Skip to content

Congreso de la Ciudad de México

AguascalientesBaja CaliforniaBaja California SurCampecheChiapasChihuahuaCoahuila de ZaragozaColimaDurangoGuanajuatoGuerreroHidalgoJaliscoMichoacán de OcampoMorelosMéxicoNayaritNuevo LeónOaxacaPueblaQuerétaroQuintana RooSan Luis PotosíSinaloaSonoraTabascoTamaulipasTlaxcalaVeracruz de Ignacio de la LlaveYucatánZacatecasCiudad de México

Congreso de la Ciudad de México

III Legislatura (2024–2027)

Official website (opens in another tab) Transparency 70/100 · Medium

Change congress

Seguimos cada iniciativa, punto de acuerdo y posicionamiento sobre los derechos de las personas LGBTTTIQANB+ en la III Legislatura del Congreso de la Ciudad de México: quién lo presentó, a qué comisión llegó y cuánto tiempo lleva esperando un dictamen.

Records last updated: October 17, 2026

Overall figures

Instruments being tracked
96
40 iniciativas · 52 puntos de acuerdo · 4 posicionamientos
Approved
27
5 bills · 22 points of agreement
In the freezer
61
more than 90 business days without a committee report
Average without a report
255 days
among 64 pending; the oldest has 567 days

Tracking traffic light

Each instrument with the time it has been in Congress. The 45 and 90 business days marks indicate when a bill starts to lag and when we consider it in the freezer. How we calculate it.

Showing 1 of 1 instrumento que coinciden con tu búsqueda.

  1. In the freezer Bill · presented on September 3, 2025

    Secretaría de la Diversidad Sexual de la CDMX

    INICIATIVA DE LEY POR LA QUE SE REFORMA Y ADICIONAN DIVERSAS DISPOSICIONES DE LA LEY ORGÁNICA DEL PODER EJECUTIVO Y DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN PÚBLICA DE LA CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, (PARA CREAR LA…

    Committee
    Administración Pública Local
    Introduces
    Rebeca Peralta León, integrantes del Grupo Parlamentario del Verde y 1 más

    306 business days without a committee report

Legislative productivity

Presenting is not the same as achieving. An approved reform changes the law; an exhortation only asks. That is why we separate each type of instrument and evaluate results, not just quantity. We count only what this observatory follows, not all of Congress’s activity.

See the full directory

Bills or reforms

40 - on f-up 5 aprobados · 32 in the freezer

They propose creating or changing a law, a code or the Constitution. If they are passed and published, they bind every authority. It’s the instrument with the greatest reach and the hardest to push through: it needs a committee report and a vote of the Plenary.

Points of agreement and exhortations

52 - on f-up 22 aprobados · 29 in the freezer

They ask an authority to do something or set out a position of the Congress. They don’t change any law or bind anyone legally: their force is political. They tend to pass more easily, sometimes the same day.

Statements

4 being tracked

Statements from the floor or in the media. They put a position on record, but they aren’t voted on and have no legal effect.

Legislative work or simulation? Presenting many exhortations and position statements without a single bill, or presenting bills and leaving them in the freezer, gives visibility but does not change rights. Pushing a bill forward is also the responsibility of whoever presents it: lobbying the committee, asking for a report and securing the votes. That is why we mark these signs in the evaluation.

Who delivers results in Mexico City?

Presenting a proposal is easy; getting it approved takes work: convincing the committee, asking for it to be reviewed and securing the votes.

Best rated

This is how it is ranked: 1) more laws passed; 2) if tied, more achievement points (each proposal adds its weight according to its outcome: an approved new law or constitutional amendment is worth 3, an approved amendment 2, an approved exhortation 1; those that move forward add a part); 3) if they are still tied, the better rating. The rating (from 0 to 100) measures effectiveness: how well what they submitted fared, on average.

  1. Alberto Martínez Urincho

    Morena

    2 of 2 bills approved

    2 laws approved · 5 achievement points

    Drives constitutional reforms or new laws
    100/100
  2. Diana Sánchez BarriosLGBTTTIQANB+ affirmative action

    No party

    1 de 11 propuestas de ley aprobadas · 8 exhortos aprobados

    1 ley aprobada · 11,2 achievement points

    Drives constitutional reforms or new laws
    29/100
  3. Miriam Saldaña Chairez

    PT

    1 de 1 propuesta de ley aprobada

    1 ley aprobada · 3 achievement points

    Drives constitutional reforms or new laws
    100/100
  4. Miriam Valeria Cruz Flores

    Morena

    1 de 1 propuesta de ley aprobada · 1 exhorto aprobado

    1 ley aprobada · 3 achievement points

    100/100
  5. Miguel Angel Macedo EscartínLGBTTTIQANB+ affirmative action

    Morena

    0 de 3 propuestas de ley aprobadas · 5 exhortos aprobados

    0 laws approved · 5,7 achievement points

    Drives constitutional reforms or new laws
    38/100
  6. Alberto Vanegas Arenas

    Morena

    0 de 4 propuestas de ley aprobadas · 5 exhortos aprobados

    0 laws approved · 5 achievement points

    Drives constitutional reforms or new laws
    29/100

They introduced bills, but their proposals are stalled

Submitting is not enough: you also have to lobby the committee and get the votes. Here are those who have proposals that passed the legal deadline without review and none approved, and those who submitted proposals that look like a sham. Letting something freeze is not the same as being against: that is why they are in yellow, except for shams, which are flagged separately. Whoever fakes support does not appear among the best-rated people. Number 1 is the one with the most frozen proposals. 10 people en total, 9 con todas sus propuestas congeladas.

  1. Víctor Hugo Romo de Vivar Guerra

    Morena

    3 of 3 stalled proposals

    All stalled
    0/100
  2. Leonor Gómez Otegui

    Morena

    3 of 3 stalled proposals (2 bill and 1 exhortation)

    All stalled
    0/100
  3. Brenda Fabiola Ruíz Aguilar

    Morena

    2 of 2 stalled proposals

    All stalled
    0/100
  4. Diana Barragán Sánchez

    PT

    2 of 2 stalled proposals (1 bill and 1 exhortation)

    All stalled
    0/100
  5. Claudia Nelí Morales Cervantes

    Verde

    1 of 1 stalled proposal

    All stalled
    0/100
  6. Manuel Talayero Pariente

    Verde

    1 of 1 stalled proposal

    All stalled
    0/100
See the 10 people
  1. María del Rosario Morales Ramos Asociación Parlamentaria Progresista de la Transformación 1 of 1 stalled proposal All
  2. Lizzette Salgado Viramontes PAN 1 of 1 stalled proposal All
  3. Raúl de Jesús Torres Guerrero PAN 1 of 1 stalled proposal All
  4. Victor Gabriel Varela López Morena 1 of 2 stalled proposals
How do we calculate the rating?

See the full methodology, with examples and academic sources

1. Not all proposals are worth the same. An amendment to the Constitution or a new law weighs 3; an amendment to a law or code, 2; an exhortation or point of agreement, 1; and a position statement, 0.5. It is an adaptation of the Multidimensional Index of Significance (Bárcena, Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 2019), which distinguishes high-impact proposals from symbolic ones.

2. What happened to each one matters. Approved adds 100; reviewed by the committee, 60; on time, 35; delayed, 15; rejected, 5; and frozen, 0. The rating is the average, giving each proposal the weight of its significance. Position statements are not voted on, so they are not included in the rating.

3. Colors. Green: achieves results. Blue: their proposals move forward. Yellow: submitted, but their proposals are frozen or stalled (a lack of push, not necessarily bad faith). Red: submitted or backed proposals against of LGBTTTIQANB+ rights. Gray: stayed silent, without submitting or backing anything.

4. Allies who drive and allies who support. Submitting a proposal is worth twice as much as signing it in support. Those who submit bills champion the agenda; those who only sign, submit exhortations or take a position support it.

70 or more: effective · 45 to 69: moving forward · 25 to 44: waiting · less than 25: submitted, no progress. We only count proposals on LGBTTTIQANB+ rights followed by this observatory, not all their legislative work. We measure progress in Congress; whether a law is then fulfilled in people’s lives requires an impact evaluation ex post like the one proposed by Transparencia Mexicana (2023).

See the full table of all people

First those who got their bills approved; then, by rating. Only instruments the person presented count (not sign-ons). “Approved” means the Plenary voted for it by majority or it has already been published.

Person Bills Approved for them Reports Stalled Exhortations Stat. Rating
Alberto Martínez Urincho Morena 2 2 0 0 0 (0) 0 100/100 · Efectiva
Miriam Valeria Cruz Flores Morena 1 1 0 0 1 (1) 0 100/100 · Efectiva
Miriam Saldaña Chairez PT 1 1 0 0 0 (0) 0 100/100 · Efectiva
Diana Sánchez Barrios No party 11 1 1 9 15 (8) 2 29/100 · En espera
Cecilia Vadillo Obregón Morena 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 100/100 · Efectiva
Leticia Haro Jiménez No party 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 100/100 · Efectiva
Luisa Fernanda Ledesma Alpizar Movimiento Ciudadano 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 100/100 · Efectiva
Adriana María Guadalupe Espinosa de los Monteros García Morena 1 0 0 1 2 (2) 0 50/100 · Avanza
Miguel Angel Macedo Escartín Morena
Most of their bills are stalled
3 0 0 2 8 (5) 1 38/100 · En espera
Esther Silvia Sánchez Barrios No party 1 0 0 1 1 (1) 0 33/100 · En espera
Alberto Vanegas Arenas Morena
All of their bills are in the freezer
4 0 0 4 6 (5) 0 29/100 · En espera
Ana Luisa Buendia García Morena 1 0 0 1 2 (1) 0 25/100 · En espera
Victor Gabriel Varela López Morena 2 0 0 1 0 (0) 0 18/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Elizabeth Mateos Hernández Morena 0 0 0 0 1 (0) 0 15/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Paula Alejandra Pérez Cordova Verde
All of their bills are in the freezer
2 0 0 2 2 (1) 0 14/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Rebeca Peralta León Verde
All of their bills are in the freezer
3 0 0 3 1 (1) 0 13/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Jannete Elizabeth Guerrero Maya PT
All of their bills are in the freezer
3 0 0 3 20 (2) 1 8/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Leonor Gómez Otegui Morena
All of their bills are in the freezer
2 0 0 2 1 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Víctor Hugo Romo de Vivar Guerra Morena
All of their bills are in the freezer
3 0 0 3 0 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Brenda Fabiola Ruíz Aguilar Morena
All of their bills are in the freezer
2 0 0 2 0 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Diana Barragán Sánchez PT 1 0 0 1 1 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Claudia Nelí Morales Cervantes Verde 1 0 0 1 0 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Lizzette Salgado Viramontes PAN 0 0 0 0 1 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Manuel Talayero Pariente Verde 1 0 0 1 0 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance
María del Rosario Morales Ramos Asociación Parlamentaria Progresista de la Transformación 1 0 0 1 0 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance
Raúl de Jesús Torres Guerrero PAN 0 0 0 0 1 (0) 0 0/100 · Presentó, sin avance

Who introduces

Instruments in which the person appears as author or co-author.

  1. 28 instruments introduced

  2. 24 instruments introduced

  3. 12 instruments introduced

  4. 10 instruments introduced

  5. 4 instruments introduced

  6. 4 instruments introduced

  7. 3 instruments introduced

  8. 3 instruments introduced

Who joins

Sign-ons: legislators who signed in support of an instrument presented by someone else.

No sign-ons recorded.

By parliamentary group

Each instrument counts once for each party of its authors and once for each party that signed on. The same instrument can add to several parties.

See the data in a table
Instruments introduced and endorsements by party
PartyIntroducedEndorsements
Morena360
No party300
PT250
Verde70
PAN20
Asociación Parlamentaria Progresista de la Transformación10
Movimiento Ciudadano10

Allies and non-allies in Mexico City

Who has put their name in favor of our rights in this congress, and who against.

26aliadas y aliados · 20 impulsan
0not allies
41stayed silent

Drives: introduced bills in favor. Supports: submitted exhortations or position statements, or spoke out in favor publicly. Signed without speaking out: signed in support, but did not submit anything or speak out in favor publicly; signing or voting is not enough to be an ally. Not an ally: submitted or backed at least one proposal against, or spoke out against publicly. Fakes support: signed or submitted in favor, but speaks out against publicly. Silence: in office, without introducing or backing any proposal on these rights.

Allies

Ranked by points: each proposal in favor adds its weight (3, 2, 1 or 0.5 depending on its scope) and is worth half if they only signed it in support.

See the 26 people

Not allies

We have not recorded proposals against rights in what we track.

Stayed silent

They neither submitted nor signed in support of any proposal, not even on difficult issues. Silence is also a position.

By party

Allies Not allies Silence

“No party”: deputies with no party or parliamentary group, or with no party in the official document. Independent candidacies are counted separately. Tap a party to see its profile.

We only count proposals on LGBTTTIQANB+ rights followed by this observatory and the support signatures recorded on them; Plenary votes are not included.

LGBTTTIQANB+ representation in Mexico City

Who holds a seat through affirmative action or identifies as part of the community, and whether their actions match that representation.

2 personas legisladoras LGBTTTIQANB+2 through affirmative action
100%acts in favor of the agenda2 of 2 drive or support
0stayed silent0% of the total
0acted againstvoted or signed against our rights
0possible simulations0% of those who arrived through affirmative action · 0 with at least one signal

An affirmative action is a temporary measure that opens a space for a historically discriminated group to correct that inequality. We monitor that this space is used: whoever came in that way should champion or at least support proposals in favor of our rights. How we measure it.

They drive the agenda 2

They introduced bills in favor of our rights.

Possible simulation

It is flagged when a person who arrived through affirmative action accumulates 2 or more different signals. It is an alert to watch, not a verdict: several challenged people were upheld by the courts.

  1. Formal challengebefore the electoral institute or the Electoral Court
  2. Denied belongingto the community, in a public statement
  3. Public complaintfrom LGBTTTIQANB+ collectives or the press
  4. Kinshipwith the leadership that nominated them
  5. Acting againstvoting or signing against our rights
  6. Legislative silenceno proposals in favor

We never use stereotypes (marital status, appearance or gender expression) as a signal.

We only include those whom the electoral authority registered through affirmative action or who publicly identified themselves; we never assume it. “Voted against” appears only when a public source documents the vote, because most congresses do not publish their roll-call votes.

Affirmative actions stem from INE agreements and Electoral Tribunal rulings (INE/CG18/2021, INE/CG527/2023, SUP-JDC-338/2023, INE/CG625/2023) and their state equivalents. See the agreements · Is someone missing or is there an error?

How to read the traffic light

Contamos los días hábiles (de lunes a viernes) desde que un instrumento se presenta hasta que la comisión lo dictamina. Señalamos rezago a los 45 y congeladora a los 90.

Legal basis: Reglamento del Congreso de la Ciudad de México, art. 260: todo asunto turnado debe resolverse en 45 días hábiles desde su recepción formal, salvo prórroga fundada aprobada por el Pleno o la Comisión Permanente por un término adicional de la misma duración; art. 262: la prórroga es de hasta 45 días hábiles más y solo una vez (máximo 90 días hábiles). Según la reforma del 31-05-2026 al art. 260, los asuntos que no se resuelvan en esos plazos se tienen por concluidos, salvo que haya excitativa (arts. 109 y 263: turno a Normatividad, Estudios y Prácticas Parlamentarias por hasta 30 días naturales y luego consulta al Pleno). Las proposiciones con punto de acuerdo deben dictaminarse antes de que termine cada periodo ordinario (art. 261). La Ley Orgánica del Congreso (art. 81) prevé que el Pleno amplíe el plazo y, si lo niega, se emita una excitativa. Texto consultado: versión vigente publicada en el portal del Congreso, con última reforma aprobada por el Pleno el 31-05-2026. See the law (opens in another tab)

Current text consulted: latest reform published on May 31, 2026.

We record each piece of data from the Gazette and Congress’s official documents. If you find an error, write to us. How much does each congress publish? See the transparency index.

  • Approved

    The plenary approved it or it was already published.

  • With committee report

    The committee has already issued its report; the Plenary still has to vote or the process has to conclude.

  • In process

    It has 45 business days or less since it was introduced and hasn’t been reported on yet.

  • No committee report (more than 45 days)

    More than 45 business days without a committee report. It’s time to ask the committee.

  • Stalled (more than 90 days)

    More than 90 business days without a committee report: it is stalled.

  • Rejected or dismissed

    The process ended without approval.

Ask the decision-makers

Find out who sits on each committee, what bills they have pending and how to contact them.