Photo: Flickr

By KELIN DILLON

In a new opinion piece published by the U.S. newspaper The Washington Post on Sunday, Aug. 25, the publication advocated that the United States has every right to intervene in Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) controversial proposals to reform Mexico’s judicial branch – especially given its potential impacts on the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA).

The Washington Post article comes just days after U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar personally characterized the pending reforms as “a major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy,” an analysis AMLO condemned during a daily morning press conference as “imprudent.”

The so-called “Plan C” reforms propose a contentious number of changes to Mexico’s Judicial Power of the Federation (PJF), including the popular election of judges and the expansion of the crimes that qualify for pretrial preventative detention. These reforms are likely to pass thanks to the supermajority held by AMLO’s in-power National Regeneration Movement (Morena) and its allies in the Mexican Congress and Senate.

“The chapter that most worries Mr. Salazar and (Canadian Ambassador to Mexico Graeme) Clark would dismiss all current members of Mexico’s federal judiciary, including all the justices of the Supreme Court, then replace them via massive elections in 2025 and 2027. More than likely, Mr. López Obrador’s Morena party would win the lion’s share of the positions,” wrote the Washington Post’s editorial board.

“To be sure, Mexico’s justice system is dysfunctional and corrupt. But judges are the wrong target. As Human Rights Watch argued, Mr. López Obrador and President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum ‘should abandon their crusade against judges and commit to improving the weakest link in Mexico’s justice system: prosecutors’ offices.’ Margaret Satterthwaite, U.N. special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, noted that politicizing Mexico’s judiciary increases the risk of corruption,” continued the piece.

The Washington Post went on to note how Sheinbaum has continued to toe the party line by agreeing with her predecessor’s ambitious plans in public, but that her goals as Mexico’s new federal executive could be overshadowed and undermined if the judicial reforms do in fact go through.

“Ms. Sheinbaum’s reluctance to disagree with Mr. López Obrador is perhaps understandable, given his control over the political apparatus on which her forthcoming presidency will depend,” read the piece. “This is shortsighted, though. If her patron’s attempt to bring the judiciary to heel goes through, it will ensure that her first months, if not years, in office will be overshadowed by a fight over judicial independence. And it will threaten her avowed economic strategy, which hinges on integration with the North American economy.”

“In that sense, Mr. Salazar and Mr. Clark helped her cause. But she should find a way to disagree with this plan in her own voice. It would be a shame if judicial independence in Mexico died because Ms. Sheinbaum lacks political independence from Mr. López Obrador.”