The Constitutional Court's ruling
on the 'Italicum' electoral law will come tomorrow at "around
13:00-13:30," the court's secretary-general, Carlo Visconti,
said Tuesday.
The top court is set to rule on whether a number of aspects
of the law, especially its run-off, winner's bonus and 'blocked'
list leaders, comply with the Italian Constitution.
The Constitutional Court opened a public hearing on Tuesday
morning to examine the legitimacy of the 'Italicum'.
A decision is expected late on Tuesday or on Wednesday.
The court is called upon to consider the legitimacy of
various aspects of the law, including the bonus seats it awards
to the winning party to ensure it has a working majority and the
run-off round of voting to decide the winner if no single party
reaches the 40% threshold.
The Italicum was designed only to apply to the Lower House
as, under the Constitutional reform rejected on December 4, the
Senate was meant to be reformed and made up of regional
representatives.
The fact that the Constitutional Court was set to rule on the
Italicum is considered one of the reasons why President Sergio
Mattarella did not heed calls for early elections from
opposition parties when ex-premier Matteo Renzi quit last month
after his flagship Constitutional revamp was rejected.
Renzi was replaced by current Premier Paolo Gentiloni, the
former foreign minister.
Gentiloni is a member of Renzi's centre-left Democratic Party
(PD).
Sources said ahead of the Constitutional Court session that
13 judges were expected to be present due to the absence of one
and the resignation of another.
The proposer of the bill, Nicolò Zanon, spoke first. The
Italian consumer rights group Codacons asked to be allowed to
support the lawyers group that has challenged the law, but the
request was turned down.
A long line of 'anti-Italicum' lawyers then illustrated their
positions.
Lawyer Massella Ducci Teri was set to speak last and will be
defending the law on behalf of the government.
Constitutional Court chief Paolo Grossi had asked that all
speak briefly to be able to reach a verdict by the evening if
possible.
The run-off is expected to be eliminated, since retaining it
in a system with 'perfect bicameralism' would result in an
asymmetry. The Senate does not foresee a second round and if one
were retained for the Chamber of Deputies, a situation may ensue
in which the Senate has been elected but a run-off would have to
be held for the Chamber. This would influence voters.
One possibility is that in the motivations for the sentence -
which will be issued at a later date - the judges may suggest a
path for lawmakers who want to retain the run-off by extending
it beyond the two top parties to others than have surpassed a
set threshold.
The cancellation of bonus seats seems less probable. A 2014
verdict on the Porcellum electoral law rejected it because that
law gave them to the winning party regardless of the votes
received. The Italicum law instead sets a 40% threshold.
Several legal experts have said that bonus seats in the
election of one house of parliament has a stabilizing effect on
the other by fostering agreements between parties.
The court will have to assess whether the Italicum law
ensures recognition of candidates and voting freedom. The same
holds true for the possibility for candidates to run for office
in different voting districts and choose at the end in which to
be elected. In this instance, the court might simply issue a
warning that the mechanism harms the relationship between the
voters and the official elected and that automatic criteria are
required without going further into the matter.
The court could also declare all the issues to be
inadmissible and leave the Italicum law intact, never used, but
all experts say that this will not happen.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © Copyright ANSA