Gender parity and judicial elections: why no new adjustments are needed

The TEPJF has resolved several important issues related to gender parity in the context of judicial elections.

The Constitution establishes that after the elections are held, the INE must alternately assign judicial positions between women and men.

At the time, the INE issued an agreement in which it balanced the right to vote with the principle of parity, with a harmonizing sense (INE/CG65/2025).

In this agreement, it was established that the alternate allocation should begin with women, thus allowing for the possibility of more elected female judges.

At the time, the TEPJF considered this to be a justified affirmative action, given the need to reverse the historical disparity in the composition of the jurisdictional bodies (SUP-JDC-1284/2025 and accumulated).

In that case, it was also recognized that the INE complied with the principle of certainty because its criteria established clear and precise rules about how the principle of parity would be applied.

Following the elections, the INE issued the agreements regarding the national summation of the election and the allocation of positions within the framework of the judicial election.

In response, in several cases recently submitted to the TEPJF, various plaintiffs filed objection lawsuits challenging the assignment of positions.

They pointed out that, with the staggered allocation, the parity criteria were not correctly applied. In their opinion, the petitioners, having obtained a higher number of votes, have a "better claim" over the male candidate who won in each case, as the strict staggered allocation rule had been followed.

I voted against the bills proposing to modify the INE's alternating agreement regarding the elections of circuit magistrates and district judges.

That is to say, my position was in favor of confirming said agreement, which followed the alternating assignment established by the Institute itself.

I considered that there was no basis or need to implement an additional adjustment regarding gender parity in the allocation of judicial positions, because the rules for such allocation not only fulfilled their purpose of guaranteeing this principle, but even exceeded the gender parity objective.

I supported maintaining the INE's gender parity allocation criteria, which, in practice, resulted in a majority of women being appointed to judicial election positions (around 60%).

I didn't think it was appropriate for the TEPJF to implement a new affirmative action regarding gender equality. Affirmative action couldn't be implemented after candidate registrations, after the campaign, and after election day.

Furthermore, the TEPJF had already validated the alternation and parity agreement prior to election day, with clear, precise, and objective rules. Rejecting it now violates the agreement, the Constitution itself, and the Court's previous ruling.

In my opinion, it was now time to guarantee the principle of legal certainty in judicial elections.

All of the above, however, does not prevent us from considering constitutional amendments ahead of the next election, in 2027, that would better maximize the rights of traditionally excluded populations.

*The author is an electoral judge of the TEPJF.