Overview
- Academics, provincial and federal judges and legislators met at a public forum to criticize the Consejo’s use of discretionary criteria, which currently account for about 60% of the score that forms ternas.
- Speakers proposed concrete reforms: anonymous exams scored with numerical grades, a lower weight for discretionary judgment (suggested below 50 percent and ideally under 40 percent), and clearer objective criteria for merit and moral solvency.
- Several presenters demanded full transparency of Consejo deliberations, calling for published actas and recorded positions from councillors so the rationale for selections can be reviewed.
- Legislators also suggested institutional fixes such as banning tactics that preserve incumbency, and raising the Senate approval threshold for nominees to a two‑thirds majority to build broader consensus.
- Commentators linked selection flaws to system capacity problems, noting low judicial budgets, vacant posts and the heavy workload in the Cámara Federal de Mendoza—about 12,000 resolutions a year—which they say harm access to justice.