Both authorities are accused of irregular reviews, for not examining all of the documents sent, lack of exhaustiveness and lack of motivation or justification regarding the reasons for the rejection.
Many of the complainants claim the violation of their right to be voted since their path to be considered as candidates for judicial positions was closed, and they claim that, in an anomalous way, these Committees excluded them.
In the appeals, the general complaint is that the review of the documents presented was omitted, it was not justified why in the opinion of the members of the Committees the legal requirements were not met, and “irregular” decisions were made.
Some dissidents, such as Héctor Javier Aguilar Rodríguez, alleged, for example, that in an anomalous way the Evaluation Committee of the Judiciary decided to exclude him for supposedly not attaching a requirement: the letter under protest of telling the truth of not having been sentenced for a custodial crime. freedom.
Of course I presented that requirement, that’s why in my appeal I explained in detail how it was that I did certify the presentation of that letter.”
Héctor Javier Aguilar Rodríguez, rejected candidate.
In interview with Political Expansionthe lawyer explained that this Committee improperly closed the platform to present disagreements on December 18, and should have done so until the 19th, since it made an irregular calculation of deadlines.
He declared that, in his opinion, the members of the Judiciary Committee are “sabotaging the process.”
“They are not in the best plan. If they did not want to participate, the most ethical thing was to say: ‘I do not participate’. What happens is that they do not believe in this process, they are against it, but they block us people who do want to participate.” , he accused.
Aguilar Rodríguez presented another appeal before the Legislative Branch Committee, but the rapporteur, Felipe de la Mata, plans to dismiss his case, because although he was excluded from the first list presented by that Committee, he did appear on a supposed “complementary list.” that you don’t know.
“When rendering its report, the Committee said (to the TEPJF) that I had appeared on a complementary list that I never found on the Internet, that is not published, but that I am there,” he said, referring to a list that, irregularly, It has not been public.
Another complainant is Luis Euripides Alejandro Flores Pacheco, who was Morena’s representative before the General Council of the National Electoral Institute. He was dissatisfied because he was not considered by the Executive and Legislative committees to be a candidate for minister of the SCJN.
Their main allegation is that a “violation of due process occurred, since the disqualification was carried out directly without granting the applicant the opportunity to defend himself or correct the alleged errors indicated.”
In his case it was eliminated, as explained in his appeal, because it was required to have a general average of eight and nine in the corresponding subjects in the bachelor’s, specialty, master’s or doctoral degree, and he accredited the requirement, but in postgraduate studies.
“The contested opinion suffers from the defect of maintaining that not having presented a list of subjects corresponding to the degree prevents the review of the respective requirement. “It is based on the erroneous and unconstitutional premise that the corresponding average can only be accredited through the bachelor’s degree,” the challenger explained in his appeal.
These complaints have not stopped the electoral process and the Evaluation Committees of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branch are still on their way to apply a tombola that reduces names of candidates.
The next February 12 deadline expires so that the Committees of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches send the final lists of candidates to the Senate of the Republic who will be proposed to go to the election for judicial positions next June 1.
The rejections
On December 15, the Committees—except the Legislative Committee, which was delayed four days—published the lists of candidates who met the eligibility requirements.
As determined, in some cases they did not provide complete documentation that accredited obtaining a minimum grade of 8 in the Law degree, they did not meet the required seniority of the degree, they did not provide letters of recommendation from neighbors; They did not prove professional experience, or they did not present an essay to justify their reasons for seeking a position.
According to public figures, the Executive Branch Evaluation Committee eliminated 40% of 18,447 applicants to elected positions for 2025 with the argument that they did not meet eligibility requirements.
He Judiciary Evaluation Committee left out almost 73% of the 3,814 people who had signed up to run for office.
He Legislative Branch Committee issued the preliminary list of 7,060 candidates for ministers, judges and magistrates, which implies that he discarded 76.14%.
On December 16, members of the Committee assured that more than 27,000 were registered: 11,646 requests through the Committee’s official website; 258 files received at the Legislative Branch Office and 15,242 emails, a modality that was opened at the last minute.
