In what President Claudia Sheinbaum hailed as a 'complete success,' Mexico's inaugural judicial elections attracted a mere 13% of eligible voters, leaving experts questioning the legitimacy amid whispers of candidate crime ties.

Despite President Sheinbaum's optimism, the abysmal 13% voter turnout for Mexico's first judicial elections raises red flags about both engagement and integrity, especially given that this figure plummeted from the 60% turnout seen in the previous presidential election. Experts have raised brows over the deeply concerning backgrounds of certain candidates, some linked to organized crime, prompting questions about whether the only thing successfully elected was disappointment.

According to experts, the low participation rate brings into question the legitimacy of an election meant to establish judges who should uphold the law. Apparently, a less-than-stellar turnout might suggest that the populace is less interested in who decides their fates than in, say, which taco stand has the best salsa. While Sheinbaum is busy celebrating, many citizens feel that their votes could have been better spent on anything from good gossip to, well, the same taco stand.

The voting process itself was described as complex, causing frustration among potential voters who may have thought they were registering for a quick round of bingo instead of vetting candidates for judicial positions. 'It felt like I was trying to decipher an ancient manuscript,' sighed one eligible voter, who opted to spend the day with their cat instead of trying to figure out the voting requirements. Many wondered if the complexities were an intentional way to thin out the voting herd, or if it was just a bureaucratic oversight.

This voluntary voting process had no minimum turnout required for legitimacy—meaning that theoretically, a few stray cats could have participated, and it would still count as an election. Despite the lack of compulsory voting, the dismal turnout raises eyebrows about public enthusiasm, or the lack thereof. Perhaps if they'd framed it as a taco-eating contest, the turnout would have significantly improved.

In the aftermath, some civil society organizations voiced their apprehensions regarding some candidates' associations with organized crime. Given that this was intended to elect judges, one might think that having ties to the very entities they are meant to judge raises a few ethical questions. It’s rather like having a fox guard the henhouse—a popular but not exactly reassuring choice.

Among the various concerns surfacing post-election, reports of potential electoral crimes landed on the desks of Mexico’s Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Electoral Crimes. Yes, apparently, there is such a thing as a specialized office for electoral shenanigans—almost sounds like a reality TV pitch gone wrong. The gravity of the situation might incite a collective rolling of eyes at the state of the country's electoral process.

Yet, President Sheinbaum expressed optimism, stating that 'lessons would be learned' from this electoral experience. If there's a silver lining in all this chaos, it is presumably the hope that there will be reforms for future elections. Perhaps the next round will incorporate simpler voting methods, or at least a taco stand nearby for rejuvenating energy while contemplating the candidates’ qualifications—or lack thereof.

All in all, it appears that while the first judicial elections in Mexico had a turnout of around 13% of eligible voters, which is significantly lower than the 60% turnout in the previous presidential election, President Claudia Sheinbaum labeled them a 'complete success.' However, experts warned that the low voter turnout raises questions about the legitimacy of the election, and civil society organizations raised concerns about the backgrounds of some candidates, including ties to organized crime. For now, observers are left wondering what comes next–more reforms or simply another round of electoral indifference.