Mexico’s lower chamber approved a controversial judicial reform plan early Wednesday, passing the measure after a marathon session in a sports gym as protesters blocked access to Congress.
The most contentious of the reforms proposed by outgoing President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador would have judges selected by popular vote, prompting outcry from Mexico’s opposition while alarming the United States and international investors.
A landslide win in June elections gave Lopez Obrador’s Morena party and its allies the two-thirds majority in the lower house needed to approve constitutional reforms, and nearly the same proportion in the Senate.
The measure was approved by a sufficient supermajority early Wednesday morning, after which several of its articles must be further debated before it moves to the Senate.
Ahead of the debate on Tuesday, hundreds of judicial employees blocked streets leading to the Chamber of Deputies with cars, and placed tape across roads to prevent pedestrians from passing.
The protests forced lawmakers to meet in a sports center in the east of Mexico City instead.
Lopez Obrador, whose six-year term began in 2018, argues that the judiciary serves the interests of the political and economic elite.
The popular leader has often criticized the Supreme Court, which impeded some of his proposed reforms in areas such as energy and security.
The plan is supported by president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, a Morena party member who takes office on October 1.
It has sparked diplomatic tensions with the United States and upset financial markets, causing a sharp fall in the peso.
US Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar has warned that the changes would “threaten” a trade relationship between the neighboring countries that “relies on investors’ confidence in Mexico’s legal framework”.
Canada, also a member of the major free trade partnership with the United States and Mexico, has said investors are worried.
In response, Lopez Obrador has announced a “pause” in relations with the US and Canadian embassies, criticizing the ambassadors’ statements as “interventionist”.
