From Defending a Drug Lord to Seeking Judicial Power: The Unconventional Political Ascent of Silvia Delgado

As the election process unfolds, Silvia Delgado's controversial past defending El Chapo brings both scrutiny and support. Critics express concerns about her legitimacy, while Delgado insists her professional duties do not disqualify her from seeking judicial office. This election, marking a significant shift towards a direct ballot for all judges in Mexico, raises questions about the potential politicization of the judicial system.

As traffic crawls near the Bridge of the Americas, linking Mexico with the United States, Silvia Delgado expertly navigates between cars, distributing campaign leaflets. "I'm running for penal judge," she cheerfully announces, urging voters to select her as number 12 on their ballots. Many drivers accept her flyers with smiles, but the upcoming election is noteworthy—not only because it marks the first direct election of Mexico's judiciary by voters but because of Delgado's controversial background.

Delgado is known for her representation of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous drug lord and leader of the Sinaloa Cartel. Her campaign pamphlets, however, omit her most notorious association, igniting debate about whether her past should threaten her candidacy. Critics argue that her ties to a major drug figure preclude her from serving as a judge, a sentiment she ardently disputes.

"Why should I be disqualified for fulfilling my professional responsibilities?" Delgado asserts, reacting strongly to any insinuation of a conflict of interest. She argues that her role as a defense attorney is rooted in upholding individual rights and presenting a competent legal defense, irrespective of her client’s ill repute.

Despite having no criminal charges against her, Delgado faces scrutiny from organizations such as Defensorxs, which has labeled her one of 19 "high risk candidates." The group raises concerns about individuals with ties to drug cartels potentially compromising the integrity of the judiciary. Miguel Alfonso Meza, director of Defensorxs, warns that those with past connections to cartels, even as attorneys, may face undue influence and loyalty pressures once they are elected.

Delgado dismisses claims leveled against her by Defensorxs, including allegations of receiving payments linked to drug money. She counters that her compensation came from reputable legal sources, and her professional integrity stands firm against such accusations.

In total, more than 7,500 judicial positions are being contested, ranging from local magistrates to the Supreme Court justices. Amidst discussions about the controversial judicial reform that allows such elections, critics have voiced fears about politicizing the judiciary. This reform, touted by President Claudia Sheinbaum, comes in response to perceived backlogs and inefficiencies within the current system.

While some argue that other nations successfully elect judges, opponents of the reform stress the risks associated with granting political actors influence over judicial appointments. Michal Alfonso Meza asserts that such arrangements could lead to corruption and compromised impartiality.

Among the candidates for the Supreme Court is Olivia Aguirre Bonilla, a legal advocate for human rights in Ciudad Juárez. She campaigns on a platform to democratize the judiciary and ensure it serves the populace rather than entrenched elites. Aguirre Bonilla acknowledges the political complexities involved in her candidacy but believes it is a pivotal moment for justice reform.

With the election drawing near, voters' responses and turnout levels may signal public support for this transformative change in Mexico’s judicial system. As for Silvia Delgado, she aspires to earn the respect of Ciudad Juárez citizens, hoping her past will not overshadow her ambition to judge those who come before her in a court of law.