The analyst and former electoral advisor of the IFE, Alfredo Figueroa, criticized the judicial reform pushed by the government of Mexico, calling the process a "cheap farce." Figueroa questioned the lack of evaluation of the suitability of candidates for the judicial election, as well as the selection method that the Senate will undertake.
During his intervention in the analysis table of 'Aristegui en Vivo', Figueroa doubted the independence of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF) and accused some of its magistrates of acting based on political interests. These criticisms arose after the proposal by the president of the TEPJF, Mónica Soto, for the Senate to conclude the candidate selection process that was left pending due to the resignation of the members of the Judiciary Evaluation Committee.
Soto assured that this measure seeks to guarantee a more structured and legitimate process in the appointment of judges; however, Figueroa expressed his skepticism about this. The former electoral advisor considered that the selection of judges through a lottery lacks an evaluation that ensures the suitability of the candidates.
According to Figueroa, the reform and its implementation represent a violation of the legislation promoted by the current government, pointing out that they are even violating the reform they themselves carried out. Furthermore, he warned that the lack of autonomy of the Judiciary could lead to greater influence of the Executive in judicial decisions.
The analyst warned about the risks involved in appointing judges without thorough evaluation, which, in his opinion, jeopardizes legal certainty in the country. He also highlighted that the Judiciary faces an "authoritarian regression" that could jeopardize the independence of fundamental institutions in Mexico's democratic transition.
Figueroa criticized the lack of action by the Court in critical situations and warned that if they are not willing to defend the independence of the Judiciary, they should resign. Finally, the analyst described the judicial reform and the judicial election as a "farce" that, in his opinion, fails to even constitute good literature, warning that the new power could be forgetting part of its own history.
