**INE Advisors File Constitutional Challenge Against Reform Increasing Power of Taddei**
Six members of the National Electoral Institute’s (INE) General Council have called for a constitutional challenge against recent reforms granting increased powers to Guadalupe Taddei Zavala, the first female president of the council. This challenge, issued on October 29, 2024, targets changes to the General Law of Electoral Institutions and Procedures (LEGIPE), which affect judicial appointments within the Federal Judiciary. Published in the Official Gazette on October 14, these reforms, the advisors argue, compromise the INE’s autonomy by concentrating decision-making power in Taddei Zavala.
The council members, Arturo Castillo Loza, Carla Astrid Humphrey Jordan, Dania Paola Ravel Cuevas, Beatriz Claudia Zavala Pérez, Martín Faz Mora, and Jaime Rivera Velázquez, urged the council to file the challenge by November 19, 2024, seeking an urgent ruling from the National Supreme Court of Justice. They claim the reform undermines the collective decision-making model of the INE by enabling the president to unilaterally appoint technical and operational directors, thus weakening checks and balances.
The reforms to Articles 45 and 48 of the LEGIPE not only threaten institutional autonomy but also transparency and fairness in elections, which are pivotal to democracy, the council members assert. They argue this concentration of power could imbalance the decision-making processes and stifle the council’s traditional collegial nature. Furthermore, the ability for the INE president to appoint all members of the Executive General Board is seen as a direct threat to certainty and impartiality by centralizing too much power in one individual.
**Secondary News Update: Judicial Reforms Stir Debate in Mexico**
In recent weeks, Mexico has witnessed significant debate surrounding reforms that reshape judicial appointments and electoral processes. The changes, seen by some as necessary modernization, are criticized by others, including INE representatives, for over-centralizing power. Proponents argue that the reforms will streamline decision-making and strengthen governance. Meanwhile, critics contend that these adjustments may erode democratic checks and balances. The controversy highlights ongoing tensions about the balance of power in Mexico’s evolving political landscape.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, the outcome will have profound implications for how electoral and judicial processes are managed in the country, potentially setting important precedents for governance. The discussions continue to captivate the nation, with various stakeholders advocating for either upholding or overturning the reforms.