Mexico’s Supreme Court annulled part of a reform of the country’s electoral rules that had been sponsored by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a setback for the Latin American leader who has sought to overhaul the national election regulator before his term ends in 2024.

Nine of the 11 Supreme Court Justices on Monday voted in favor of invalidating the first part of the reform approved by lawmakers, which included changes to publicity and propaganda rules in campaigns, on the grounds that congress didn’t follow proper legislative process. They have yet to vote on the second part of the reform, which includes changes to the election regulator’s funding and its personnel.

“It’s a blow for the president because it sets the precedent against passing legislation that wants to undermine democratic control,” said Alejandro Schtulmann, president and head of research at EMPRA, a Mexico City-based political consultancy.

Lopez Obrador’s office didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

The president known as AMLO had pushed for changes to the regulator known as INE, alleging it was running up excessive costs and being partisan. The second part of the changes approved by congress include cuts to INE’s funding that would lead to thousands of staff members being fired. Protests against such measure have erupted in many Mexican cities.

“Our country is a constitutional democracy,” Supreme Court President Norma Piña said during the discussion. “Decisions must be adopted by majority rule once they have been deliberated long enough based on the relevant information, having heard all the political forces of representation in equal conditions.”

Read More: Mexico Senate Passes Electoral System Overhaul Ahead of Vote

The changes approved by Congress could have significant impact on the general election scheduled for mid-2024 and for a vote to pick governors in two states in 2023. Invalidating the first part of the electoral changes on procedural grounds makes it more likely that the court will also declare unconstitutional the second part, which was temporarily suspended earlier this year.

“They managed to get nine votes in favor with important arguments in favor, defending parliamentary debate,” said Claudia Aguilar Barroso, a constitutional law professor. “Surely when they decide on the second decree, they’ll take the same route, because the problems in the proceedings were similar.”

(Update with analyst comment starting in third paragraph.)