Congreso de la Ciudad de México
III Legislatura (2024–2027)
Official website (opens in another tab) Transparency 70/100 · Medium
Congress of the Union
State congresses
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
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 2 of 2 instrumentos que coinciden con tu búsqueda.
In the freezer Bill · presented on March 13, 2025
CON PROYECTO DECRETO POR EL QUE SE REFORMAN LOS ARTÍCULOS 15; 47, FRACCIÓN II; 54, FRACCIÓN V; 111, FRACCIÓN XXIII Y SE ADICIONA LA FRACCIÓN XII AL ARTÍCULO 52 Y LA FRACCIÓN VI AL ARTÍCULO…
430 business days without a committee report
In the freezer Bill · presented on May 27, 2025
CON PROYECTO DE DECRETO QUE ADICIONA UN ARTÍCULO 6 BIS; UNA FRACCIÓN IX BIS AL ARTÍCULO 111, LOS ARTÍCULOS 117 BIS; Y 117 TER. DE LA LEY DE EDUCACIÓN DE LA CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, EN MATERIA DE…
377 business days without a committee report
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.
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.
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.
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.
Presenting a proposal is easy; getting it approved takes work: convincing the committee, asking for it to be reviewed and securing the votes.
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.
2 of 2 bills approved
2 laws approved · 5 achievement points
Drives constitutional reforms or new lawsDiana Sánchez BarriosLGBTTTIQANB+ affirmative action
1 de 11 propuestas de ley aprobadas · 8 exhortos aprobados
1 ley aprobada · 11,2 achievement points
Drives constitutional reforms or new laws1 de 1 propuesta de ley aprobada
1 ley aprobada · 3 achievement points
Drives constitutional reforms or new laws1 de 1 propuesta de ley aprobada · 1 exhorto aprobado
1 ley aprobada · 3 achievement points
Miguel Angel Macedo EscartínLGBTTTIQANB+ affirmative action
0 de 3 propuestas de ley aprobadas · 5 exhortos aprobados
0 laws approved · 5,7 achievement points
Drives constitutional reforms or new laws0 de 4 propuestas de ley aprobadas · 5 exhortos aprobados
0 laws approved · 5 achievement points
Drives constitutional reforms or new lawsSubmitting 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.
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).
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 | |
| 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 | |
| Esther Silvia Sánchez Barrios No party | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (1) | 0 | |
| Alberto Vanegas Arenas Morena All of their bills are in the freezer |
4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 (5) | 0 | |
| Ana Luisa Buendia García Morena | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 (1) | 0 | |
| Victor Gabriel Varela López Morena | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Elizabeth Mateos Hernández Morena | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | 0 | |
| Paula Alejandra Pérez Cordova Verde All of their bills are in the freezer |
2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 (1) | 0 | |
| Rebeca Peralta León Verde All of their bills are in the freezer |
3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 (1) | 0 | |
| Jannete Elizabeth Guerrero Maya PT All of their bills are in the freezer |
3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 20 (2) | 1 | |
| Leonor Gómez Otegui Morena All of their bills are in the freezer |
2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 (0) | 0 | |
| Víctor Hugo Romo de Vivar Guerra Morena All of their bills are in the freezer |
3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Brenda Fabiola Ruíz Aguilar Morena All of their bills are in the freezer |
2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Diana Barragán Sánchez PT | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (0) | 0 | |
| Claudia Nelí Morales Cervantes Verde | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Lizzette Salgado Viramontes PAN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | 0 | |
| Manuel Talayero Pariente Verde | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| María del Rosario Morales Ramos Asociación Parlamentaria Progresista de la Transformación | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Raúl de Jesús Torres Guerrero PAN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | 0 |
Instruments in which the person appears as author or co-author.
Diana Sánchez Barrios No party
28 instruments introduced
24 instruments introduced
Miguel Angel Macedo Escartín Morena
12 instruments introduced
Alberto Vanegas Arenas Morena
10 instruments introduced
4 instruments introduced
Rebeca Peralta León Verde
4 instruments introduced
3 instruments introduced
Ana Luisa Buendia García Morena
3 instruments introduced
Sign-ons: legislators who signed in support of an instrument presented by someone else.
No sign-ons recorded.
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.
| Party | Introduced | Endorsements |
|---|---|---|
| Morena | 36 | 0 |
| No party | 30 | 0 |
| PT | 25 | 0 |
| Verde | 7 | 0 |
| PAN | 2 | 0 |
| Asociación Parlamentaria Progresista de la Transformación | 1 | 0 |
| Movimiento Ciudadano | 1 | 0 |
Who has put their name in favor of our rights in this congress, and who against.
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.
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.
Diana Sánchez BarriosLGBTTTIQANB+ affirmative action Drives
Presentó 11 iniciativas de ley · 17 exhortos o posicionamientos · 40 pts
Jannete Elizabeth Guerrero Maya Drives
Presentó 3 iniciativas de ley · 21 exhortos o posicionamientos · 26,5 pts
Alberto Vanegas Arenas Drives
Presentó 4 iniciativas de ley · 6 exhortos o posicionamientos · 17 pts
Miguel Angel Macedo EscartínLGBTTTIQANB+ affirmative action Drives
Presentó 3 iniciativas de ley · 9 exhortos o posicionamientos · 15,5 pts
Rebeca Peralta León Drives
Presentó 3 iniciativas de ley · 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 8 pts
Víctor Hugo Romo de Vivar Guerra Drives
Presentó 3 iniciativas de ley · 7 pts
Paula Alejandra Pérez Cordova Drives
Presentó 2 iniciativas de ley · 2 exhortos o posicionamientos · 7 pts
Leonor Gómez Otegui Drives
Presentó 2 iniciativas de ley · 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 5 pts
Alberto Martínez Urincho Drives
Presentó 2 iniciativas de ley · 5 pts
Brenda Fabiola Ruíz Aguilar Drives
Presentó 2 iniciativas de ley · 5 pts
Victor Gabriel Varela López Drives
Presentó 2 iniciativas de ley · 4 pts
Adriana María Guadalupe Espinosa de los Monteros García Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 2 exhortos o posicionamientos · 4 pts
Ana Luisa Buendia García Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 2 exhortos o posicionamientos · 4 pts
Diana Barragán Sánchez Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 3 pts
Esther Silvia Sánchez Barrios Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 3 pts
Miriam Valeria Cruz Flores Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 3 pts
Claudia Nelí Morales Cervantes Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 3 pts
Miriam Saldaña Chairez Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 3 pts
Manuel Talayero Pariente Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 2 pts
María del Rosario Morales Ramos Drives
Presentó 1 iniciativa de ley · 2 pts
Cecilia Vadillo Obregón Supports
Presentó 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 1 pts
Elizabeth Mateos Hernández Supports
Presentó 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 1 pts
Leticia Haro Jiménez Supports
Presentó 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 1 pts
Lizzette Salgado Viramontes Supports
Presentó 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 1 pts
Luisa Fernanda Ledesma Alpizar Supports
Presentó 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 1 pts
Raúl de Jesús Torres Guerrero Supports
Presentó 1 exhorto o posicionamiento · 1 pts
We have not recorded proposals against rights in what we track.
They neither submitted nor signed in support of any proposal, not even on difficult issues. Silence is also a position.
“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.
Who holds a seat through affirmative action or identifies as part of the community, and whether their actions match that representation.
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 introduced bills in favor of our rights.
28 in favor · 40 pts
12 in favor · 15,5 pts
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.
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?
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.
The plenary approved it or it was already published.
The committee has already issued its report; the Plenary still has to vote or the process has to conclude.
It has 45 business days or less since it was introduced and hasn’t been reported on yet.
More than 90 business days without a committee report: it is stalled.
The process ended without approval.
Find out who sits on each committee, what bills they have pending and how to contact them.
