Electoral Court will resolve last Wednesday PJ’s choice judgments
Fabiola Martínez
La Jornada newspaper
Sunday, August 17, 2025, p. 6
Next Wednesday, the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court of the Judicial Branch of the Federation (TEPJF) will resolve the last block of judgments of the judicial election, some related to petitions of canceling specific contents.
Magistrates Reyes Rodríguez Mondragón and Janine Otálora Malassis admitted arguments of several of the dissatisfied and will propose the cancellation of the choice of ministers by the massive distribution of accordions.
According to the project published by Rodríguez – the magistrate does not disseminate it yet – the existence of illegal propaganda (prohibited financing), induction of the vote and, in general, violation of constitutional principles is configured.
Both magistrates are a minority in the plenary, however, an intense debate is expected with her colleagues, the magistrate president Mónica Soto, Felipe de la Mata and Felipe Fuentes, who in practice have established the majority block in the agency.
Of 963 nonconformity judgments linked to the judicial election filed before the TEPJF, the Superior Chamber has resolved 776, so they remain 181 for relief with a deadline of August 28; Almost half have been inadmissible and, of which the background has been analyzed, the changes are counted only by tens.
The only substantial turn was the reverse that the TEPJF gave to the methodology generated by the National Electoral Institute (INE) to evaluate academic averages of the 881 winning candidates.
The aforementioned majority block concluded that the only ones empowered to design a method of review of files and assignment of candidacies were the evaluation committees, one for each power of the union, and not the INE.
According to the TEPJF judgment, the electoral body only corresponded a comparison of general elements to determine whether the winners of the 881 disputes of this extraordinary election met the requirements, but not involved with the specific point of the minimum average of 9 in the specialty for which the candidates for district judges and circuit magistrates were applied.
At the moment, according to data collected by this newspaper, they must give – or return – the majority record to 14 district judges (12 who had been unseeded by not proving the average of 9 and two for not having, according to the diagnosis of the INE, 8 in the law degree). Also, 17 circuit magistrates (15 for the issue of the average specialty and two for the bachelor’s degree).
There have also been changes in certain criteria of parity, from which he assigned as winners in some judicial electoral districts to candidacies of men or women. In this regard, five district judges and seven circuit magistrates are counted so far, all women in both cases.
There is also an incident classified as “magistrates unfeasible votes”, although the specific matter is not detailed, of a civil matters corresponding to Judicial Circuit 18 of the Electoral Judicial District 01.
Then, so far there are 44 files in which the TEPJF sent the resolution to the INE to comply according to the corresponding effects in each matter.
