The Constitutional Court opened a
public hearing on Tuesday to examine the legitimacy of the
'Italicum' election law.
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.
Thirteen judges were expected to be present due to the
absence of one and the resignation of another.
The proposer of the bill, Nicolò Zanon, was slated to speak
first. The Italian consumer rights group Codacons has asked to
be allowed to support the lawyers group that has challenged the
law, but the request is unlikely to be upheld.
A long line of 'anti-Italicum' lawyers were then expected to
illustrate their positions.
Lawyer Massella Ducci Teri will be speaking last and will be
defending the law on behalf of the government.
Constitutional Court chief Paolo Grossi has 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
