Next weekend, the state of Durango, deep within Mexico’s notorious Golden Triangle, will make history in the country’s first-ever judicial elections. But the race is far from straightforward. Among those on the ballot is Leopoldo Chavez, a federal judge candidate who spent nearly six years behind bars in a U.S. prison for smuggling methamphetamine.
Chavez’s candidacy starkly illustrates the sweeping and contentious judicial reform pushed by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and backed by current President Claudia Sheinbaum.
Designed to dismantle a system riddled with corruption, the reform allows voters unprecedented power to select judges directly. Yet critics warn it risks dragging Mexico’s fragile rule of law into deeper turmoil.
Durango’s drug-war scars run deep. The region is a stronghold for cartels cultivating marijuana and opium poppies, making Chavez’s past a lightning rod for debate. “I’ve never sold myself as the perfect candidate,” Chavez said in a Facebook video. “I have nothing to hide and I served my time.”
Durango is just one flashpoint. In Jalisco, Francisco Hernandez is running to become a criminal magistrate despite being ousted previously for allegations of sexual abuse and corruption – accusations he dismisses as “slander and defamation.” Nearby in Nuevo Leon, Fernando Escamilla campaigns for a federal criminal judge seat, openly embracing his past as legal adviser to the violent Los Zetas cartel, arguing his expertise in extradition law proves his capability rather than tarnishes his reputation.
These candidacies raise alarms among human rights groups, judicial associations, and lawmakers. Defensorxs, a Mexican rights organization, has flagged at least 20 candidates with histories linked to criminal offenses, corruption allegations, or cartel ties. Among them is Silvia Delgado, a charismatic single mother and defense attorney who famously represented Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman in his 2016 trial, regularly visiting him in prison before his extradition to the U.S.
Delgado defends her role firmly: “I’m not corrupt. Representing someone does not mean guilt. I am proud to have upheld my professional duty.” Yet Defensorxs’ president, Miguel Meza, warns her case exemplifies the reform’s vetting failures, accusing the government of rushing the election without thorough background checks – especially on foreign convictions or clients represented.
The overhaul also shrinks the Supreme Court from 11 to 9 justices, shortens judicial terms, removes age and experience minimums, and introduces a disciplinary tribunal critics say is woefully inadequate for policing a judiciary of 50,000 members.
Former U.S. ambassador Ken Salazar labeled it a threat to democracy, warning it may erode judicial independence and open doors to organized crime influence.
Amidst the turmoil, electoral authorities have refused to remove questionable candidates before the vote, promising only to act afterward if eligibility issues arise.
Meanwhile, most sitting Supreme Court justices plan to resign rather than stand for election under the new system.
