��������

MEXICO CITY: Mexico is holding its first ever judicial elections on Sunday, stirring controversy and sowing confusion among voters still struggling to understand a process set to transform the country’s court system.
Mexico’s ruling party, Morena, overhauled the court system late last year, fueling protests and criticism that the reform is an attempt by those in power to seize on their political popularity to gain control of the branch of government until now out of their reach.
“It’s an effort to control the court system, which has been a sort of thorn in the side” of those in power, said Laurence Patin, director of the legal organization Juicio Justo in Mexico. “But it’s a counter-balance, which exists in every healthy democracy.”
Now, instead of judges being appointed on a system of merit and experience, Mexican voters will choose between some 7,700 candidates vying for more than 2,600 judicial positions.
Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum and party allies have said the elections are a way to purge the court system of corruption in a country that has long faced high levels of impunity. Critics say the vote could damage democracy and open the judicial system up further to organized crime and other corrupt actors hoping to get a grip on power.
That process has only grown more chaotic in the run-up to the vote.
Civil society organizations like Defensorxs have raised red flags about a range of candidates running for election, including lawyers who represented some of Mexico’s most feared cartel leaders and local officials who were forced to resign from their positions due to corruption scandals.
Also among those putting themselves forward are ex-convicts imprisoned for years for drug-trafficking to the United States and a slate of candidates with ties to a religious group whose spiritual leader is behind bars in California after pleading guilty to sexually abusing minors.
At the same time, voters have been plagued by confusion over a voting process that Patin warned has been hastily thrown together. Voters often have to choose from sometimes more than a hundred candidates who are not permitted to clearly voice their party affiliation or carry out widespread campaigning.
As a result, many Mexicans say they’re going into the vote blind. Mexico’s electoral authority has investigated voter guides being handed out across the country, in what critics say is a blatant move by political parties to stack the vote in their favor.
“Political parties weren’t just going to sit with their arms crossed,” Patin said.
Miguel Garcia, a 78-year-old former construction worker, stood in front of the country’s Supreme Court on Friday peering at a set of posters, voter guides with the faces and numbers of candidates.
He was fiercely scribbling down their names on a small scrap of paper and said that he had traveled across Mexico City to try to inform himself ahead of the vote, but he couldn’t find any information other than outside the courthouse.
“In the neighborhood where I live, there’s no information for us,” he said. “I’m confused, because they’re telling us to go out and vote but we don’t know who to vote for.”

LONDON: British finance minister Rachel Reeves’ key decision in next week’s multi-year spending review will be how much to spend on health care versus other public services, the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said on Sunday.
Reeves is due to set out day-to-day spending limits for other government departments on June 11 which will run through to the end of March 2029 — almost until the end of the Labour government’s expected term in office.
Britain has held periodic government spending reviews since 1998, but this is the first since 2015 to cover multiple years, other than one in 2021 focused on the COVID pandemic.
The non-partisan IFS said this spending review could prove to be “one of the most significant domestic policy events” for the current Labour government.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement in February that defense spending would reach 2.5 percent of national income by 2027 had already used the room for further growth in public investment created in Reeves’ October budget, it said.
“Simultaneously prioritising additional investments in public services, net zero and growth-friendly areas ... will be impossible,” said Bee Boileau, a research economist at the IFS.
Non-investment public spending is intended to rise by 1.2 percent a year on top of inflation between 2026-27 and 2028-29, according to budget plans which Reeves set out in October — half the pace of spending growth in the current and previous financial year.
The IFS sees no scope for this to be topped up, as Reeves’ budget rules leave almost no room for extra borrowing and tax rises are now limited to her annual budget statement.
This forces Reeves and Starmer to choose between the demands of the public health care system — plagued by long waiting times and a slump in productivity since the COVID-19 pandemic — and other stretched areas.
In past spending reviews, annual health care spending has typically risen 2 percentage points faster than total spending.
If that happened this time — equivalent to an annual increase of 3.4 percent — spending in other departments would have to fall by 1 percent a year in real terms, the IFS forecast.
Raising health care spending at roughly the same pace as other areas — a 1.2 percent rise — would only just keep pace with an aging population and not allow any reversal of recent years’ deterioration in service quality, the IFS said.
Spending cuts could be achieved by scaling back services provided by the state, reducing public-sector employment or real-terms cuts in public-sector pay, it added.
But it warned the government needed to be specific about how it planned to make cuts, or risk financial markets losing confidence in its ability to keep borrowing under control.
The review does not cover spending on pensions or other benefits, which the government is tackling separately.