INE settles controversy: there will be no recount of votes in judicial elections

The General Council of the National Electoral Institute (INE) has declared the validity of the historic election for the Judiciary and unanimously rejected requests for a full recount. The decision, based on the fact that the new judicial reform does not contemplate such a mechanism, intensifies the controversy in a process already marked by accusations of irregularities and deep political polarization.

In a session that kept the national political scene in suspense, the National Electoral Institute (INE) closed the door to a "vote-by-vote" recount of the judicial elections held on June 1. The councilors argued that the constitutional reform that gave rise to these elections omitted this aspect, and therefore they do not have the legal authority to conduct it.

This decision validates the results that will shape the new Federal Judicial Branch, including the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), despite multiple challenges and allegations of fraud by the opposition and civil organizations.

The INE's position has focused strictly on procedural legality. Since there is no article in the new law that allows for a recount at the request of the candidates, the institute concludes that its counting work is complete. However, critics argue that this approach ignores the democratic legitimacy of the process.

The controversy is fueled by concrete facts that have tainted the election:

* The "accordions": During the validation session, Councilor Martín Faz acknowledged that in 61% of the polling stations, the results for the winners of the Court matched the "accordions" or voting guides that were distributed en masse before the election, a practice that violates electoral regulations.

* Low turnout: Only 13% of the electorate participated in the election, a fact that critics use to question the winners' mandate.

* Formal challenges: The "Poder Ciudadano MX" collective and other opposition groups have formally filed challenges with the INE and the Electoral Tribunal, seeking to annul the election on the grounds that it is undemocratic.

This clash of views raises a fundamental question that resonates in public debate: when a law is perceived as a tool to subvert democratic principles, does simply following it to the letter guarantee a legitimate outcome?

The ruling party defends the election as a legal exercise and a fulfilled popular mandate, dismissing the challenges as attempts to nullify the will expressed at the polls. Judge-elect Celia Maya, for example, has ruled out the possibility of "persecution" of judges.

However, the concern transcends borders. Governments such as those of the United States and Canada have expressed concern that the reform will politicize the judiciary and jeopardize judicial independence, a fundamental pillar of foreign investor confidence.

"Attempting to declare this election invalid because of 800 polling stations... against more than 80,000 polling stations that show no irregularities... strikes me as an extreme and regrettable situation." – Guadalupe Taddei, President of the INE.

With the INE's validation, the legal battle now moves entirely to the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judicial Branch (TEPJF), which will have the final say on the more than 62 challenges filed so far. The future of Mexico's justice system hangs in the balance, amid one of the deepest institutional crises in its recent history.