On June 1, Mexico held its first-ever judicial elections, a process hailed by the federal government as a landmark step towards democratic improvement. But the reality on the ground painted a far more fragmented and contentious picture. With a turnout of just over 13% of eligible voters, the unprecedented vote to elect over 2,600 judges, magistrates, and Supreme Court ministers has raised serious questions about civic engagement and the viability and legitimacy of such an experiment.

While President Claudia Sheinbaum hailed the event as a “success”, pointing to the participation of approximately 13mn citizens, official data suggests otherwise. As El País reported, the lack of public familiarity with the thousands of candidates, coupled with the complexity of the ballots – some voters had to fill in six or more – created a significant barrier to meaningful participation. Moreover, the absence of party affiliations on the ballots stripped voters of heuristic shortcuts, leading many to disengage entirely.

The broader context, however, reveals that the problem lies not solely in technical execution. According to Infobae, the day was also marred by disturbing incidents. In various regions, particularly in Chiapas and Veracruz, polling stations faced disruptions ranging from stolen electoral packages to acts of outright intimidation. In Ciudad Juárez, authorities discovered pig heads and limbs in ice boxes placed near polling stations, in what appeared to be an apparent warning against voting. These developments undercut the government’s celebratory tone and reinforced a public perception of the vote as chaotic, poorly planned, and deeply vulnerable to coercive tactics.

Equally troubling were the symbolic protests that emerged throughout the country. In Mexico City, the so-called “March for Freedom” drew hundreds, with demonstrators denouncing the election as a “farce” and mourning what they saw as the death of judicial independence. Fittingly, two funeral wreaths were anonymously placed outside the Supreme Court. And on social media, photos of spoiled ballots circulated widely. Messages such as “RIP to the Judiciary” and “No justice without independence” scrawled across voting papers became a digital testimony to growing disenchantment.

This deep-rooted crisis of confidence cannot be disentangled from its political origins. The judicial reform was spearheaded by former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), who made a rare public appearance to cast his vote, describing the initiative as a historic democratisation of justice. Yet critics argue that the process was anything but impartial. The ruling leftist Morena party, holding a legislative supermajority, played a decisive role in selecting the pool of candidates. As such, opposition parties like the PAN chose to boycott the election altogether, accusing the government of transforming a critical institution into an instrument of political control.

Indeed, this centralisation of influence has prompted concerns about the erosion of checks and balances. As El País noted, the first filtering of judicial candidates was carried out by the executive and legislative branches, with the judiciary itself retreating from the process. This raised alarms about the inclusion of underqualified or compromised candidates, including some with alleged ties to organised crime or past corruption. Such deficiencies not only weaken institutional integrity but also suggest that the reform may exacerbate, rather than resolve, the very dysfunctions it purported to address.

Supporters of the reform argue that popular election is a necessary antidote to a judiciary viewed as elitist, opaque, and resistant to reform. Mexico’s justice system has long been plagued by endemic corruption and a staggering impunity rate, with over 90% of crimes going unpunished. Yet it remains doubtful whether popular vote alone can overhaul such structural failings, especially when civic awareness and institutional safeguards are so lacking.

As the names of successful candidates are gradually unveiled, attention will turn to their performance, qualifications and independence. Their very own legitimacy, however, has already been compromised in the eyes of many.