A bombshell report by a retired Supreme Court minister, José Ramón Cossío, is rocking Mexico’s judicial and political circles. Cossío, along with constitutional lawyer José Alberto Medellín, released an analysis of the June 2025 “Judicial Election”. They concluded that it was marred by a “technical, statistical, and structural fraud”. This might be one of the most sophisticated instances of fraud in Mexico’s judicial elections. The findings were unveiled in a document titled “Elección Judicial 2025”. It scrutinized official data from the National Electoral Institute (INE) and found implausible voting patterns pointing to a rigged outcome.
For context, these elections (held June 1, 2025) were an unprecedented exercise. Fraud in Mexico’s judicial elections has always been a concern. Citizens voted for members of the judiciary – including perhaps judges or judicial councilors – as part of a contentious reform. Critics had already voiced concerns about the process. Cossío’s report appears to validate those fears with hard data. The most damning observation: in thousands of polling stations, the exact same slate of nine candidates “won” in the exact same rank order. This occurred despite no real campaigns or public profiles for those candidates.
“Pre-stuffing” the vote choices
Statistically, this is nearly impossible under normal voting behavior. With 64 candidates in the fray, the odds of the same nine names appearing in the same sequence across numerous precincts by chance are astronomically low. The report notes there would be 7 billion+ possible combinations. The only explanation, Cossío and Medellín argue, is a deliberate operation behind the scenes to predetermine winners. This involved essentially “pre-stuffing” the vote choices.
They describe the election as “perfect” in its manipulation – so uniform that its very perfection is evidence of artificiality. Concerns about fraud in Mexico’s judicial elections were heightened after this analysis. The report suggests that pre-printed lists of preferred candidates (known as “acordeones”) were mass-distributed. These instructed voters exactly how to vote, producing the uncanny identical results. Such coordination would imply involvement by political actors or officials at a high level, given the scale. “Democracy didn’t fail; it was copied,” the authors write, implying the whole exercise was a simulation.
Other red flags in the Judicial Election included extremely low voter turnout, lack of campaign spending transparency, and an absence of genuine competition. Essentially, it appears to have been a stealth selection masquerading as an election. The stakes are enormous – those elected will have influence over Mexico’s courts, including possibly appointments to the Supreme Court (SCJN), the Electoral Tribunal (TEPJF), and other key judicial bodies. If the process was illegitimate, then the integrity of those institutions is at risk. Cossío, a highly respected jurist who served 15 years on the Supreme Court, warned that accepting these results would be tantamount to normalizing a brazen assault on judicial independence. The report declares, “Validating this judicial election equals normalizing an unprecedented fraud, given its sophistication and impact on the justice system.”
Calls for election investigation
The revelations have prompted immediate calls from civil society and opposition figures to annul the election and investigate. Already, the Organization of American States (OAS), which had a small observer mission, noted concerns about low participation and “lack of safeguards” in its preliminary statement. Now, with hard evidence of statistically impossible results, pressure is mounting on electoral authorities (INE) and the government. The ruling Morena party’s leadership, which championed the judicial elections as a democratizing effort, has so far not responded in detail. However, it is likely to face tough questions, especially concerning fraud in Mexico’s judicial elections. This story was one of the most discussed on Mexican news forums on Sunday. It touches on potential democratic backsliding.
If proven, the judicial election fraud would represent a new kind of electoral manipulation in Mexico. This is not ballot-stuffing or vote-buying in a traditional sense. It is a centrally coordinated design of the outcome using the veneer of a vote. As Cossío and his co-author put it, “the pattern is so perfect it reveals its artificiality… what happened violates every basic principle of constitutional and genuine electoral processes.” Fraud in Mexico’s judicial elections would be alarming for the country's future democratic process. Mexico’s judiciary has been a battleground in recent years, with conflicts between the government and judges over autonomy and selection. This report could be a game-changer, potentially invalidating the election and sparking reforms or legal battles in the weeks ahead.
