannot be granted (for example, where illicit funds or public debt are involved) and bars granting it with general effect in amparo cases against laws (DOF, 16 October 2025, Articles 128, 129 and 148).

Against, the PAN (0 to 67), the PRI (0 to 34) and Movimiento Ciudadano (0 to 28) voted against that amendment and against the February one. SOMOS, which has no deputies, proposes the opposite of limiting them: “legislating on amparo to strengthen the suspension mechanism” (program of action, p. 15). Partido PAZ’s neutral position is estimated: its program of action calls for the “continuous improvement” of amparo and other constitutional remedies, without saying whether suspensions should be limited (p. 21).

Challenging constitutional amendments

“Constitutional amendments should not be open to challenge before the Supreme Court.” This is what the amendment to Articles 105 and 107 has provided since October 2024. Three parties agree and five disagree; only Partido PAZ’s position is estimated.

In agreement, Morena (232 to 0, with one abstention), the PVEM (59 to 0) and the PT (47 to 0) voted for that amendment (Parliamentary Gazette, 30 October 2024). Against, the PAN (0 to 71), the PRI (0 to 37) and Movimiento Ciudadano (0 to 25) voted against it, and SOMOS proposes “restoring constitutional review” (2025 ten-point plan, p. 6). Partido PAZ disagrees, short of the extreme and by estimate: its program of action wants all public authorities to be bound by international human-rights treaties, but does not mention challenging constitutional amendments.

The general effect of amparo rulings (tie-breaker)

“When a judge rules that a law violates rights, the ruling should apply to everyone, not only to the person who filed the amparo.” As a general rule (the so-called “Otero formula”), an amparo ruling only protects the person who filed it. The September 2024 judicial reform added to the Constitution, and the October amendment repeated, that in amparo cases against laws rulings will “in no case” have general effect (DOF, 15 September and 31 October 2024). This statement is only asked as a tie-breaker.

• Morena and the PVEM voted for that text both times (in October, 232 to 0 and 59 to 0) and strongly disagree.
• The PT is neutral: its 2024 platform proposes giving “abrogating legal force” to case law declaring a law unconstitutional (p. 27), but its group voted 47 to 0 for both amendments. When a platform and a vote in this legislature clash, the position is placed in the middle.
• The PAN, the PRI and Movimiento Ciudadano voted against and agree, short of the extreme: both amendments also dealt with other matters (the election of judges, challenges to constitutional amendments), so their vote was not only about this.
• SOMOS is the only party that strongly agrees: it proposes that amparo rulings have “general effect”, “abolishing the Otero formula” (program of action, p. 15).
• Partido PAZ’s neutral position is estimated: its program proposes strengthening collective actions, without mentioning the general effect of amparo rulings.

What divides the parties

• Morena, the PVEM and the PT hold the same position on all three main statements: they voted together for the 2024 amendments, the 2025 Amparo Law amendment and the 2026 amendment. Only the PT differs on the tie-breaker, because of what its platform proposes.
• The PAN, the PRI, Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS also agree on all three: they want to reverse the election of judges, not to limit suspensions, and constitutional amendments to be open to challenge. SOMOS goes further on the general effect of amparo rulings.
• Partido PAZ sits in the middle, with all four of its positions estimated: its documents defend the Judiciary and amparo, but say nothing about the reform.

To compare the parties two by two, we add up the differences between their positions on the three statements in the main test (our own calculation; the maximum is 12). Among the three governing parties the difference is 0, and the same among the four opposition parties. Between any party in one bloc and any party in the other it is 12, the highest possible: on all three statements they are at opposite ends of the scale. Partido PAZ is 5 points from the opposition bloc and 7 from the governing one. No other topic in the test sets the two blocs this far apart.

The justice statements count towards your affinity with each party, but not towards the political compass: its social axis only uses values questions (rights, education and family, the environment and migration).

Find out more

• All the statements on the topic, with their sources: “Justice and the judiciary”.
• What is on the ballot on 6 June 2027, and what is not: the election guide.
• Security, the other topic along the government-opposition line: “The parties and security”. And a topic where that line does not exist: “Mexico’s parties and the United States”.
• The parties’ positions on every statement in the test: party comparison. Compare two parties, for example Morena and the PAN or Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS.
• Party profiles: Morena, PAN, PRI, PVEM, PT, Movimiento Ciudadano, SOMOS and PAZ.
• To find out which party you agree with most across all topics: take the test.