From Defender of El Chapo to Judicial Candidate: The Unfolding Story of Silvia Delgado

As Mexico prepares for a unique election to directly elect its entire judiciary, Silvia Delgado, known for her defense of El Chapo, stands as a controversial candidate facing critics questioning her legitimacy. Despite being labeled a "high risk candidate," Delgado asserts her right to run, advocating for judicial independence amidst a changing legal landscape.

As traffic stalls near the Bridge of the Americas linking Mexico and the USA, Silvia Delgado adeptly navigates through the vehicles distributing campaign flyers. "I'm running for penal judge," she declares with enthusiasm. Voters roll down their windows, accepting her leaflets. This Sunday marks a significant election – Mexicans will directly elect their judiciary for the first time, and Silvia Delgado is anything but a conventional contender.

Her pamphlets, however, omit her most notorious client: Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous drug lord and leader of the Sinaloa Cartel. Critics claim her association with such a figure should disqualify her from a judicial role. Delgado responds defiantly, "Why should my previous work as a defense attorney discredit me? Defending clients is my job, a professional obligation."

El Chapo remains imprisoned in the United States, but Silvia hasn't been found guilty of any crime or is facing investigations tied to her past defense. Nonetheless, a prominent human rights group, Defensorxs, has flagged her as a "high risk candidate," questioning her appropriateness for office. The organization's director, Miguel Alfonso Meza, emphasizes the complexities her past brings to the integrity of the judicial system, arguing that her previous role might compromise her independence.

Delgado sharply counters these critiques, insisting on the legitimacy of her legal practice and challenging accusations regarding financial impropriety. "How can you substantiate that?" she protests, asserting her payments were standard for legal services.

The election features over 7,500 judicial positions, including local magistrates and Supreme Court justices. This unprecedented reform has stirred public unrest amongst law students and legal workers, with fears of politicizing justice in Mexico. Critics argue that directly electing judges, a process pushed under the influence of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, undermines judicial authority.

Supporters of Delgado's cause point out that several nations, including the United States and Switzerland, also elect judges. Yet, Mexico stands as the first country to potentially elect its entire judiciary. Skepticism abounds among investors, worried about the democratic potential of a ruling party's control over all branches of government.

Another judicial hopeful, Olivia Aguirre Bonilla, a human rights lawyer from Ciudad Juárez, is among those highlighting the importance of this election as a chance to reform a historically corrupt judiciary. Aguirre Bonilla has self-funded her campaign, leveraging social media to share her six-point plan aimed at democratizing the judiciary.

While criticism surrounding the election's legitimacy continues, Aguirre Bonilla sees an opportunity for greater citizen engagement in the legal system, shifting power away from elite influences towards a vote representative of the people's will.

As the country gears up for a transformative election, whether Sylvia Delgado earns a seat in judgment will ultimately reflect the evolving perceptions and priorities of the Mexican electorate. With many watching closely, she remains hopeful that the people of Ciudad Juárez will recognize her professional contributions, even as she steps into a role today marked by her controversial past.