Skip to content
Afinidad Política

⚖️ Issue

Justice and the judiciary: what each party thinks

By Fadrique Garcia Font ·

Electing judges by popular vote, limits on injunctions in amparo suits and whether constitutional amendments can be challenged before the Supreme Court.

3 questions, 24 party positions and 3 complete disagreements (how they are assigned).

Further reading on this topic: «The parties and the judicial reform: electing judges and amparo».

What divides the parties on this issue

No other theme in the test is so cleanly split in two. Of its 24 positions, 21 have a source, and all 21 sit at one end of the scale: no party with a document behind it lands on "agrees", "disagrees" or the middle. Morena, the PT and the PVEM stand together; facing them are the PAN, the PRI, Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS. Each party in one group sits four points, the maximum, from each in the other on all three questions: on this theme alone, their match would be 0%.

The three questions are best read backwards, because what they describe is already law. Electing judges, magistrates and justices at the ballot box was approved in September 2024; shielding constitutional amendments from the Supreme Court, that October; and narrowing judges' power to halt a government act while a case is pending, in two 2025 changes to the Amparo Act. So the parties that strongly disagree with going back, and strongly agree with limiting or shielding, are defending what they voted for, while those at the opposite end want it undone.

The governing benches voted with almost no cracks: in the October 2025 reform there was one vote against in the PVEM, another in the PT and three abstentions between the PT and Morena. The opposition benches gave not a single vote in favor. In 2026 the three coalition parties backed moving the second judicial election to 2028, which is not the same as scrapping it. SOMOS has no deputies, but on all three questions its texts put it in the same place as the PAN, the PRI and Movimiento Ciudadano, matching them fully: its 2025 ten-point plan calls for repealing the judicial overhaul and restoring the Court's power of constitutional review, and its program of action wants stronger suspensions, the opposite of what passed.

PAZ, the other newly registered party, is the only one not at an extreme, and all three of its positions are estimated. Its founding documents describe the judiciary as the guarantor of the Republic and call for improving the amparo, but say nothing about electing judges or about suspensions; hence the intermediate position on those two and a mild disagreement with shielding constitutional amendments. Its January 2027 platform should show which side it falls on.

Written from the documented positions of the eight parties on the questions in this issue; where part of it rests on estimated positions, that is stated. It does not include the answers of people taking the test.

What each party proposes on this issue

A summary of their positions on the questions in this issue, based on their electoral platforms, founding documents, votes in the Chamber of Deputies and public statements. The numbers refer to the questions below, each with its details and sources.

PAN

Agrees: 1

Disagrees: 2, 3

PRI

Agrees: 1

Disagrees: 2, 3

PVEM

Agrees: 2, 3

Disagrees: 1

PT

Agrees: 2, 3

Disagrees: 1

MC

Agrees: 1

Disagrees: 2, 3

Morena

Agrees: 2, 3

Disagrees: 1

PAZ

Disagrees: 3

In between: 1, 2

SOMOS

Agrees: 1

Disagrees: 2, 3

1. The election of judges, magistrates and Supreme Court justices by popular vote should be reversed.

Since the 2024 constitutional reform, judges, magistrates and Supreme Court justices are elected by popular vote. The first election was held on June 1, 2025; the next one was postponed to 2028.

Of the 8 parties with a position on this question: 4 in favor, 1 in between and 3 against.

2. The suspensions that judges grant in amparo proceedings against laws and government acts should be limited.

The amparo is the lawsuit people use to defend themselves against a law or official act that violates their rights; a suspension halts that act until the case is decided. In October 2025 the Chamber passed a reform of the Amparo Law.

Of the 8 parties with a position on this question: 3 in favor, 1 in between and 4 against.

3. Constitutional amendments should not be open to challenge before the Supreme Court.

In October 2024 the Chamber approved amending articles 105 and 107 of the Constitution so that constitutional amendments cannot be challenged through amparo or other proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Of the 8 parties with a position on this question: 3 in favor, 0 in between and 5 against.

Explore other issues

🛡️ Security and armed forces 🗳️ Elections and parties 🏛️ Institutions and corruption 💰 Economy and taxes 👷 Work and pensions 🏥 Health and social programs 🎓 Education, children and family ⚡ Energy and environment 🌾 Water, farming and indigenous peoples 🌎 United States, trade and migration 📜 Rights and freedoms

Who do you agree with on this issue?

The questions in this issue are part of the full test. On 3 of them the parties hold opposite positions, so your answer matters.

Take the political test