Top court weighs Italicum

(ANSA) - Rome, January 24 - 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.