‘Demanding adherence to principles is, either, to accept the federal system with all its advantages and dangers, or to denounce it frankly and proclaim the empire of central government, granting it the power to correct the abuses that local authorities might commit.’Ignacio Vallarta

The annulment of the 2000 gubernatorial elections in Tabasco marked a fundamental precedent for electoral justice in Mexico and the role of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación – TEPJF) in federal, state and local elections. Successive constitutional reforms that ended with the ‘definitive’ electoral reforms of 1996 have consolidated a regime of electoral dispute adjudication at the federal level, giving political parties the right to appeal state cases before federal authorities. Whereas a clear tendency exists towards greater decentralisation of power under ‘new federalism’, in the electoral field centralism concentrated on the TEPJF and the Supreme Court of Justice has been adopted. However, in the context of political pluralism and a more authentic federalism, the TEPJF's new role has caused conflicting reactions. Some sectors are insisting on the need to limit this institution's powers so that in the future it can only rule over subnational elections based on well-defined criteria that respect specific jurisdictional principles.