These elections are not the example the U.S. would hope to follow if it were to ever decide to elect its Supreme Court.
In the United States, the concept of electing the Supreme Court had never truly been contemplated until Donald Trump’s first election.
At the time, President Obama was nearing the end of his second term, and the Supreme Court had played an important role in securing his legacy.
Most notably, the Court voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act and the legalization of same-sex marriages.
As a result of these rulings, Republicans vowed not to allow President Obama to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, which would have given it a liberal-leaning majority for a foreseeable future.
The Democratic Party and President Obama should have fought harder for that appointment, but instead they folded and allowed then Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to delay a vote on Merrick’s nomination until after the 2016 election.
Democrats were banking on Hillary Clinton to win, so they figured they would get to appoint more justices under her administration.
Instead, Republicans held the line; Donald Trump won the 2016 election and appointed three conservative Supreme Court Justices – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
President Biden only got to appoint Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, but it didn’t really matter because she replaced liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
In a very realistic hypothetical, Donald Trump could get to appoint at least one more justice, and that would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party.
What if we get to elect our Supreme Court? The root of this question for Democratic leaders and voters is born out of frustration.
There’s an impending feeling that this conservative-leaning Court is going to favor the Trump administration in just about every case, and their rulings will have lasting impacts on issues like civil rights protections, voting rights, immigration (legal and illegal), education, and healthcare.
¿Qué son las elecciones judiciales? Te explicamos en 5 puntos
A convenient judicial experiment
This Sunday, Mexico will undertake its first ever judicial elections, a political experiment that, in the long run, could serve as an example for the United States to follow.
President Sheinbaum and Morena are selling this election as an example of true democratic representation, as a much-needed change to a system that does not deliver justice for the Mexican people, and who for far too long has been in the pockets of organized crime.
They point to supposed agreements between jailed organized crime figures who had never been considered candidates for extradition to the United States because they had cut deals with judges and magistrates from previous administrations as examples.
The funny thing is: Mexicans didn’t ask for this judicial election. Judicial reform was an idea that President Obrador alluded to but never provided any specifics.
Strategically, he did reduce the number of Mexican Supreme Court Justices from 11 to 9. It would then be up to newly elected President Sheinbaum to sell and organize this election. She has done so based on her crushing victory, her record approval ratings, and Morena’s super majority in the Mexican Congress.
Come Sunday evening, Morena’s victory in all levels of judicial powers shouldn’t surprise anyone. What people should be concerned about is the quality and types of individuals who won.
Low standards and a diluted INE
The main requirements to be an official candidate (aside from citizenship and residency requirements) are a law degree from an accredited university, and three years of practice in a specific area or focus. That’s it, you too can be a candidate.
As expected, this has made for an almost comical political election cycle. On one hand, you have 24 candidates for local magistrates and judges that have officially been denounced as having criminal ties or histories.
On the other extreme, the telenovela style ads for other candidates make it all seem like a joke.
Except it is very real, and very dangerous. This judicial election is not about knowledge of the judicial system or experience within the judicial system; it’s about political popularity and (much like the United States) the Supreme Court’s political alignment with the President’s agenda.
How can this happen? Weakening the National Elections Institute (INE) and transforming it into a toothless institution was one of AMLO’s priorities.
Prior to Morena’s rule, the agency had been a bastion of Mexican free elections and helped end the PRIs rule in 2000 and was internationally recognized for its independence. AMLO ended that.
His continual attacks alleging impartiality and threats of canceling the agency altogether led to changes in its structure, its leadership, and how it intervenes in elections, leaving it much weaker.
But the INE has been in the news lately because of its public bickering with President Sheinbaum on what she can or cannot say about the election in her daily morning news conference.
It has also stepped-in to determine that it is illegal to distribute or bring a political slate or “acordeones” (accordions) to the ballots.
The particularity of political slates in México
The legality of slates was the hot topic leading into this weekend’s judicial election.
That was a head-scratching decision for me. I’ve been a part of dozens of political campaigns, and the use of political slates is standard and perfectly legal in the United States.
In fact, certain slates are politically desirable and are very competitive. If you are a Democratic candidate, you want to be on the labor union’s slate. If you are a Republican candidate, you want to be on the Heritage Foundation’s slate.
Those slates are mailed to you by the dozens prior to mail-in ballots arriving, and you can cast your vote with that slate right next to you. You can also take your slate to the poll and follow its instructions—that’s all part of Get Out The Vote efforts.
I find it confusing that Morena INE representatives declared slates to be illegal, but it is also Morena operatives who are distributing the slate. This also speaks to the “Americanizing” of Mexican politics, but that discussion will be for a different day.
¿Cuándo es pertinente hacer recuento de votos tras unas elecciones?
A tone of confusion
Confusing. That’s how most people would describe this election. Between the use “acordeones”, the comical accusations, the very real threat of narco-violence that killed one of the top assistants of Mexico City’s mayor, protests by the National Teacher’s Union that have paralyzed Mexico City, and President Sheinbaum being limited on what she can or can’t promote, a low voter turnout is expected for an election in which the results are already predicted.
These elections and their questionable “democratic” facade were already a point of contention between the Biden administration and AMLO, and they have been cited as the leading cause for the decline of foreign investment in Mexico.
The predictable outcome of this judicial election will undoubtedly call the attention of U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
I’m positive the State Department will issue an official statement on the outcome, and I wouldn’t expect it to be positive.
As the son of Cuban immigrants who fled Castro’s communist regime, Rubio has in the past expressed serious concerns about these elections and Mexico’s socialist-leaning policies under Morena.
But then again, he’s also said he’s very pleased with Mexico given its cooperation with fighting organized crime and the influx of drugs into the United States.
Unfortunately for Mexico, a number of mediocre candidates with questionable political affiliations (mostly to Morena) will win key posts that will determine key public safety policies at a time when Mexico’s economic stability depends on its management of crime and public safety.
These elections are not the example the U.S. would hope to follow if it were to ever decide to elect its Supreme Court.
Te recomendamos
Síguenos en Google News
George I. Gonzalez
Fundador de la firma Complex Made Simple. Experto en comunicaciones de política pública y comentarista Fundador de Complex Made Simple y experto en comunicaciones politicas y corporativas. Originario de CDMX. Fue designado de la Casa Blanca y subsecretario de prensa de desarrollo urbano y vivienda. También fue gerente de comunicaciones de política pública de Facebook en Washington D.C.y recibe contenido exclusivo
