Election observers at the OAS voice serious concerns about Mexico's contentious judicial elections
In a report, the electoral mission said the June 1 election was 'extremely complex' and 'polarizing,' and was marked by a 'widespread lack of awareness' among voters about what they were voting for and who the thousands of candidates were.
In Sunday's vote, Mexicans elected 881 federal judges and another 1,800 state judges as part of a complete overhaul of the judiciary. The process was carried out following a constitutional reform approved last year by a Congress with a ruling-party majority. The overhaul fueled protests and criticism within Mexico and by the American and Canadian governments, which warned of a potential loss of judicial independence and the politicization of justice in Mexico.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her mentor and architect of the overhaul, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador claimed they want to root out corruption in the judiciary, which most Mexicans agree is broken.
Mexico's electoral authority said this week that voter turnout was 13%, significantly lower than the 60% turnout in last year's general elections.
In the Friday report, the OAS mission — led by former Chilean Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz Valenzuela — expressed concern over 'the low level of citizen participation' and noted that 'this is one of the lowest turnout levels in the region.' Observers also pointed to the 'high percentage' of null and unmarked ballots, which exceeded 10%.
'It's necessary to carry out a comprehensive reflection on the nature of the (electoral) process and how it was conducted,' the report concluded.
The OAS's 16-member observation mission also raised concerns about the nine candidates elected to join Mexico's Supreme Court who 'were promoted in physical and digital 'cheat sheets.'" While parties were not allowed to advocate for candidates, pamphlets known as 'accordions' guiding voters on which candidates to vote for were widely distributed.
Mexican electoral authorities investigated complaints against the ruling Morena party and other opposition groups that distributed the voter guides in communities across the capital and other cities in the weeks leading up to the vote. The agency also ordered that a website featuring a digital cheat sheet with Morena-aligned candidates for the Supreme Court and other top tribunals be taken down.
OAS observers also noted that six of the nine candidates elected to the high court had been nominated by the government controlled by Morena, and the remaining three were justices appointed by López Obrador, 'which raises reasonable doubts about the autonomy and independence of the highest court in relation to the Executive.'
Given the findings, the mission concluded that 'it does not recommend this model of judge selection be replicated in other countries in the region.'
Despite the criticism, Sheinbaum praised the election this week, calling it a success.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
23 minutes ago
- NBC News
CEOs globally brace for tariff turmoil with a new game plan
Trade tensions are rising, forcing top executives to rewrite the rulebook on how their companies operate, where they invest and what customers buy. In interviews with CNBC this earnings season, CEOs across industries — from aluminum and aerospace to chocolate, banking, telecoms, and energy — sent a clear message: tariffs are no longer just a political tactic. As trade rules grow more uncertain and tariffs resurface in policy discussions, business leaders say they're rethinking everything from where factories are located to how products are priced. The old 'just in time' model is giving way to something more cautious: make goods closer to the buyer, ask for exemptions where possible, and stay alert to shifting consumer habits. This earnings season has been marked by currency swings, inflation, and political uncertainty. And in that environment, tariffs are no longer background noise. They're front and center in how companies are managing risk. For many in the C-suite, the threat isn't just about short-term costs — it's about staying competitive for the long haul. Build local, think political 'We are concerned about the competitiveness of aluminum compared to other materials,' Hydro Chief Financial Officer Trond Olaf Christophersen told CNBC earlier this week. The company is already passing U.S. tariff costs onto customers. But the deeper worry is how, 'some customers in packaging are already testing steel and plastic alternatives. That's the long game we're watching.' For Christophersen, it's not just a quarterly issue — it's a warning sign. And Hydro's concern reflects a broader shift: tariffs are speeding up lasting changes in how companies do business. One of the most common responses is moving production closer to customers. Ericsson CEO Börje Ekholm told CNBC the company's North American factory, opened in 2020, was a forward-looking move. 'We've had that 'Made in America' stamp for some time,' he said. The facility now helps protect the company from shifting global politics. Volvo Cars CEO Håkan Samuelsson is also focused on the U.S. 'We want to fill our factory in South Carolina,' he told CNBC, noting that the company is breaking operations into more independent regions so local teams can respond quickly to new trade policies. Pharma giant AstraZeneca is also pivoting its footprint, rapidly shifting manufacturing to the U.S. and planning a $50 billion investment in local operations. 'We have lots of reasons to be here,' CEO Pascal Soriot said on the company's earnings call. For others, localization is as much about sovereignty as it is about logistics. 'We are building data centers for American hyperscalers in Europe, but also for Europeans in the U.S. It's a conscious decoupling,' Skanska CEO Anders Danielsson told CNBC. 'Sovereign tech is a real priority.' Not every company can shift where things are made. Some are relying on diplomacy. Rolls-Royce CFO Helen McCabe told CNBC the aerospace firm worked with U.K. and U.S. governments to win exemptions for key parts. 'It's not just about tariffs,' she said. 'It's about aligning our industrial footprint to minimize any friction.' That kind of behind-the-scenes outreach points to a bigger change: trade policy has become a key part of business planning. More companies are factoring in government relations and political risk when making decisions. Price hikes, policy risk and volatility Even the most proactive companies can't prepare for everything. Some are eating the higher costs. Others are raising prices — carefully. Lindt & Sprüngli, the premium chocolate maker, raised prices by 15.8% this year to offset soaring cocoa costs, driven partly by export restrictions in West Africa. 'We saw only a 4.6% decline in volume mix,' CEO Adalbert Lechner told CNBC. But he admitted that U.S. consumers are becoming more price-sensitive. Givaudan CEO Gilles Andrier shared a similar view. 'Some of our natural ingredients come from Africa and Latin America,' he told CNBC. 'So we're exposed to some tariffs there.' Even companies with local factories can't avoid all trade impacts when raw materials come from abroad. For companies tied to commodities, the trade duties are just one piece of a bigger puzzle: unpredictability. 'The tricky thing was, it was non-fundamentals-based volatility,' Shell CEO Wael Sawan told CNBC, describing recent swings in the oil market. 'This wasn't a change to physical commodity flows. This was really sort of paper-induced volatility.' That, he said, makes it harder to plan investments or manage price risk. Even in banking, where the direct impact of tariffs might seem small, the consequences are showing up. 'When you price risk now, you can't just look at credit or liquidity. You have to model policy unpredictability,' UniCredit CEO Andrea Orcel told CNBC. That includes trade tensions, regulatory surprises, and election-related gridlock. This quarter makes one thing clear: policy is now a core business risk, not background noise. With elections ahead and industrial policy shifting, companies are localizing, diversifying, lobbying, and repricing faster than ever. Tariffs aren't just a cost — they're reshaping industries. When customers trade aluminum for steel or chocolate for cheaper treats, the threat isn't just margins. It's market share. So yes, leaders are building closer to home, pricing smarter, negotiating harder as they scramble to stay ahead of the next curveball.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Corporate America is not falling for the left's outrage over Sydney Sweeney's ‘good jeans' ad
The left is trying its best to stir up a furor over the recent Sydney Sweeney jeans (or is it genes) TV commercial to ignite a backlash similar to the Dylan Mulvaney-Bud Light debacle. Sorry progressives, it ain't happening. Yes, there's lots of chirping from lefty columnists, purple-haired TikTok influencers, late-night hosts who are still employed, and assorted wokesters after American Eagle had the audacity to feature the attractive blond, blue-eyed actress expressing her sartorial flair in a pair of tight-fitting blue jeans. Advertisement 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color . . . my jeans are blue,' the 'Euphoria' star says. The ad ends with a voice-over: 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.' Blond women? Blue-eyed? Good genes (I mean jeans)? Oh, the horror! That's if you are listening to the leftist commentariat that still hasn't piped down weeks after the spot first appeared. The lefties are freaking because they think the jeans company is looking to bring back the bad old days, pre-George Floyd of course, when white blond oppressors ruled over American culture. Advertisement It's all very Hitler-like to the progressive numbskull class, but not to just about every other segment of American society. Most Americans of all colors and genders either don't care, or they know good genes and jeans when they see it. I know this based on lots of reporting on the mind virus known wokeness — the progressive orthodoxy that embraces everything from cultural Marxism, DEI and, of course, the oppressor-oppressed theology. We are a diverse country, and that's good. The wokesters take it to a level that excludes rather than includes. Good-looking white people, particularly if their hair is that evil shade known as blond, are nowhere near the intersectional matrix they demand for hiring or image making in their version of America. Advertisement That's why Sydney Sweeney, known more for her cleavage than her politics, has become a touchstone in our culture wars, and here's why the attacks won't work: Wokeness was once big in the business world, but notice my use of the past tense. Corporate America listened to these kooks for many reasons, including their own progressive management leanings, with disastrous results. They learned the hard way that most Americans of all races hate being proselytized with political dogma, particularly of the left-wing variety that pushes the limits of identity and gender politics beyond cultural norms. I chronicled this spectacle with a healthy dose of schadenfreude in my book 'Go Woke Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America.' Just a few short years ago, DEI was the norm; so was radical environmentalism pushed by asset managers through something called ESG investing. It was difficult finding a straight man or woman — God forbid a blond — who survived the Madison Avenue woke censor machine. Budweiser thought its customers were ready for a commercial featuring a half-naked trans woman in a bubble bath. Disney decided it could sell more kids programming featuring same-sex kissing scenes. Money managers like BlackRock thought they could increase returns by advocating environmentalism and de facto racial quotas on their portfolio companies. Advertisement All of the above resulted in some of the biggest brand-destroying disasters in modern business history. Marketing is a lot like politics. It's a business of addition, not subtraction. You build customers just like you attract voters, through messaging that unites rather than divides — or customers flee. There are exceptions, of course. Niche brands like Ben & Jerry's ice cream attempt and succeed at targeting the tree-hugger demo. Try this stuff on a mass audience and you will get the beatdown of the century. The predictable customer revolt impacted the businesses of Budweiser, Disney and BlackRock in such a measurable way that shareholders revolted, too, forcing some of the most progressive CEOs in the world to course-correct. That's why the Sydney Sweeney uproar will go nowhere with the people who matter most: Most American consumers, and American Eagle shareholders. Unless you're stretching it like Silly Putty, there's nothing inherently political about a pretty blond (dare I say 'All American'-looking) woman in jeans and pointing out the health of her genes to sell stuff. Zero. Zilch. Otherwise, Pamela Anderson would have been a poster child for Aryan Nations instead of the 'Baywatch' babe most American men and many women adored, and still do. Shares of American Eagle are up since the Sydney Sweeney ad ran, despite the backlash. NYU Marketing Professor Eitan Muller points out the obvious, telling Fox Business's Teuta Dedvukaj that the commercial 'attracts attention, drives Google searches, and boosts the brand. Yes, she does have great genes — and it rings authentic. That's what you want from an ad.' My bet: You will be seeing a lot more of Sydney Sweeney. Most men will be rejoicing, many women will buy the company's jeans. Management will be rewarded with higher sales and a stock price that matches. The attacks will ultimately fail for the same reason Mulvaney's tenure as a spokeswoman for Bud Light was so short-lived. Recall: The nation's Number 1-selling beer dropped to Number 3 and never recovered. Sydney Sweeney has both good jeans and genes and there's nothing the wokesters can do to change that reality.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers, from Laos to Brazil. And there were no real winners
WASHINGTON — President Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers — from small, poor countries such as Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty export taxes — tariffs — on the products they export to the U.S. starting Thursday. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that succumbed to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded — dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' — April 2 — when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Trump retreated temporarily after April announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually some of them did, acceding to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs to maintain their ability to sell to the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the U.K. for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low-single-digit rates they paid last year, but lower than the tariffs he was threatening — 30% on the EU and 25% on Japan. Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while the Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt by a U.S. ally that China claims as its territory. 'Twenty percent from the beginning has not been our goal. We hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei on Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally who is facing trial for trying to overturn his electoral loss and inspiring a riot in the capital in 2023 — recalling Trump's role in the Jan. 6. insurrection two years earlier at the U.S. Capitol. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on long-standing U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state in light of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his April 2 tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wends its way through the legal system, and may end up at the Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If [the tariffs] get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who typically pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker have all raised prices due to U.S. tariffs. 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report.
