Below are some of the most significant activities from the series of events that marked the Democracy Action Lab’s launch in Mexico. The Lab’s launch is made possible through the support of VélezReyes+ and the Zampa Foundation.
 

Meeting with Minister Giovanni Figueroa — Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation

On October 29, the DAL delegation, led by Professors Magaloni and Díaz-Cayeros, along with Kim Juárez, a research affiliate at DAL, was received at Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice by Minister Giovanni Figueroa. Justice Figueroa is one of the nine Supreme Court judges, one of the first ministers to reach the bench under Mexico's new constitutional reform, which, for the first time in the country's history, requires all federal judges to be chosen by direct popular vote.

Minister Figueroa, a distinguished constitutional scholar, has long advocated for a judiciary that is accessible, socially responsive, and attuned to Mexico’s constitutional challenges. The dialogue examined the capacity of constitutional courts to defend democratic principles in increasingly polarized environments, with particular attention to Mexico’s new judicial reform that introduces popular elections for all judges. These developments echo the broader questions explored in DAL’s comparative work on the resilience and design of rule-of-law institutions. The visit to the Mexican Supreme Court also included a tour of the “Un clamor por la justicia. Siete crímenes mayores” by Rafael Cauduro.

For the DAL team, this meeting set the tone for the visit: connecting high-level constitutional debates to the Lab’s broader effort to fortify and reconfigure democratic institutions from within.

Roundtable on Security and the “Bukele Model” — Hosted by Lantia and Eduardo Guerrero

One of the trip’s most dynamic discussions took place at El Colegio de México on October 30, where DAL co-hosted a closed-door roundtable on security and authoritarian drift in Latin America. Organized by Lantia Consultores and security expert Eduardo Guerrero, the session convened some of the leading experts on security in Mexico.

Participants included public security policymakers of the highest level, including police chiefs, cabinet advisors, journalists, and scholars, who debated the appeal and risks of the so-called “Bukele Model” — the Salvadoran government’s aggressive anti-crime strategy — within the Mexican context. The conversation, held under Chatham House rules, examined how citizen demand for security can erode democratic checks and liberties if not balanced by institutional safeguards.

The security meeting discussion centered on Beatriz Magaloni’s presentation of her field research on El Salvador’s “Bukele model” of public security and its broader implications for Latin America. Magaloni explained how President Nayib Bukele’s approach — initially framed as a successful anti-crime policy — rests on prolonged states of exception, mass arbitrary detentions, and fabricated arrests incentivized through police quotas and bounties. She described widespread abuses inside Salvadoran prisons, where thousands of innocent civilians, many poor and rural, are detained without due process and subjected to inhumane conditions.

This exchange epitomized DAL’s commitment to generating cross-sectoral, evidence-based dialogue that bridges policy, academia, and civic engagement — helping Latin American societies navigate the tension between security and democracy.

Participants compared these dynamics to Mexico’s own prison system and warned that similar practices could take root in democracies under pressure. They discussed the popular appeal of punitive “mano dura” policies, the risk of their normalization in fragile democracies, and the absence of credible alternatives in citizen security policy. The group emphasized the need for rights-based, community-centered models of public safety, stronger rule of law, and social prevention measures. The conversation concluded with a shared concern that the Bukele model’s political success could inspire copycat versions across the region — including in Mexico — if democratic actors fail to deliver both security and justice simultaneously.

Inaugural Conference at El Colegio de México: “A Half-Century After the Third Wave of Democratization”

The centerpiece of the launch was the public inaugural conference, held in the Alfonso Reyes Auditorium at El Colegio de México (Colmex) on October 30, one of Latin America’s premier academic institutions.

The event was co-hosted by Colmex’s Centro de Estudios Internacionales (CEI) and featured welcoming remarks from Dr. Ana Covarrubias Velasco, President of Colmex, who highlighted that the partnership “marks a new chapter in the internationalization of our work and our shared commitment to the study and defense of democracy.”

Professor Alberto Díaz-Cayeros presented DAL's mission, describing it as “a response to the global democratic crisis — an initiative that seeks to co-create, alongside those on the frontlines of democratic defense, new analytical tools and strategic responses to authoritarian threats.”

Tamara Taraciuk, Vice President for Democracy at the VélezReyes+ Philanthropic Platform, one of the initial funders of DAL, emphasized the urgency of moving “from diagnosis to action,” and outlined the foundation’s support for DAL’s mission to connect academic rigor with democratic innovation in Latin America.

The center of the conference was the lectures of professors Adam Przeworski and Beatriz Magaloni, reflecting on “Authoritarianism and Democracy Half a Century After the Third Wave.” 

Adam Przeworski delivered a profound reflection on the conditions under which democracies survive or collapse, drawing on his intellectual journey from witnessing the 1973 coup in Chile to observing today’s democratic crises in the United States. He contrasted two conceptions of democracy: the maximalist vision, which aspires to equality and justice, and the minimalist or procedural one, centered on competition and the peaceful alternation of power.

Based on decades of comparative research, Przeworski explained that democracies tend to endure in wealthy societies with repeated peaceful transfers of power, where political stakes are relatively moderate. Yet, the U.S. case challenges this logic: despite meeting these conditions, its institutions show signs of internal erosion. He called this not only a political crisis but also an intellectual crisis for political science, since classical theories no longer explain contemporary fragility. Przeworski concluded that it is no longer enough to defend democracy; we must reform and reinvent it, combining rigorous inquiry with practical experimentation of the kind advanced by the Democracy Action Lab.

Beatriz Magaloni focused on democratic backsliding in Latin America, emphasizing the cases of El Salvador, Venezuela, and Mexico. She noted that although the region is living through its most democratic era in history, since 2013 it has faced a gradual erosion of liberal institutions — judicial independence, checks and balances, press freedom, and civil rights — driven by democratically elected leaders. Unlike the military coups of the past, today’s threats arise from within the system, through legal reforms and popular mandates that progressively concentrate power.

Magaloni identified the Bukele model in El Salvador as a regional turning point: a democratically elected leader who uses the promise of security to justify authoritarian practices and gains massive popular approval. She argued that citizens’ support for democracy depends not only on normative commitment but also on performance legitimacy — whether democratic regimes deliver security, justice, and economic opportunity. When democracies fail to meet these expectations, authoritarian alternatives gain appeal. Magaloni concluded that defending democracy in Latin America requires restoring citizens’ trust through tangible results, especially in the areas of security, inequality, and public services.

The keynote sessions concluded with a lively exchange between the speakers and the audience, reflecting the strong public interest in the themes of democracy and authoritarianism. Attendees noted that they had rarely seen the Sala Alfonso Reyes so full — an estimated 300 people packed the auditorium, underscoring the significance of the discussion and the enthusiasm surrounding the Democracy Action Lab’s launch in Mexico City.

Reception at Librería and Gallery Miguel Angel Porrúa: A Gathering of Scholars and Civil Society

After the inaugural conference, a special reception was held at Librería Miguel Angel Porrúa, one of the country’s most emblematic cultural spaces and a historic venue for intellectual and civic debate. The event brought together an extraordinary community of scholars, researchers, journalists, civic leaders, and members of civil society organizations working on democracy, human rights, security, and governance across Mexico.

The reception served as more than a celebratory gathering — it was a forum for substantive dialogue. Attendees engaged with DAL’s mission and shared reflections on the urgent challenges facing democracy in Latin America at a time marked by rising political polarization, institutional weakening, and escalating pressures on civic space. The discussions underscored the vital role that empirical research, cross-sector collaboration, and evidence-based policymaking must play in strengthening democratic institutions.

The atmosphere at Porrúa reflected both concern and hope: concern over the democratic erosion sweeping the region, and hope that networks such as DAL can help generate new knowledge, amplify local expertise, and support the resilience of democratic actors in Mexico and beyond. The reception marked an important first step in positioning DAL as a convening platform that listens to, learns from, and engages directly with those shaping the future of democracy on the ground.

Visit to Mexico’s National Electoral Institute (INE)

On October 31, the Democracy Action Lab delegation visited Mexico’s Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE), meeting with Electoral Councilors Carla Humphrey, Claudia Zavala, Martín Faz, Arturo Castillo, and Uuc-kib Espadas Ancon. The dialogue centered on the institution’s enduring role as a cornerstone of Mexico’s democratic transformation.

Created in the wake of Mexico’s transition from single-party dominance to competitive pluralism in the 1990s, INE (formerly IFE) emerged as one of the region’s most trusted electoral authorities — instrumental in ensuring free, transparent, and credible elections after decades of state-controlled contests. Its establishment marked a turning point in Latin America’s third wave of democratization, proving that institutional reform could anchor democratic legitimacy.

During the meeting, participants discussed how INE continues to safeguard electoral independence and citizen trust amid new challenges: political polarization, disinformation, and attempts to weaken autonomous institutions. For the Democracy Action Lab, the visit underscored the importance of institutional integrity as both a historical achievement and a living frontier in the struggle to sustain democracy across the region.

Academic Collaborations: Building a Network for Democratic Research

Later that day, the Democracy Action Lab held a working session with the Colmex–Stanford Research Group, bringing together scholars from Colmex. The conversation focused on identifying joint research agendas that could bridge theoretical insights and policy relevance in areas such as democratic resilience, social cohesion, governance, and state capacity. Participants discussed the design of comparative studies on democratic backsliding and institutional trust, as well as methodological strategies — ranging from survey experiments to subnational diagnostics — that could capture how citizens experience and respond to democratic erosion. The session reinforced the shared commitment of Colmex and Stanford to building evidence-based frameworks that inform both academic debate and practical reform.

The visit concluded with a working lunch at ITAM, where the discussion turned toward the economic and institutional dimensions of democratic performance. Faculty members reflected on the intersection between governance quality, inequality, and citizen trust, exploring opportunities for collaboration in the study of fiscal accountability and electoral behavior. These exchanges deepened DAL’s partnerships with Mexico’s leading universities — El Colegio de México and ITAM — and laid the groundwork for a regional academic consortium capable of producing comparative insights and applied tools for democratic renewal across Latin America.

Mexico as a Bridge for a Regional Effort

The Mexico City launch of the Democracy Action Lab marked more than the beginning of a new Stanford initiative: it represented a regional call to action.

As Professor Magaloni noted, Latin America today is both a region of growing democratic threats and extraordinary democratic courage. By starting in Mexico, DAL affirms its belief that the defense and reimagination of democracy must be both locally grounded and globally connected.

Through research, dialogue, and partnership, the Democracy Action Lab seeks to build the tools, coalitions, and evidence needed to confront authoritarian resurgence and renew faith in democratic governance, beginning in Latin America and reaching far beyond.

Overview and Contribution:

The rule of law (RoL) is an important component of democracy, key to protecting individual rights and ensuring that representatives follow the same rules as those being represented. As countries become more democratic, one would expect corresponding increases in the rule of law.

In “Fabricated Justice,” Beatriz Magaloni and Esteban Salmón show how these expectations must be seriously qualified. Beginning in 2008, Mexico gradually implemented RoL reforms. Thereafter, citizens witnessed some important gains in due process and individual rights, in particular, a dramatic decline in torture. However, these changes coincided with rising insecurity, violence, and popular demands for retribution against criminals. Owing to these pressures — as well as their own desire to work with fewer constraints — police and prosecutors found ways to circumvent the new reforms, particularly by planting evidence (drugs and weapons) on suspects, a serious RoL violation. 

However laudable its reforms, Mexican authorities failed to equip justice system officials with the tools and capacities to properly fight crime. Facing similar social and professional pressures as they had prior to the reforms, fabricated evidence struck them as a reasonable adaptation to new procedures. 

Marshalling an impressive array of quantitative and qualitative data, Magaloni and Salmón show how these legal changes can be said to have led to changes in police tactics and in the categories of arrests made. Interviews with police and prosecutors make clear just how much RoL reforms have left justice system officials feeling impotent and compelled to “fabricate justice.”

Mexico’s (Staggered) Legal Changes:

Prior to 2008, Mexico’s legal system was an “inquisitorial” one inherited from Spanish colonial rule. This meant that judges largely based their rulings on an often-secretive case file assembled by police and prosecutors. Case files contained confessions frequently obtained by torture, which Mexico’s Supreme Court upheld on multiple occasions. After 2008, however, Mexico adopted an “adversarial” system with greater procedural oversight of detention and the early stages of investigation (when torture was more likely), stricter standards on the use of force and collection of evidence, and so on.

Importantly, Mexico’s RoL constitutional amendment set an 8-year period to fully implement the reforms. This led to a high degree of variation in when individual states adopted the reforms, as well as whether they adopted all of the reforms at once or in a piecemeal fashion. From a statistical point of view, this created a “quasi-experimental” scenario in which outcomes (e.g., whether prisoners reported being tortured) in “treated” states or municipalities (i.e., those that reformed) could be compared with “control” units that had not yet reformed. This helps ensure that other differences between states and municipalities (e.g., levels of economic development or state capacity) do not bias the results.

Quantitative and Qualitative Findings:

Magaloni and Salmón first draw on a 2021 survey of 60,000 prisoners conducted by Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography. The authors document (1) a substantial decline in reports of torture after 2014 (when many states and municipalities implemented the RoL reforms), (2) a rise in drug and weapons convictions by 2016 (likely the product of evidence fabrication), and (3) a decline in homicide convictions (because [a] homicide confessions could no longer be elicited through torture and [b] corpses are difficult to fabricate). These findings are largely borne out when the authors conduct their “difference in differences” analysis using the aforementioned geographical and temporal variation. As the authors show, declines in torture are likely driven by greater judicial oversight of cases, a key goal of the 2008 reforms.
 

Image

Fig. 1. Torture and objects (drugs and weapons).

Image

Fig. 4. Event study plots with imputation estimator: torture, objects, judicial oversight, and drug trafficking.
 

To show that these quantitative findings have some basis in the beliefs of criminal justice actors, the authors conducted extensive fieldwork across Mexico. This included interviewing over 100 police officers and prosecutors, observing the activities of investigative agencies for 18 months, and following dozens of cases from arrest to hearing. This generated some remarkably honest reflections about how arrests are systematically based on false accusations and the planting of evidence on suspects. 

Interviews with police reveal a widespread belief that the RoL reforms profoundly disrupted their work. To be sure, some of these “disruptions” simply concern how police can no longer torture suspects. For example, “With arrests, we used to investigate, we could pressure them, get information. Now we are just transporters. We catch them and deliver them. That’s all” (p.10, italics added). 

Another important aspect of these changes concerns just how much time it takes to complete arrest paperwork to meet new legal requirements. This highlights officers’ limited capacity to perform since the reforms were implemented. Many reported simply not making arrests, while others bluntly admitted:

Before, we pressured the person. Now we pressure the paperwork…chain of custody has to be perfect. If it’s not, the judge will throw it out. So…[w]e fix it. Sometimes that means planting what’s missing, sometimes writing what didn’t happen (p.10). 

Meanwhile, some prosecutors expressed nostalgia for the days when their authority was less constrained and, for example, they could raid homes without warrants. Prosecutors spoke openly about the strains on police capacity and the corresponding need for fabricated evidence: “If the police officers really investigated properly, they could get the criminals for what they actually did. They’ve just been instructed to take them out of circulation no matter what” (p.12). 

Finally, the authors show that evidence fabrication is consistent with the strong desire for retribution held by ordinary Mexicans. There is a widespread perception that the new criminal justice system is too lenient, a source of impunity for criminals. Accordingly, cases that prosecutors deem especially likely to anger the public are classified as “relevant,” compelling prosecutors to resolve them at all costs, especially by encouraging officers to plant evidence. Prosecutors who don’t accept these cases may be demoted or fired. In sum, Magaloni and Salmón deepen our understanding of just how difficult it is to democratize in places where criminal justice systems are poorly resourced and where citizens demand a specific kind of retributive justice that often sidesteps individual rights.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.
 

My archival research at Stanford University has focused on the legal and civil rights advocacy of key Mexican American leaders and institutions, including civil rights scholar Ernesto Galarza; voting rights attorney and co-author of the California Voting Rights Act Joaquin Avila; and the organizational records of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA). These legal organizations have played a critical role to advance the civil and voting rights of Latino communities, utilizing litigation as a strategic tool to secure equal protection under the law and promote equitable political representation through legislation. The collections offer extensive documentation of decades-long legal struggles and grassroots advocacy, illuminating both national and transnational dimensions of Latino American civil rights movements.

My research has also included conducting oral history interviews with prominent legal and civil rights leaders, such as General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz, current MALDEF President; José Padilla, former CRLA Executive Director; Ambassador Vilma Martinez, former General Counsel of MALDEF; and the only oral history ever conducted with the late Joaquin Avila, voting rights attorney and former General Counsel of MALDEF. These interviews, which are archived and publicly available through the Stanford Department of Special Collections and the Stanford Historical Society, offer invaluable firsthand accounts of the legal strategies, institutional histories, and personal commitments that have shaped Latino civil rights advocacy over the past several decades.

During the past 15 years of conducting research at Stanford, I have been consistently inspired by the dedication of lawyers and advocacy organizations working to improve the lives of marginalized communities. One formative moment occurred when I first encountered archival photographs from the 1950s of former braceros, legally contracted guestworkers. The Bracero Program was a binational labor agreement between the United States and Mexico that brought over two million braceros to the United States from 1942 to 1964. These images offered powerful visual narratives of migration, labor, and hope—stories reminiscent of iconic photographs of immigrants arriving at Ellis Island. However, these photographs pointed to a different but equally significant point of entry: The U.S.–Mexico border. This research solidified my commitment to public scholarship and the importance of making archival materials accessible to broader audiences.

Through my research in the Stanford Department of Special Collections and ongoing collaboration with the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), as well as through teaching and public engagement, I have developed initiatives aimed at bridging the gap between academic research and public history. I founded the Bracero Legacy Project to share these important histories with wider audiences and have continued this work by designing ethnic studies curricula for school districts and organizing educational events that highlight the contributions and experiences of Latino communities in the United States.

This commitment to public history culminated most recently on June 10, 2025, when I co-organized, alongside Monterey County Supervisor Luis Alejo, a public commemoration marking the 50th anniversary of the banning of the short-handled hoe—a tool that had long symbolized exploitation in agricultural labor. Used for over a century by farmworkers of multiple ethnic backgrounds, the short-handled hoe required workers to remain stooped over for long periods at a time, leading to chronic injuries and long-term disability. Labor leader César Chávez himself suffered from debilitating back pain as a result of such work. The tool was officially banned on April 7, 1975, following the tireless advocacy of local farmworkers Sebastian Carmona and Hector De La Rosa, who, with legal representation from CRLA attorneys Marty Glick and Mo Jourdane, successfully brought the case before the California Supreme Court. The Mercury News opinion piece, [May 30, 2025], “Farmworker victory ending use of ‘El Cortito’ 50 years ago,” noted that the victory provided an “empowering lesson.”

The anniversary event brought together over 200 people and distinguished guests including Glick, Jourdane, and other CRLA alumni, as well as iconic figures such as labor and civil rights leader Dolores Huerta and playwright Luis Valdez, who spoke about the “long civil and labor rights movements.” I also invited the legendary music group Los Tigres del Norte, who hold a special cultural resonance in the Latino community. Their music shaped my immigrant upbringing, reflecting the complexities of navigating bicultural identity, bilingualism, and persistent anti-immigrant sentiment. Their songs—such as “La Jaula de Oro,” “Somos Más Americanos,” “Campesino,” and their tribute to César Chávez—articulate the lived experiences of immigrant communities and assert a counternarrative of dignity, resilience, and resistance in the face of marginalization.

Image

Jorge Hernández, co-founder of Los Tigres del Norte, has often spoken about the group’s first U.S. performance at Soledad Prison in 1968—the same year Johnny Cash played at Folsom State Prison. Since then, they have received multiple Grammy Awards, sold out Madison Square Garden, and, this past summer, were honored with a namesake street in Brooklyn. During the Monterey County event, Supervisor Alejo and the Board of Supervisors presented Los Tigres del Norte with a lifetime achievement award recognizing not only their musical legacy but also their decades-long advocacy on behalf of immigrant and Latino communities. Photo above: Dr. Ornelas (third from the left) pictured with Los Tigres del Norte band members (left to right) Luis Hernández, Hernan Hernández, Jorge Hernández, Eduardo Hernández, and Óscar Lara | photo credit: Pep Jimenez.

As part of our continued collaboration, I have invited Los Tigres del Norte to visit the Department of Special Collections at Stanford to study Ernesto Galarza’s personal papers and bracero correspondence. In particular, we will examine Galarza’s documentation of the 1963 “Tragedy at Chualar,” in which 32 braceros were killed in a devastating collision between a makeshift bus and a train. Galarza served as the principal investigator of the accident, and the archival record he left offers profound insights into the structural neglect and human cost of exploitative labor systems. Our hope is to draw from these materials to inspire a new song that honors the 32 bracero lives lost and continue to educate the public about this overlooked chapter in U.S. history.

This kind of scholarly interdisciplinary and community-based collaboration underscores the vital role of archives and public scholarship in shaping collective memory and advancing civil rights education. As I continue my work with SPICE and within the Stanford Department of Special Collections, I remain committed to collaborating with scholars across disciplines and transnationally to deepen public understanding of Latino American history and to ensure that these stories are not only preserved but heard.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.