In July, a significant legislative package was introduced in Mexico, including the new Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law and a Law on the National Research and Intelligence System for Public Security. The telecommunications law establishes a Digital Transformation and Telecommunications Agency to expand internet access to marginalized communities but has raised privacy concerns. While judicial orders are required to access private communications, real-time geo-location does not require judicial approval. It also mandates the use of biometric ID when obtaining a mobile number, accessing certain services, or engaging in e-commerce. Separately, compulsory biometric identification was introduced through amendments to the General Law on Enforced Disappearances and the General Population Law, meaning that individuals must provide biometric data for official population records and civil registration purposes. Critics argue both measures lack sufficient privacy safeguards. Additionally, the intelligence law allows linking public and private databases, which privacy advocates warn could undermine rights without proper oversight.

Sources: La Jornada, Vanguardia, Diario Oficial de la Federacion, Proceso, El Pais 

Mexico’s first judicial elections took place on 1 June, following constitutional amendments to overhaul the judiciary. Ballots included candidates for most federal judgeships, including all seats on the Supreme Court, Electoral Tribunal and the newly created Judicial Discipline Tribunal. Elections of local judges also took place in 19 of the 32 states, with the remaining states still working to amend their local constitutions to allow for judicial elections.
Voter turnout was approximately 13.0 per cent, and to fulfill constitutional requirements for gender parity, citizens elected five women and four men to the Supreme Court. Other federal judgeships were filled under the same principle. Mexico is the only country to elect all its judges by popular vote.
An OAS electoral observation mission noted difficulties in the preparatory process due to limited time for implementing the judicial reform and noted complaints about 'cheat sheets' promoting specific candidates distributed by some parties and local officials.  

Sources: Instituto Nacional Electoral, Organization of American States, Voz y Voto, International IDEA

On 27 February, 29 cartel leaders and members (most, Mexican nationals), wanted in the United States for crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking and organized crime were transferred to that country, bypassing the extradition process. According to the Mexican Attorney General (AG) and the federal Security and Citizen Protection Minister, the cartel leaders were ‘sent’ or ‘transferred’, pursuant to Mexico’s National Security Law and article 89 of the Constitution. The officials clarified the cartel leaders had not been extradited, but transferred following a decision of the National Security Council in response to a U.S. request. They defended this procedure, blaming corruption in the judiciary for the delay in resolving extradition requests, given that injunctions and appeals meant that some cases had been ongoing for many years. The decision is atypical, both for the legal basis invoked and Mexico’s long-established demand that any nationals subject to extradition requests are spared the death penalty. Although the AG asserted that capital punishment would not be pursued in the criminal cases, U.S. prosecutors have not given such assurances publicly.  

 Sources: : Gobierno de Mexico, Expansion Politica, El Pais, Reuters, NY Times, El Universal

On 15 January, the Federal Judiciary’s Electoral Tribunal (TEPJF) upheld the National Electoral Institute’s (INE) decision to exclude Mexicans living abroad from this year’s first ever judicial elections in the country (to take place in June). Although the TEPJF rejected INE’s argument that it was prevented from including migrants in the absence of specific legislation that expressly recognized their rights to vote in judicial elections, it upheld INE’s decision on other grounds. The TEPJF recognized the right of Mexican migrants to vote for members of the Supreme Court, the TEPJF and of the Tribunal of Judicial Discipline, however it reasoned that it is materially impossible to guarantee such rights for the upcoming elections. It decided that the short time-frame to organize these elections, along with the limited budget and resources, would prevent the electoral management body from implementing any modality for voting from abroad. 

Sources: TEPJF, La Jornada, Proceso, Milenio, International IDEA