n 4 September, the Mexican Congress passed reforms to the judicial system proposed by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). The transformations will replace a presidential nomination and congressional confirmation system, like that of the United States, with a popular vote: anyone with a law degree and five years of experience (10 for the Supreme Court) will be eligible for a judgeship. While presented as a solution to judicial corruption, the reforms are likely to create elections with an overwhelming number of candidates, increase the number of inexperienced judges, and ultimately weaken judicial independence.
Analysts from DisinfoLab, an undergraduate–led think tank at William & Mary’s Global Research Institute, have found that Mexican public opinion is polarized over these reforms, and as such they will likely remain in place. At a time when the popularity of democratic governance is already falling, the reforms create an even greater challenge within the task of solidifying Mexican democracy in a digital age.
How have people reacted?
Supporters argue the reforms will encourage transparency and address long–standing judicial corruption. Elections, they claim, will hold judges directly accountable to the public, similar to how elections hold politicians accountable. Critics, however, worry that vague judicial voting procedures could be exploited, thus undermining judicial independence. They also claim that five years of law experience are not enough to competently serve as a judge. Opponents also argue that the reforms are part of a broader campaign by AMLO and the Morena party to erode democracy, which has included changes to the electoral body and a growing military influence in public affairs.
Methodology
DisinfoLab conducted a sentiment analysis of 42,280 comments from 13 Spanish–language YouTube videos covering Mexican judicial reforms. The videos originated from left–leaning to politically neutral channels, an important consideration for our analysis. While the comments cannot be directly attributed to Mexican citizens, DisinfoLab’s focus on viral Mexican and Spanish–language news sources suggests comment views reflect those of the Mexican public. DisinfoLab used a distilled version of Google’s BERT base multilingual model. The model classifies each comment as one of five categories: Very Negative, Negative, Neutral, Positive, and Very Positive. For example, the comment “Today Mexico begins its misfortune. Let them enjoy their Morena chavism” was classified as “Very Negative”, while , “Excellent! How wonderful that magistrates, judges and others are elected by the people and not by political compromises👏👏👏👏” was classified as “Very Positive.”
Polarization likely to prevent repeal
With 46.56% of comments classified as “Very Negative” and 30.48% as “Very Positive,” commenters were polarized in their opinions on the reforms, likely reflecting a similar division within the Mexican public. The concentration of comments at both extremes indicates that they are unlikely to face repeal. This reality is concerning given that many Mexican citizens are likely unaware of two key consequences of the reforms: overwhelming choices and the amplification of political disinformation.
Overwhelming choice and its unintended consequences
Beyond concerns about judicial independence, the reforms introduce a new challenge: managing an overwhelming number of candidates. With each judicial seat offering up to nine candidates, voters in local, state, and Supreme Court elections will face significantly more crowded ballots beginning in 2025. A recent study found that when participants were presented with a higher number of candidates when voting, they tended to “...learn less about candidates, [were] more likely to vote based on meaningless heuristics, and [were] more likely to commit voting errors, when compared with subjects who choose between only a few candidates.” Notably, the study only increased the number of candidates moderately—from three to six to twelve. In Mexico’s Supreme Court elections, the ballot could feature as many as 81 candidates, making it almost impossible for the average voter to educate themselves on each candidate’s platform. The Mexican government and NGOs would be wise to create digestible factsheets that summarize the positions of the overwhelming number of candidates on each ballot.
Disinformation implications
The reforms also raise concerns about the spread of disinformation. High levels of polarization regarding the judicial reforms suggest the existence of disinformation within diverging information vacuums. Along with this threat, Mexico already has an alarming precedent of disinformation during elections: it was prevalent during the 2018 presidential election and again in the 2021 federal elections. With the sheer number of candidates for judicial positions as a result of the reforms, social media is likely to become even more crowded with posts that use shock value to grab users’ attention and spread disinformation to gain a leg up in crowded elections. The high percentage of Mexicans that consume news through social media, approximately 67%, paint a worrying picture of the number of people that could be affected by irresponsible and untrustworthy information online.
The way forward
Polarized public opinion precludes repeal of the reforms for the foreseeable future. As a result, the Mexican government and citizenry must take precautionary measures to limit the amount of disinformation spread and relied upon during judicial campaigns. To aid citizens in informed decision making, the government should consider providing citizens with sample ballots prior to the elections, as well as fact sheets that include brief descriptions of candidates' policies. The government’s partnerships with the national election agency and national news organizations that utilized fact-checking software and a chatbot during the 2024 presidential election were fantastic initiatives that helped fight disinformation and should be continued, perhaps even in the absence of elections. Even with such measures, however, the new problems posed by the implementation of the reforms bode poorly for Mexican democracy.
a global affairs media network
Mexico’s judicial reforms: Overwhelming ballots here to stay
El Ángel de la Independencia in Mexico City. Photo by Luis Domínguez from Unsplash.
February 27, 2025
On 4 September, the Mexican Congress passed reforms to the judicial system proposed by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). DisinfoLab analysis finds deep public polarization, making repeal unlikely, write Rachel Bartz, Melissa Starr, and William Andrews.
O
n 4 September, the Mexican Congress passed reforms to the judicial system proposed by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). The transformations will replace a presidential nomination and congressional confirmation system, like that of the United States, with a popular vote: anyone with a law degree and five years of experience (10 for the Supreme Court) will be eligible for a judgeship. While presented as a solution to judicial corruption, the reforms are likely to create elections with an overwhelming number of candidates, increase the number of inexperienced judges, and ultimately weaken judicial independence.
Analysts from DisinfoLab, an undergraduate–led think tank at William & Mary’s Global Research Institute, have found that Mexican public opinion is polarized over these reforms, and as such they will likely remain in place. At a time when the popularity of democratic governance is already falling, the reforms create an even greater challenge within the task of solidifying Mexican democracy in a digital age.
How have people reacted?
Supporters argue the reforms will encourage transparency and address long–standing judicial corruption. Elections, they claim, will hold judges directly accountable to the public, similar to how elections hold politicians accountable. Critics, however, worry that vague judicial voting procedures could be exploited, thus undermining judicial independence. They also claim that five years of law experience are not enough to competently serve as a judge. Opponents also argue that the reforms are part of a broader campaign by AMLO and the Morena party to erode democracy, which has included changes to the electoral body and a growing military influence in public affairs.
Methodology
DisinfoLab conducted a sentiment analysis of 42,280 comments from 13 Spanish–language YouTube videos covering Mexican judicial reforms. The videos originated from left–leaning to politically neutral channels, an important consideration for our analysis. While the comments cannot be directly attributed to Mexican citizens, DisinfoLab’s focus on viral Mexican and Spanish–language news sources suggests comment views reflect those of the Mexican public. DisinfoLab used a distilled version of Google’s BERT base multilingual model. The model classifies each comment as one of five categories: Very Negative, Negative, Neutral, Positive, and Very Positive. For example, the comment “Today Mexico begins its misfortune. Let them enjoy their Morena chavism” was classified as “Very Negative”, while , “Excellent! How wonderful that magistrates, judges and others are elected by the people and not by political compromises👏👏👏👏” was classified as “Very Positive.”
Polarization likely to prevent repeal
With 46.56% of comments classified as “Very Negative” and 30.48% as “Very Positive,” commenters were polarized in their opinions on the reforms, likely reflecting a similar division within the Mexican public. The concentration of comments at both extremes indicates that they are unlikely to face repeal. This reality is concerning given that many Mexican citizens are likely unaware of two key consequences of the reforms: overwhelming choices and the amplification of political disinformation.
Overwhelming choice and its unintended consequences
Beyond concerns about judicial independence, the reforms introduce a new challenge: managing an overwhelming number of candidates. With each judicial seat offering up to nine candidates, voters in local, state, and Supreme Court elections will face significantly more crowded ballots beginning in 2025. A recent study found that when participants were presented with a higher number of candidates when voting, they tended to “...learn less about candidates, [were] more likely to vote based on meaningless heuristics, and [were] more likely to commit voting errors, when compared with subjects who choose between only a few candidates.” Notably, the study only increased the number of candidates moderately—from three to six to twelve. In Mexico’s Supreme Court elections, the ballot could feature as many as 81 candidates, making it almost impossible for the average voter to educate themselves on each candidate’s platform. The Mexican government and NGOs would be wise to create digestible factsheets that summarize the positions of the overwhelming number of candidates on each ballot.
Disinformation implications
The reforms also raise concerns about the spread of disinformation. High levels of polarization regarding the judicial reforms suggest the existence of disinformation within diverging information vacuums. Along with this threat, Mexico already has an alarming precedent of disinformation during elections: it was prevalent during the 2018 presidential election and again in the 2021 federal elections. With the sheer number of candidates for judicial positions as a result of the reforms, social media is likely to become even more crowded with posts that use shock value to grab users’ attention and spread disinformation to gain a leg up in crowded elections. The high percentage of Mexicans that consume news through social media, approximately 67%, paint a worrying picture of the number of people that could be affected by irresponsible and untrustworthy information online.
The way forward
Polarized public opinion precludes repeal of the reforms for the foreseeable future. As a result, the Mexican government and citizenry must take precautionary measures to limit the amount of disinformation spread and relied upon during judicial campaigns. To aid citizens in informed decision making, the government should consider providing citizens with sample ballots prior to the elections, as well as fact sheets that include brief descriptions of candidates' policies. The government’s partnerships with the national election agency and national news organizations that utilized fact-checking software and a chatbot during the 2024 presidential election were fantastic initiatives that helped fight disinformation and should be continued, perhaps even in the absence of elections. Even with such measures, however, the new problems posed by the implementation of the reforms bode poorly for Mexican democracy.
