Rome, 12 June 2022 – For i referendum on justice and the abolition of the Severino law is nothing. The data recorded onturnout of the 19, equal to 14 per center of those entitled to vote (based on data from the Interior Ministry which concern 7,604 municipalities out of 7,903) it does not leave much room for quorum achievement required (50% + 1). The Radicals and the League fought in a tough referendum campaign on the five questions, repeatedly denouncing the silence of the media. How much the low turnout contributed is difficult to establish, but it is enough to compare with the referendum of 7 April 2016 on drills, which had a turnout of 23.54% at 19, and then did not even reach 33% at the close of the polls, to get a picture of what will happen with the questions about justice.
A picture so clear that it seems almost superfluous need to wait for the first exit polls conducted out of the polling stations to realize, well before the closing of the polls, that the objective of those who intended to introduce a series of changes in matters of the judiciary and the administration of justice has not been achieved. A fact that, moreover, unites this referendum to the referendums that have taken place in Italy in the last decade or so. But in the end, the flop seemed announced for days. And feared by all those who pushed the 5 questions to the end.
Referendum and elections: what you need to know. Guide to voting
Referendum June 12 to the quorum challenge. Difficult questions, few understand
The 5 questions – The first
The first question (red card) he asked if the Consolidated Law on the subject of non-compliance and the prohibition against holding elected and governing positions resulting from definitive sentences for non-negligent crimes should be repealed. The current Severino Law automatically excludes those who have received a sentence from elections and political office. In fact, in our country, in the event of a definitive conviction for some crimes, the incapacity, ineligibility and automatic forfeiture of parliamentarians, government representatives, regional councilors, mayors and local administrators are foreseen.
The map
.
.
The second question
The second question (orange card) he asked if the provision was to be abrogated which envisages, in the event of serious crimes, the possibility of requesting the application of precautionary measures when there is a danger of a repeat of the crime. Currently, precautionary measures can also be applied in cases where there is a danger of pollution of the tests and the danger of escape.
The map
.
.
The third question
The third question (yellow card) he asked if they want to repeal the rules on the judicial system that allow the transition from judicial functions to prosecutors and vice versa in the career of magistrates. Currently, in fact, it is possible for magistrates to switch, for a maximum of four times, from the role of public prosecutor to that of judge.
The map
.
.
The fourth question
The fourth question (gray card) he asked if he agreed to abrogate the rules on the composition of the Governing Council of the Court of Cassation and the judicial councils and the competences of the lay members who are part of it. Currently, magistrates receive an evaluation every four years from the High Council of the Judiciary, but only members of the judiciary, or magistrates, can carry out the evaluation of their colleagues, which is forbidden to lay members.
The map
.
.
The fifth question
The fifth question (green card) he asked if the rules on the elections of the professional members of the High Council of the Judiciary were to be repealed, in particular the one that provides for the obligation to collect from 25 to 50 signatures in order to be able to stand as members of the self-governing body of the judiciary. For each question, the vote is expressed with “yes” if you agree to change the law, with “no” if you want to keep it unchanged. To do this, it is necessary to go to the polling station with an identity document and an electoral card.
The map
.
.
The controversy over the lack of communication
The promoters of the referendum, including Matteo Salvini, have always hit the key of the poor communication, at all levels, on the questions. They also appealed to Sergio Mattarella and Mario Draghi, asking them to make an appeal to vote. The League had bluntly accused the media of not having given enough space to the debate and to the deepening of the reasons for yes and no to the five questions on justice reform. An accusation shared by Silvio Berlusconi, according to which the referendums on justice “were boycotted with the vote in a single day. They were boycotted with absolute silence in many newspapers and on state television”. All this, argues the leader of Fi with open polls, would be in line with “a clear desire to keep things as they are and the Italians who do not go to vote and stay at home. We are masochists”. In this context, the League does not fail to note the difficulties of an electoral campaign in which it basically felt left alone from the rest of the center-right. Starting with the Brothers of Italy.
What happens now
For the Carroccio, therefore, the referendum result it tastes like a setback, which could weigh further even in the already complicated ones relations within the coalitionIn any case, there are still those who hope that the failure to reach the quorum does not stop the legislative initiative underway in Parliament. Even in the center-left, whose leaders today kept their mouths closed, postponing, like Matteo Renzi, any comment to the next day. “We must work with even more determination to give the right answers on important and delicate issues”, reflects Andrea De Maria of the Pd.
