**Minority of SCJN Justices, Including Pérez Dayán, Validate Judicial Reform**
On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) dismissed a proposed ruling concerning the Federal Judicial Power’s reform with a 4-7 vote. This proposal, authored by Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá, aimed to address actions of unconstitutionality initiated by opposition parties against the judicial reform. These actions were spearheaded by the National Action Party (PAN), Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and Citizen Movement (MC).
Ministers who supported the proposal included Norma Lucía Piña Hernández, Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, Ana Margarita Ríos-Farjat, and González Alcántara Carrancá himself. Those in opposition were Alberto Gelacio Pérez Dayán, Loretta Ortiz Ahlf, Yasmín Esquivel Mossa, and Lenia Batres Guadarrama.
After a lengthy five-hour session resolving only the issues of legitimacy and proceeding, Pastor González Alcántara Carrancá’s proposal fell short of the required supermajority to declare the reform partially unconstitutional. Minister Pérez Dayán’s steadfast opposition prompted a recess, during which the president of the court queried whether an eight-vote majority was necessary for inconstitutional declarations or if a six-vote standard applied, as stipulated in the judicial reform.
Deliberations continued on November 7, 2024, focusing on Alcántara Carrancá’s proposal to overcome the constitutional crisis and restore institutional normalcy among governmental powers. This included a push to maintain the election of top justices via popular vote but stop judge elections and eradicate the “faceless judges” figure, in addition to nullifying general injunctions.
Alcántara Carrancá underscored constitutional violations and detrimental impacts on democratic values. While the SCJN holds authority to scrutinize constitutional reforms impinging on foundational clauses, he recommended restraint, opting to challenge the election system for justices without overreaching institutional norms.
**Further Developments: SCJN Faces Turbulence Over Judicial Reform**
In related news, discussions continue within the SCJN regarding proposed changes to the judicial election approach. The reform suggests altering how justices and magistrates are chosen, sparking debates about judicial independence versus public accountability. The proposed modifications also encompass potential invalidate transitions within local judicial bodies, avoiding wholesale electoral imperatives that could destabilize existing structures.
Debates are underscored by emphasis on maintaining constitutional guarantees while juxtaposing presidential pitches for reform against traditional judicial independence tenets. This ongoing saga displays the inherent tension in evolving judicial frameworks amid political contrasts.
**Related Context: Mexican Judicial Reform Parallel**
Elsewhere, debates on alterations within Mexico’s judiciary have echoed concerns over balancing reformative ambition with safeguarding judicial impartiality. As varied stakeholders voice perspectives, the core of stabilizing justice systems domestically while addressing reformative demands persists. This illustrates a broader struggle within institutional reform frameworks, seeking equilibrium between modernization and immutable judicial standards.