The reform process for Spain's General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), a crucial institution in the nation’s judicial system, has encountered significant hurdles as the February 6 deadline approaches.

The reform, agreed upon by Spain's major political parties—the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) and the People's Party (PP)—aims to overhaul the selection method for 12 judicial council members but now faces stagnation due to deep partisan divides.

Created in the summer of 2023, the CGPJ's primary missions included filling over one hundred vacancies in high-level judicial positions and formulating a proposal to reform the selection system for its members.

Amid these tasks, the appointment of a commission comprising two progressive and two conservative members was established to navigate the drafting of an electoral reform proposal.

However, ideological differences have dominated proceedings, resulting in a deadlock.

The core disagreement stems from contrasting interpretations of how members should be selected.

Progressive council members advocate for parliamentary involvement in the selection process, while conservative members insist on a system where members are directly elected by judges, devoid of parliamentary intervention.

Despite continuous weekly negotiations, the council has failed to converge on a unified proposal.

Meetings in recent weeks have only reinforced the divide, casting doubt on the council’s ability to present a cohesive proposal to the government.

With neither political bloc holding the majority needed to advance their version, the CGPJ is now considering submitting two separate reports to the plenary.

Input from prominent judicial bodies, including the Supreme Court, adds further complexity to the issue.

The Supreme Court’s response acknowledges the broad spectrum of opinion within its ranks.

Although leaning towards a model where judges have a decisive say, it concedes that a mixed system—somewhat preserving parliamentary involvement—could be effective if revamped to prevent partisan quota systems.

To address potential political gridlock, the Supreme Court proposes various solutions, including terminating council members' terms more promptly or constituting CGPJ with only a portion of its members initially.

Such measures aim to avert prolonged stasis similar to past instances, where the council operated under an extended mandate.

Detailed options under consideration for judiciary-led elections include open list systems and multi-tier approaches, yet these too are subject to stringent conditions ensuring gender balance and representation across judicial associations.

With no binding European directives mandating a singular approach, debates hinge partially on best practices identified by European advisory bodies such as the Venice Commission and GRECO, which suggest reducing political influence in judicial appointments.

These protracted discussions occur in a broader context where judicial independence and policy formulation reflect broader themes of governance within democratic institutions, impacting both domestic policies and perceptions on the European stage.