When voters in the state of Durango participate in Mexico’s inaugural judicial elections next weekend, Leopoldo Chavez will be listed as a candidate for federal judge, despite spending close to six years in a US prison.

Chavez was convicted on drug offenses: for smuggling over 4 kilograms of methamphetamines in 2015.

Durango is part of Mexico’s Golden Triangle, a cartel-controlled region growing marijuana and opium poppies.

“I have never presented myself as the flawless candidate,” Chavez stated in a video posted on his Facebook account. He maintained that he had no secrets and had completed his sentence.

He declined to comment to Reuters.

Meanwhile, in the neighboring Pacific state of Jalisco, Francisco Hernandez is seeking election as a criminal magistrate, even though his prior tenure as a judge ended with dismissal by the Federal Judiciary Council following an investigation related to accusations of sexual misconduct and graft.

He told Reuters the accusations were “slander and defamation.” “Let the people judge me,” he said.

And in Nuevo Leon, Fernando Escamilla is hoping to become a federal criminal judge and says the legal work he did advising lawyers for members of the ultra-violent Los Zetas cartel should not be held against him.

His knowledge of extradition law, on which he advised the capos, made him an asset, he told Reuters in an interview.

“Does being an advisor on international or extradition law give you a bad public reputation? I don’t think so, since that’s the only thing that demonstrates that you have the ability and knowledge to handle these types of situations,” Escamilla said.

Ahead of the elections on June 1, civil organizations, judge associations and some Mexican lawmakers are raising serious concerns about a vote that critics warn could jeopardize the country’s rule of law.

The controversial judicial overhaul was proposed by leftist former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and supported by his protege, President Claudia Sheinbaum. Both said it would root out corruption in Mexico’s flawed judiciary and allow the people to decide who should be a judge.

Around 5,000 candidates are vying for more than 840 federal positions, including all Supreme Court justices.

But with the vote just over a week away, Mexican rights group Defensorxs says it has identified about 20 people vying for positions that have criminal indiscretions, corruption allegations against them or past links to cartels, including a defense lawyer who represented drug kingpin Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman.

An analysis by the Judicial Electoral Observatory (OEJ), made up of non-profit organizations, has also flagged more than 130 candidates with a high probability of winning in the absence of opposing candidates, and criticized problems in the design of complicated ballots that feature hundreds of names and may confuse voters.

The reform, passed in September 2024, was criticized by then US ambassador Ken Salazar, who served during the administration of President Joe Biden, as a threat to Mexican democracy.

Critics say the reform, one of the most broad-ranging to be attempted in recent years by any country in the Western Hemisphere, risks removing checks and balances on the ruling Morena party and allowing organized crime groups greater influence over the judicial system.

The reform reduces the number of Supreme Court judges to nine from 11, cuts the length of their terms to 12 years, abolishes a minimum age requirement of 35, and halves necessary legal practice to five years.

It also scraps some benefits for judicial workers and creates a five-person disciplinary tribunal, which critics argue is insufficient to oversee a 50,000-member judiciary.

Defensorxs president Miguel Meza said that the candidates his organization had flagged revealed grave flaws in the government vetting system, which was meant to verify eligibility criteria including: Mexican citizenship by birth, a bachelor’s degree in law, “good reputation,” and a record clean of serious crime.

Meza said his organization has been making its way through the list of candidates and had identified other problematic names that they had yet to publish.

Meza said aspiring judges were apparently not screened for foreign convictions or who they had legally represented. He put much of the problem down to rushing the election.

“Everything we’re seeing is the result of trying to fast-track this reform,” Meza said.

Sheinbaum’s office and Mexico’s federal judiciary did not respond to a request for comment on the reform or the vetting.

Both the ruling coalition and the electoral authority have tried to distance themselves from questions about eligibility, saying it is too late to do anything before the election. Victorious candidates proven to be ineligible will have to be removed after the vote, election authorities said.

A Mexican association of magistrates and judges, JUFED, said the list of controversial candidates confirms its view that the reform is a threat to judicial independence in Mexico.

“What’s happening with the election is dangerous,” said JUFED national director Juana Fuentes. “There is a serious risk that criminal interests or groups, or people representing them, could become involved.”

Most of Mexico’s sitting Supreme Court justices announced they would not participate in the elections and instead will resign.

Candidates cannot use campaign materials that link them to a political party, participate in events organized by political parties or accept donations of any kind.

Professional Duty

Perhaps the candidate who has garnered the most headlines is Silvia Delgado, who represented the notorious El Chapo, former chief of the Sinaloa Cartel, in 2016. She visited him weekly in prison to share updates before he was extradited to the United States and eventually sentenced to life in prison.

Now, she hopes to become a criminal court judge in Chihuahua.

On a recent afternoon in the border town of Ciudad Juarez, Delgado braved the sweltering heat to hand out flyers and chat to voters outside a local school.

A single mom, who raised four children and put herself through law school, Delgado strikes a charismatic figure, in a black skirt suit and chunky heels.

“I’m not corrupt,” she said, “they can’t burn you for having represented someone.”

“The best legacy I can give, as a human being and for my children and grandchildren, is to have been a person of integrity, who always defended people.”

She said she considers her work representing El Chapo, which included filing a petition that he be provided a blanket in prison, to be in line with her professional duties.

Delgado is upfront about the reason she took on the job. It was, she says, a big step up for her as a lawyer; and one she’d take again. “I was interested because it was a career opportunity… Working on the case of such a famous figure.”

She said she had not had any contact with El Chapo’s lawyers since the case, though she did agree to help his wife, a US-Mexican dual national, take her children to the United States.

She kept her harshest words for activist Meza, describing him as “irresponsible” and running a “Robin Hood group” bent on “directly attacking me.”

Meza said Defensorxs was not interested in “attacking” any candidate, but exposing the risks associated with them.

“Our goal is to inform the public about these risks so they can take them into account when exercising their right to vote.”

“It seems clear to us that this risk exists in Silvia Delgado’s case,” he added. He did not identify other concerns apart from her legal work for El Chapo.

Media War

Senate leader Gerardo Fernandez Norona, a powerful member of the ruling party, told Reuters the focus on the eligibility of certain candidates was a “racist, classist” media war aimed at discrediting the elections.

“It’s not important. It’s not relevant,” Norona said, adding that people found ineligible could be withdrawn after the vote.

The INE electoral authority has made it clear that names cannot be removed ahead of the vote.

Claudia Zavala, an electoral advisor at INE, said the body should have been included earlier in the vetting process, which was conducted by committee members selected by Congress, the judicial power and the executive branch of government.

“It seems that splitting that function around other authorities was not ideal,” she said.

Now, all that can be done by INE is a post-election review of any formal complaints about candidates in order to prove a person is ineligible to hold office, Zavala said. If a winner does not meet the requirements, the role would go to the second-placed finisher.

However, any investigation into a candidate’s eligibility must be completed by June 15, Zavala said, when election results are finalized and positions confirmed.

“The evidence must be very clear,” she said.