CIVICUS discusses recent constitutional changes in Mexico with Leopoldo Maldonado, regional director of the Mexico and Central America office of Article 19, an international organisation that defends freedom of expression and access to information.

On 29 May, the Mexican Congress amended the constitution to introduce a clause that allows electoral bodies to annul an election where foreign interference is proven. Civil society organisations warn that the lack of a precise definition of what constitutes foreign interference could be used to restrict freedom of expression and close down civic space.

What changes were made to the constitution?

A new ground for annulling elections was added in article 41, which regulates electoral processes. Previously, an election could be annulled if the winning candidate had exceeded campaign spending limits or used illicit funds. Now, it may also be annulled where acts of foreign intervention or interference that influence the results are substantiated.

Protecting elections from undue interference is legitimate in any democracy. The problem is that the approved wording is broad and ambiguous and could be applied arbitrarily. It doesn’t specify what is to be understood by foreign interference, what it implies or who may commit it. Nor does it distinguish between illegitimate interference and protected activities, such as electoral monitoring, free expression, international cooperation, journalism and rights advocacy.

This lack of precision is inherent to the format of a constitutional text, which can’t be exhaustive in its definitions. That’s what implementing legislation is for. However, as soon as the amendment was passed, the ruling party withdrew the draft bill and postponed its consideration. As electoral laws must be published at least 90 days before an electoral process begins, in this case the regulations will not be in place in time for federal elections in 2027 and will only come into force in 2030. So, for the time being, the new grounds for annulment are in the constitution in the absence of any rules to limit their use, and interpretation is left in the hands of electoral bodies, which are controlled by the ruling party.

Who pushed for the changes and on what grounds?

It was pushed by Morena, President Claudia Sheinbaum’s party, and its legislative allies, as part of a broader package of electoral changes.

Although it has been presented as a defence of sovereignty against external pressures, the political context means it must be viewed with caution. In Mexico, it has become commonplace for those in power to accuse civil society organisations, critical voices, human rights defenders, journalists and the media of acting in the interests of foreign powers. This occurs particularly when they receive funding from international cooperation programmes or maintain links with embassies, foundations, global human rights networks or multilateral organisations. Therefore, although it’s formally presented as a measure to protect democracy, in practice it may become a tool to delegitimise, punish or stifle critical voices.

What’s the risk of foreign interference in Mexico’s elections?

As in any country, there are risks of covert campaigns, coordinated disinformation, digital manipulation, illicit financing and pressure from foreign governments.

Mexico must take these threats seriously. However, a legitimate concern must not be turned into a weapon of persecution. The real challenge is to regulate specific and demonstrable unlawful conduct. By contrast, academic research, election observation, external funding for human rights organisations, international cooperation, journalism and strategic litigation do not, in themselves, constitute interference. They are key components of an open society. In a democracy, those in power must tolerate criticism, even when it crosses borders and particularly during electoral processes.

How does the change affect civil society, and how is civil society responding?

The main risk is a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Many civil society organisations in Mexico work on sensitive issues such as accountability, corruption, enforced disappearances, the environment, freedom of expression, human rights, justice, militarisation, security and violence. As domestic funding is limited, much of this work is supported by international cooperation funds. These resources also safeguard their independence in contexts of intense political polarisation.

If the new clause is interpreted broadly, an organisation documenting electoral irregularities, a media outlet investigating links between candidates and organised crime or a network denouncing attacks on the press could be accused of unduly influencing an election.

Civil society has been warning of these risks and is demanding that all secondary legislation establish clear safeguards. Fundamentally, we call for the definition of foreign interference to expressly exclude the legitimate activities of academia, civil society, election observers, journalists and the media.

The international community can support us by providing standards, monitoring the legislative process, backing media outlets and organisations under attack and insisting that the defence of sovereignty is no excuse for restricting rights.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.