New Election Law Headed to Constitutional Court: The 5 Contested Points

The new electoral law approved by the Italian Parliament is heading towards review by the Constitutional Court, where opponents will file an appeal. A Network against the electoral reform, led by former constitutional law professor Roberto Zaccaria, has already been established to challenge five specific aspects of the legislation.

The main objections concern: the partial introduction of preference votes (with the top candidate being blocked), the number of signatures required for new parties (around 450,000), the removal of the 60% limit for gender balance among top candidates, the majority bonus triggered at 42% of the votes, and the creation of a single large constituency for Italians abroad. According to forecasts, the Constitutional Court is expected to rule by February 2027.

Among constitutional scholars, an intermediate position prevails: few call for the complete rejection of the law, many criticize individual parts, while a minority supports it. Professor Gianluca Passarelli of La Sapienza University describes the reform as "a sort of Frankenstein" and speaks of a "majority bonus fraud," arguing that "voters will count for almost nothing."

The discussion on electoral law in Italy follows an established path: after parliamentary approval, a second phase almost always opens before the Constitutional Court. This happened with the 2005 law and with the Italicum of 2015, which was declared partly illegitimate by ruling no. 35 of 2017. The path to bringing electoral laws before the Consulta was opened by ruling no. 1 of 2014, when some voters initiated an action to ascertain their right to vote in accordance with the Constitution.

Citizens cannot directly appeal to the Constitutional Court: issues arrive when a judge, during a trial, doubts the constitutionality of a law they must apply. Regarding majority bonuses, constitutional jurisprudence has allowed them under precise conditions: they must be triggered beyond a reasonable threshold of consensus and must not excessively distort representation. In 2017, the Court deemed the 40% threshold set by the Italicum legitimate; the new law sets it at 42%.

A particularly delicate point concerns the so-called "guarantee majorities": the Constitution requires broader majorities than an absolute majority for decisions concerning guarantee bodies such as the President of the Republic, constitutional judges, and the lay members of the Superior Council of the Judiciary. Some constitutional scholars fear that an excessive bonus could push the winning list toward 60% of the seats, also influencing these guarantee majorities.