federal government). Most state judiciaries have been provided with resources to buy
computer equipment, library materials, and install videoconference equipment (United
Nations 2002, 15). The state judiciaries have only recently gained control of their
budgets. As late as the early 1990s the governor controlled the state judicial budgets in
many states (Concha and Caballero 2002). Clearly the amount of money a state spends
on its judicial system in one important indicator of performance.
After the federal judicial reforms in 1994, there was pressure on the state
governments to make similar reforms to the state judiciaries. The process of reform,
however, has been very uneven across the states. Some states have advanced
significantly, while others lag far behind in efforts at judicial reform (Concha and
Caballero 2002, 262-263). Like most of the institutional reforms in Mexico over the last
decade, the pattern seems to be one of a few states on the forefront of institutional
innovation starting the reform process. Then the federal government imitates the reforms
and pressures those states that lag behind to do the same.
Similar to other countries in the region, in 1994 Mexico’s Supreme Court adopted
a Judicial Council (Consejo de Judicatura) to take over many administrative tasks and
improve judicial efficiency. The council makes appointments to lower courts,
administers the budget and personnel issues, and is responsible for controlling corruption
(Domingo 2000, 714). Previously, much of the Supreme Court’s plenary sessions were
devoted to mundane administrative duties. Some states have adopted judicial councils,
while others still deal with all administrative duties in the plenary sessions of the supreme
court. A judicial council improves efficiency by freeing up the justices’ time to focus on
legal issues. Also, a judicial council is usually more autonomous from the president of
the court and therefore better able to carry out the administrative and disciplinary duties
19
Convention