Metodología del Observatorio Legislativo

1. The weight of each proposal

We adapted the Índice Multidimensional de Trascendencia (Bárcena, 2019), which rates each bill according to the political coordination it requires (a constitutional reform needs a qualified majority and the vote of the state congresses), the purpose of the change (expanding rights weighs more than a symbolic change) and its depth (creating a law weighs more than changing a paragraph).

Type of proposal	Weight	Why
Constitutional reform, or new law	3	It requires the broadest agreement and changes rights for everyone.
Reform of a law or code	2	It changes what binds authorities, by simple majority.
Point of agreement or exhortation	1	It only asks an authority to act; it does not change any law.
Statement	0.5	It records a stance; it is not voted on.

The type is identified from each proposal’s official title (for example, whether it mentions the Constitution or the issuing of a law).

2. What happened to each proposal

Each proposal receives a value according to its outcome, using the deadlines for committee reports set by each congress’s Organic Law:

Approved 100 % — the plenary voted in favor or it was already published.
With committee report 60 % — the committee already reviewed it; the vote is pending.
On time 35 % — still within the legal deadline.
Late 15 % — the normal deadline passed without a report.
Rejected 5 % — voted down or discarded.
Stalled 0 % — the entire legal deadline passed and no one reviewed it.

3. Achievement points and rating

Achievement points = sum of weight × result of everything the person introduced. It measures how much they achieved. An approved exhortation adds 1; an approved reform, 2; an approved new law, 3; a reform the committee has already reported on adds 1.2 (2 × 60 %).

Rating (0 to 100) = achievement points ÷ weight of everything introduced. It measures effectiveness: how well, on average, what they introduced did.

What they say in public also counts. Confirmed statements against or with little interest deduct; publicly defending a registered bill adds. Whoever fakes support (signs or presents in favor, but speaks against it in public) loses 15 more points, and each of their proposals that looks like a sham (see “Presented so they won’t be approved”), 10 points (up to 20). Whoever fakes support, presented proposals that look like a sham or carries the “NOT AN ALLY” seal does not appear among the best-rated people. Each congress’s performance drops 5 points for each proposal that looks like a sham (up to 15).

Example

Person A presented 1 reform (frozen) and 1 exhortation (approved): achievement = 2 × 0 + 1 × 1 = 1 point; rating = 1 ÷ 3 = 33.

Person B presented 15 reforms (not approved, some moving forward) and 13 approved exhortations: achievement ≈ 17 points; rating ≈ 29, because many of their reforms are still stalled.

B achieved much more (17 versus 1) even though A has a better average. That is why the lists rank first by what was achieved and use the rating only to break ties.

4. How the lists are sorted

Best rated: 1) More laws approved (what changes people’s lives the most). 2) If tied, more achievement points. 3) If still tied, better rating.
They introduced bills, but their proposals are stalled: People with at least one frozen proposal and none approved. 1) More frozen proposals. 2) If tied, first whoever has all of them frozen.
Allies: By points: each proposal in favor adds its weight; it is worth half if they only signed in support.
Not allies: By severity: each proposal against adds its weight (half if they only signed in support). That is why a constitutional reform against (3 points) weighs more than four position statements from the rostrum (4 × 0.5 = 2 points), even if there are more of them.

5. What each color means

Green — achieves results. At least one proposal was approved.
Blue — their proposals are moving forward. Nothing approved yet, but has reviewed or on-time proposals.
Yellow — introduced, but without progress. Their proposals are frozen or stalled. Presenting is a first step; what is missing is lobbying the committee and securing the votes. It does not mean being against.
Red — against. Presented or backed proposals against the rights of LGBTTTIQANB+ people. These proposals do not count as results even if they are approved.
Gray — silence. In office, without presenting or signing in support of any proposal on these rights.

6. Allies, non-allies and silence

Presenting a proposal is worth twice as much as signing it in support. We distinguish those who drives the agenda (introduced bills) from those who support it (presented exhortations or position statements, or spoke in favor in public). It is on the difficult issues that you can tell who is a true ally.

Signing or voting is not enough. Whoever only signed in support, without presenting anything or speaking in favor in public, does not count as an ally: they appear separately, as “Signed without speaking out”, because a signature or a vote can be a mere sham. And whoever signed or presented something in favor but speaks against it in public (also with disguised support, such as “I love them, but…”) is not an ally and is marked as “Fakes support”.

Little interest also holds things back. In what they say in public we distinguish four forms of little interest: postpones indefinitely (delay: “we still need to talk with everyone”, “we will continue with working groups”, “there is no rush”), avoids the topic, not a priority y equates rights with opinions (“we must listen to both sides” in order not to decide). When it is said by the chair of the committee that must report on the bill, and it still has no committee report, it weighs as a statement against: just by not reporting, they stall it. With two statements of little interest that count, or with one from the chair of that committee, their record says “Holds back the agenda”; it is removed if they later speak in favor.

The “NOT AN ALLY” seal. It is carried by whoever accumulates 3 speeches against that count (confirmed by their official account, an official source or two outlets). Two statements of little interest are worth one against, and one from the chair of the committee that must report is worth a whole one; when little interest helps reach 3, they must be from at least two different dates, so that it is a pattern and not a single statement.

Presented so they won’t be approved

A proposal in favor of our rights can be presented just for appearances, with the strategy of leaving it frozen so it is not approved. We mark “Needs watching” when it is in the freezer, has at least 3 recorded public voices (legislators, parties, parliamentary groups and governments) and more than half are against it. To mark “Possible sham” we also require at least one sign from whoever presented it: that they speak against it or with little interest in public, that they have never defended it in public, or that their own party chairs the committee that does not report on it. If it was presented only by organized citizens, we never mark it as a sham. It is an alert, not a conclusion.

The silence is also a position: we show sitting legislators who did not present or back anything, so that citizens can ask them why.

By party. Each legislator counts under the party with which they appear in their congress’s directory; we unify the ways of writing it (“RSP” and “Redes Sociales Progresistas”, “Verde” and “PVEM”). “No party” groups those who left their party or group and those who have no party in the official document; the independent candidacies are counted separately, because they reached office without a party. Each one has its profile in the legislative directory.

We only evaluate legislators: bills from a governor, a ministry or a human rights commission count in the traffic light, but not in “Who delivers results” or in “Allies and non-allies”. Organized citizens are counted in their own section.

7. LGBTTTIQANB+ representation and affirmative actions

What is an affirmative action?

It is a temporary measure that gives preferential treatment to a historically discriminated group, so it can reach spaces from which it has been excluded and achieve real equality. The UN Special Rapporteur defines it as “a coherent packet of measures, of a temporary character, aimed specifically at correcting the position of members of a target group”. In Mexico, the Electoral Court (Jurisprudence 30/2014) and the Supreme Court (thesis 44/2018) require four elements:

Temporality: lasts as long as the inequality that justifies it exists, and is reviewed periodically.
Proportionality: balance between the measure and the result, without creating greater inequality.
Reasonableness: direct relationship between the actual discrimination and the purpose of the differential treatment.
Objectivity: there must be actual discrimination, demonstrable with data, and the measure must be free of stereotypes.

In the case of candidacies, affirmative action requires parties to nominate sexually and gender-diverse people. That seat is not a personal prize: it exists so the community has a voice in Congress. That is why, if it is held by someone who does not represent the community (a “usurpation” or “sham”), the measure loses its reason for being.

Higher standards for those who presented. In LGBTTTIQANB+ representation, those who presented proposals in favor are marked “Possible sham” with just one of these signs about what they themselves presented: one of their proposals looks like a sham; everything they presented is in the freezer and they have never defended it in public; or in public they appear neutral or with little interest and have never defended what they presented.

The agreements that created it

Federal affirmative action measures are not in the law: they came from INE agreements and Electoral Court rulings, which INE gathers in its timeline. Each state also has the agreements of its own electoral institute, which we link on each person’s record.

January 15, 2021 INE/CG18/2021 (opens in another tab) Agreement Includes people of sexual diversity First federal affirmative action for sexually diverse people (together with Indigenous people, people with disabilities and Afro-Mexican people) in the federal deputy seats of 2021.
September 8, 2023 INE/CG527/2023 (opens in another tab) Agreement Includes people of sexual diversity Affirmative action for the 2023-2024 process: Indigenous people, people with disabilities, Afro-Mexican people, sexually diverse people, migrants and residents abroad, and people living in poverty.
November 15, 2023 SUP-JDC-338/2023 and joined cases (opens in another tab) Ruling Includes people of sexual diversity The Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court reviewed the previous agreement and ordered the affirmative action measures to be adjusted, including the one for sexual diversity.
November 25, 2023 INE/CG625/2023 (opens in another tab) Agreement Includes people of sexual diversity INE complied with the ruling and set the final rules for nominating sexually diverse people and the other groups in 2024.
August 23, 2024 INE/CG2129/2024 (opens in another tab) Agreement Includes people of sexual diversity Allocation of proportional representation deputy seats in 2024, in which these affirmative action measures were applied.
November 8, 2017 INE/CG508/2017 (opens in another tab) Agreement Background: first federal affirmative action, for Indigenous people.
December 14, 2017 SUP-RAP-726/2017 and joined cases (opens in another tab) Ruling Background: the Electoral Court confirmed the Indigenous affirmative action.
November 18, 2020 INE/CG572/2020 (opens in another tab) Agreement Background: Indigenous affirmative action for 2021.
December 29, 2020 SUP-RAP-121/2020 and joined cases (opens in another tab) Ruling Background: the Electoral Court ordered affirmative action to be extended to people with disabilities and other groups.
February 24, 2021 SUP-RAP-21/2021 and joined cases (opens in another tab) Ruling Background: affirmative action for migrants and residents abroad.
March 4, 2021 INE/CG160/2021 (opens in another tab) Agreement Background: the INE complied with the ruling on migrants.

Whom we flag

We mark with the diversity flag those whom the electoral authority, a court or the congress itself registered through LGBTTTIQ+ affirmative action, or who publicly identified as part of the community, always with the source. We never assume it. We use inclusive language: if the person identifies as non-binary or uses the pronoun elle, we refer to them as diputade.

Do their actions match?

We group these people into three categories, from the most serious to the most desirable:

Acted against: presented or signed proposals contrary to our rights, or a public source documents that they voted against.
Stayed silent: have not introduced or backed any proposal on our rights.
Drive or support the agenda: presented bills in favor, presented exhortations or position statements, or spoke in favor in public. Signing in support without speaking out is not enough.

Signs of possible simulation

There is no official registry of “usurpations”, but challenges, complaints from collectives and journalistic investigations repeat the same pattern. We turned it into six verifiable signs, each with its source, and we only apply them to those who came in through affirmative action:

Formal challenge: someone challenged their registration or allocation before the electoral institute or the Electoral Court for sham or impersonation (it counts even if the court confirmed it; we say so).
Denied belonging to the community: publicly declared that they are not part of the LGBTTTIQANB+ population, even though they obtained the seat through that affirmative action (with source).
Public complaint: an LGBTTTIQANB+ collective or organization, or a journalistic investigation, accuses them of not belonging to the community or not representing it.
Kinship with the party leadership: the press documents a family tie with party leaders or with politicians who could have influenced their nomination.
Acting against: voted or signed against the community’s rights (measured by the observatory or documented in a public source).
Legislative silence: has not presented or backed any proposal in favor since taking the seat (measured by the observatory).

With two or more different signals we show the Possible simulation of the affirmative action. It is an alert to watch and demand accountability, not a verdict: several challenged people were confirmed by the courts, and we indicate this.

Anyone with a possible simulation is not counted among those who drive or support the agenda, even if they presented or signed proposals in favor: a bill can be presented just for appearances or deliberately left frozen. It is shown in its own group, “Possible sham”, and does not add to the percentage acting in favor.

What we never use as a signal: a person’s marital status, appearance, gender expression or whom they marry. The Xalapa Regional Chamber of the Electoral Court (SX-JDC-732/2024) declared it discriminatory to use a marriage certificate to deny someone’s identity, and a bisexual person can be married to someone of another gender.

8. Federal and state, separately

The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic, which together form the Congress of the Union, legislate for the whole country, and their constitutional reforms also require the vote of the state congresses. A state congress legislates for its state. That is why we do not compare a senator with a local deputy on the same list: on the national page they are shown separately.

9. Participation of citizens and collectives

Many proposals are not born in Congress: they are brought by civil society organizations, collectives and activists, either as a citizen bill or together with a legislator. Their advocacy is part of the observatory’s statistics and has its own record in the directory of organized citizens.

Who counts as citizens. Any authorship or sign-on that does not correspond to a deputy or senator in the directory and that the official document identifies as an organization (civil association, collective, foundation, network, front…), as a citizen bill or as an activist. If a text names several, for example “Casa Trans A.C. y Transneolonesas A.C.”, we count each one separately.
It is not a party. When a record says “ciudadanía”, “ciudadano” or “iniciativa ciudadana” in the party field, we do not count it as a political party: in the “By party” statistics it appears separately, as “Organized citizens”. Movimiento Ciudadano, Hagamos and Futuro are parties and are counted as such.
How it is measured. Same as with legislators: presenting a proposal is worth twice as much as supporting it, and we distinguish whether it was for or against rights. Each proposal is counted only once even if several organizations take part, and its progress uses the same traffic light.
Where they have an impact. The directory map shows the congresses where they participate, according to the legislature of each proposal, not the organization’s address.
They are not rated like deputies. Citizens are not obliged to report on or vote: their record acknowledges their work, it does not evaluate it. That is why they do not appear in “Who delivers results”, nor among those who kept silent.
Privacy. For citizens we only publish the name that appears in Congress’s public documents and the proposals they took part in; never contact details. For organizations we publish only their public contact details. Anyone can request a correction or the removal of their record.

10. What we do not measure

We only count the proposals on LGBTTTIQANB+ rights that the observatory follows, not all of each person’s work.
We do not include all Plenary votes: most congresses do not publish them in a searchable form. That is why silence is measured with proposals and support signatures, and we only mark “Voted against” when a public source documents a person’s vote.
We measure progress within Congress. Knowing whether a law is complied with afterwards requires an impact evaluation ex post like the one proposed by Transparencia Mexicana (2023).
As López Rodríguez (2025) warns, congresses do not publish individual performance indicators; our data come from their official websites, gazettes and bulletins, and may lag behind. Let us know if you see an error.

11. Sources

Academic, legislative and electoral documents on which this methodology is based. They are shared for reference and with their full citation.

Bárcena Juárez, Sergio Arturo (2019). “¿Cómo evaluar el desempeño legislativo? Una propuesta metodológica para la clasificación de las iniciativas de ley en México y América Latina”. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, UNAM, year LXIV, no. 235, pp. 395-426.

Basis for the weight of each proposal: its Multidimensional Index of Significance distinguishes constitutional reforms and new laws from minor and symbolic changes.

Descargar PDF (opens in another tab) · 31 pages · PDF 0.4 MB · DOI
López Rodríguez, Blanca (2025). “El sistema de evaluación de diputada/os del Congreso mexicano”. Intersticios Sociales, El Colegio de Jalisco, no. 29, March-August 2025. ISSN 2007-4964.

It shows that Congress does not publish results indicators for each legislator: the 2017 system (140 indicators) never operated. That is why evaluation by civil society is necessary.

Descargar PDF (opens in another tab) · 30 pages · PDF 0.4 MB
Transparencia Mexicana and the Legislative Branch of the State of Guanajuato (2023). Evaluación de impacto legislativo. Manual for ex post legislative impact evaluation. Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

It explains how to evaluate whether an already approved law is complied with and achieves its objectives. It is the next step, which goes beyond what this observatory measures (progress within Congress).

Descargar PDF (opens in another tab) · 46 pages · PDF 1 MB
Arámbula Reyes, Alma and Santos Villarreal, Gabriel Mario (2008). Acciones afirmativas (SPE-ISS-12-08). Chamber of Deputies, Center for Documentation, Information and Analysis, Research and Analysis Services.

Conceptual and legal framework of affirmative action (“positive discrimination”): preferential and temporary treatment of historically discriminated groups to guarantee equal opportunities.

Descargar PDF (opens in another tab) · 29 pages · PDF 0.2 MB
National Electoral Institute (2024). Acciones afirmativas en los procesos electorales. Timeline of agreements and rulings, Federal Electoral Process 2023-2024.

It gathers the INE agreements and Electoral Court rulings that created affirmative action measures, including the one for sexually diverse people (see the list of agreements in section 7).

Descargar PDF (opens in another tab) · 1 interactive page · PDF 0.1 MB

Citizen evaluation of representation

The stars reflect the average answer to “how well does this legislator represent you?”: Not at all = 1, A little = 2, Somewhat = 3, Quite a lot = 4 and A lot = 5. We show the number of numerical ratings and the total number of evaluations. “I don’t have enough information” and “I prefer not to answer” are excluded from the average; they do not count as zero.

The questionnaire has a common base for all legislators. When there is a record of LGBTTTIQANB+ affirmative action with a source, it adds questions about the connection with the community. Those answers are analyzed separately and do not change the stars. Affirmative action is not inferred from the person’s identity.

The initial profile is saved once per account and each account records one evaluation per legislator. Google and X can be linked from “My participation”. Authentication identifies accounts; it does not certify that each account corresponds to a different person. The consultation is voluntary and open: its results describe those who participate, not the whole population. The stars express citizen perception and are shown separately from the evaluation of legislative results.

How we evaluate legislators