On November 5, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation validated the controversial judicial reform proposed by the ruling party, which subjects the election of judges to popular vote. This shift marks a dramatic change within the Mexican judicial system, sparking widespread criticism across political and legal circles. Yet, what truly captured attention was the unexpected vote of Minister Alberto Pérez Dayán, who diverged from the majority bloc of eight ministers opposing the initiative.
Days before this decisive session, Pérez Dayán held a private meeting with President Claudia Sheinbaum. Accompanied by Senator Adán Augusto López, known for his strong ties to the administration, the meeting took place at Sheinbaum’s office. Sources from the Senate, the presidency, and the court confirmed this meeting, stating it was pivotal for achieving the controversial reform. During this encounter, Pérez Dayán informed Sheinbaum of his intent to support the reform, committing to honor his word.
At the pivotal Supreme Court session, Pérez Dayán surprised his fellow ministers by voting alongside Sheinbaum's favored trio: Yasmín Esquivel, Lenia Batres, and Loretta Ortiz, who have consistently aligned with the administration. This unexpected alignment gave the judicial reform the necessary backing, as the vote concluded with seven against four.
Minister Javier Laynez Potisek noted the surprise among many court members: “We were surprised by many because we didn’t know what his position would be,” he remarked, highlighting the tension and uncertainty surrounding Pérez Dayán's vote within the court.
The opposition, primarily led by the PRI and PAN, immediately reacted, accusing the government of exerting pressure on Pérez Dayán to secure his vote. This narrative, portrayed as governmental coercion, was vehemently denied by officials close to the administration, including López. “The Minister did not feel pressured,” said one unnamed official, underscoring the justification for Pérez Dayán’s shift.
Pérez Dayán defended his decision during the session, arguing coherently with his judicial precedents. He asserted, “The actions promoted by the project were inadmissible,” illustrating his rationale behind siding with the reform. Critics, including several of his judicial colleagues, have since expressed skepticism over his motivations, pointing out inconsistencies with his previous stances.
Reactions among peers reflected deep division within the court. Many viewed Pérez Dayán as betraying his colleagues. Comments from onlookers characterized him as “a traitor,” and opinions on his political maneuvering swayed wildly. Even at public events, like the Guadalajara International Book Fair, he faced confrontations where he was called out for his perceived alignment with the government and ruling party.
Despite the backlash and accusations, López showcased his political savvy among the ruling party, proudly announcing his successful negotiations: “We secured Pérez Dayán’s vote, establishing the criteria for achieving qualified majorities with eight votes.” This measure pronounced the clarification needed for the court’s operational rules.
Pérez Dayán’s politically charged vote signifies not just his individual decision but indicates possible broader strategic shifts within Mexico's judicial framework. His future now appears precarious, caught between reputation, loyalty to governance, and the demands of his role on the nation’s highest court. This turning point appears to encapsulate the current political climate of Mexico, where judicial independence is increasingly viewed through the lens of political allegiance rather than impartialité.
