The whole site
Observatorio legislativo · LXV Legislatura (2024–2027)
Cada iniciativa, punto de acuerdo y posicionamiento sobre los derechos de las personas LGBTTTIQANB+ en la LXV Legislatura del Congreso del Estado de Sinaloa: quién lo presentó, a qué comisión llegó y cuánto tiempo lleva esperando.
Directorio del Congreso Official website (opens in another tab) Transparency 60/100 · Medium Whole country
This is the traffic light today
Records last updated: October 17, 2026
Each instrument with the time it has been in Congress. The 90 and 180 calendar days marks indicate when a bill starts to lag and when we consider it in the freezer. How we calculate it.
Showing 12 of 16 instruments that match your search.
In the freezer Bill · presented on February 7, 2025
Iniciativa que propone adiciones al Código Penal para el Estado de Sinaloa en materia de transfeminicidios (adición al artículo 134 Bis A sobre crimen de odio y nuevo Capítulo I Bis C…
637 days without a report
In the freezer Bill · presented on February 7, 2025
Iniciativa que propone reformas y adiciones al Código Familiar del Estado de Sinaloa para que sea motivo de pérdida de la patria potestad rechazar o discriminar por orientación sexual…
637 days without a report
In the freezer Bill · presented on July 29, 2025
Iniciativa que propone reformas y adiciones diversas a la Ley para Prevenir y Eliminar la Discriminación del Estado de Sinaloa para eliminar la discriminación hacia las juventudes por…
465 days without a report
In the freezer Bill · presented on July 29, 2025
Iniciativa que propone reformas y adiciones diversas a la Ley de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes del Estado de Sinaloa para reconocer legalmente el concepto de "terapias de…
465 days without a report
In the freezer Bill · presented on August 21, 2025
Iniciativa que propone reformas y adiciones a la Ley de la Juventud del Estado de Sinaloa para reconocer el derecho de la juventud a la identidad, libre expresión y desarrollo personal…
442 days without a report
In the freezer Bill · presented on November 11, 2025
Iniciativa que propone reformas a la Constitución Política del Estado de Sinaloa para incorporar el reconocimiento expreso de la igualdad sustantiva y la prohibición de toda forma de…
360 days without a report
In the freezer Bill · presented on April 9, 2026
Iniciativa que propone reformas y adiciones diversas a la Ley de la Juventud del Estado de Sinaloa en materia de visibilizar y reconocer el derecho de la juventud sinaloense a la identidad…
211 days without a report
In the freezer Bill · presented on April 28, 2026
Iniciativa que propone reformar el Código Familiar del Estado de Sinaloa (fracción VI del artículo 1197 Bis III) para reconocer a las personas no binarias en el levantamiento de una nueva…
192 days without a 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.
17 - on f-up 1 Approved 8 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.
0 - on f-up 0 Earned
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.
0 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.
Almendra Ernestina Negrete Sánchez
1 of 7 bills approved
1 law passed · 4,2 achievement points
Drives constitutional reforms or new laws1 of 3 bills approved
1 law passed · 3,6 achievement points
Drives constitutional reforms or new lawsJuana Minerva Vázquez González
1 of 4 bills approved
1 law passed · 3,3 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. 2 people en total, 1 con todas sus propuestas congeladas.
4 of 6 stalled proposals
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karla Daniela Ulloa Rodríguez Morena | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | 0 | 51/100 · Advance |
| Juana Minerva Vázquez González Morena | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Almendra Ernestina Negrete Sánchez Morena | 7 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Karina Isabel Franco Meza Morena | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Nancy Yadira Santiago Marcos Morena | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| Erika Rubí Martínez Rodríguez Morena Most of their bills are stalled |
6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 (0) | 0 | |
| María Teresa Guerra Ochoa Morena | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 (0) | 0 |
Instruments in which the person appears as author or co-author.
7 instruments introduced
6 instruments introduced
4 instruments introduced
3 instruments introduced
Karina Isabel Franco Meza Morena
2 instruments introduced
María Teresa Guerra Ochoa Morena
1 instrument introduced
Nancy Yadira Santiago Marcos Morena
1 instrument 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 | 15 | 0 |
| Organized civil society (civil society organizations and citizens; not a party) | 2 | 0 |
Organized citizens: 2 instruments introduced and 0 endorsements from civil society organizations and citizens. It is not a party: we count it separately. See the directory.
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.
Almendra Ernestina Negrete Sánchez Drives
Presentó 7 iniciativas de ley · 18 pts
Erika Rubí Martínez Rodríguez Drives
Presentó 6 iniciativas de ley · 12 pts
Juana Minerva Vázquez González Drives
Presentó 4 iniciativas de ley · 9 pts
Karla Daniela Ulloa Rodríguez Drives
Introduced 3 bills · 7 pts
Karina Isabel Franco MezaLGBTTTIQANB+ affirmative action Drives
Introduced 2 bills · 5 pts
María Teresa Guerra Ochoa Drives
Introduced 1 bill · 3 pts
Nancy Yadira Santiago Marcos Drives
Introduced 1 bill · 2 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.
2 in favor · 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?
Civil society organizations, collectives and citizens who presented or supported proposals in this congress. They are not legislators or parties: they do advocacy and have their own record.
0 organizaciones y 2 personas ciudadanas. Primero las organizaciones, luego las personas; cada grupo, de mayor a menor participación.
We count the calendar days from when an instrument is presented until the committee reports on it. We flag a lag at 90 and the freezer at 180.
Legal basis: En el texto consultado de la Ley Orgánica del Congreso del Estado de Sinaloa (última reforma: Decreto No. 30, P.O. No. 020 del 14 de febrero de 2025) no se halló un plazo en días o meses para dictaminar: el art. 42, fr. XVI, faculta a la Presidencia de la Mesa Directiva para requerir a las comisiones que dictaminen 'a la mayor brevedad', 'señalarles un día determinado' y, si no lo hacen, turnar el asunto a otra comisión 'con prevención de dictaminar en término breve'. No hay prórroga fija. El Congreso no publica un Reglamento interior aparte. Solo se pudo revisar hasta el art. 81, así que la parte del procedimiento legislativo no se verificó. See the law (opens in another tab)
Current text consulted: latest reform published on February 14, 2025.
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 90 calendar days or less since it was introduced and hasn’t been reported on yet.
More than 180 calendar 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.
