This article examines the development of dialogic constitutionalism and its application in Mexico, particularly in electoral disputes involving indigenous normative systems. Through a theoretical and jurisprudential review, it explores the tensions between democratic legitimacy, judicial review, and the exercise of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. The analysis identifies three jurisprudential stages within the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary—foundational interventionist, and minimal-intervention—highlighting how the latter employs intercultural dialogue mechanisms to harmonize individual political rights with collective rights. The article argues that implementing gender parity in indigenous contexts requires gradual and culturally grounded approaches that avoid reinforcing violence or social fragmentation. The study concludes that dialogic constitutionalism provides an effective framework for reducing conflict, enhancing the legitimacy of public decisions, and fostering more horizontal relationships between the State and indigenous communities.