Electoral law, the appeals machine is underway on 6 key issues

appeals machine she has already left. A draft containing six key points of appeals against the new electoral law is already ready. From the number of signatures to present the lists for the elections to the indication of the name of the candidate for Prime Minister.

“An extraordinary machine,” as he explains Roberto Zaccaria during the press conference of the Civic Network in the Chamber. “We represent the network for a free and equal vote, a network that serves for mobilization in the country. The law is seriously unconstitutional. Today we present the extraordinary appeals machine”, explains Zaccaria in the introduction.

“The objective is ambitious: to present the appeals on the exact day the law comes into force”, he announces Pietro Adami for lawyers. “The lawyers’ network has 99 lawyers, a very notable number. Many lawyers already have experience with electoral appeals and have made them available to the network”, he added. The total number of appeals is thirty, for six points concerning the law.

The six points of the appeals against the electoral law

We start from a fixed point, underlined by the constitutionalist Enrico Grosso: “The appeals allow us to eliminate the unconstitutional aspects, leaving the law suitable to be applied”, he explains: “We make available a draft in which we raise doubts about the electoral law. This draft can be modified by the lawyers who must feel free to draft the act as they wish”, adds Grosso before going on to list the six themes on which the appeals will revolve: “The first question is the majority prizefrom the point of view of respect for representation and with respect to the mechanism for assigning seats. The House and Senate are each elected independently”, according to the Constitution, “this law instead links the election of one to that of the other”.

The third title concerns the freedom of voting and selection of elected representatives: “There is a problem of transferring the results to individual candidates. There is a problem of unconstitutionality in the selection of elected representatives. This law does not allow voters to know the effects of the vote on the parliamentarian”. Fourth title, equal access and gender balance: “The blocked list leaders can also be of only one gender”. Fifth title, mandatory indication of the candidate for Prime Minister: “Voters or those who intend to run for office have the right to present lists with the program they want, the indication of the candidate for Prime Minister seems to predict the fact that everyone on the list must necessarily run for government, but there are lists that can also be elected in the knowledge of having an opposition role. Then there is a problem that concerns the prerogatives of the President of the Republic”.

Sixth and final point: “The abnormal number of subscriptions for lists that are not represented in parliament compared to the lists that are represented and which, for this reason, are exempted from the collection of signatures”. All this, for Grosso, prefigures a “violation of the right of equal access to candidacy based on the principle of reasonableness and candidacy. All profiles of unconstitutionality allow the Court to intervene on individual points, leaving the new law purified of the points of unconstitutionality”.

The appellants and the opposition

Among the applicants – who have reached 500 at the moment – the names of many opposition representatives stand out, also present en masse at the conference in the Chamber: from Lucia Annunziata to Sandro Ruotolo, from Pierluigi Bersani, to Rosi Bindi, passing through Fausto Bertinotti, Massimo Cacciari, Massimo D’Alema and Anna Finocchiaro.

“We fought a very tough battle in the Commission and in the Chamber, which had the outcome you saw”, he recalls Simona BonafèPD deputy at the forefront against a law “contested in its method, because it changes the rules of the game just under a year before the elections”. A choice that contrasts with “what was underlined by the Venice Commission”. Still on the method, the Democratic Party “disputed the fact that the change was clearly made for party interest and not for general interest. Changes were made, it is true, but these did not take our contribution into account. We contest the law very much on its merits”, continues the dem, “the fake preferences do not allow the voter to choose who should represent him in Parliament; the majority bonus allows the coalition that wins to have an abnormal number of parliamentarians, compared to the actual votes achieved. We have a disguised premiership, with an ordinary law: the nomination of the candidate for the presidency of the Council undermines the prerogatives of the Head of State”.

Maria Elena Boschigroup leader of Italia Viva, thanks the civic network for the initiative taken and recalls that “the oppositions have followed a common path, as is evident. We shared the critical issues regarding the constitutional legitimacy of the law. There was no real involvement of the oppositions, there was no possibility of a real discussion. It is an important difference compared to the last two electoral laws approved by this parliament. On the most critical aspects”, concludes Boschi, “I think I can say right now that not all political forces will have the same number of women and men and that the entire Parliament will have a lower female representation than today”.

The knot of signatures

The M5s exponent, Alfonso Coluccirecalls that “our Constitution provides for a series of rules which are aimed at determining the centrality of Parliament with respect to the bodies of the state. The Melonellum, an ordinary law but of constitutional importance, alters these elements. The indication of the candidate at Palazzo Chigi impacts on the prerogatives of the Head of State. The fixed and abnormal majority bonus affects the dialectic that the Constitution imposes between majority parties and opposition parties. Not to mention the blocked list leaders and the false preferences that will make Parliament a Parliament of nominated”.

However, on one issue, the parliamentary battle, it left consequences for the opposition: the rule on the collection of signatures was contested and opposed by the Pd, M5s, Più Europa and Avs, but not by Italia Viva. He was remembered en passant by Riccardo Magi and Colucci. “The political forces” that do not yet have members in Parliament “will have difficulties in accessing, not to parliament, but to the electoral competition with the abnormal number of signatures. On signatures, among other things”, observes Colucci, “we have not found the contribution of Italia Viva”.

Riccardo Magileader of Più Europa, conducted a protest fast on the topic of signatures which went on for over ten days: “For us who are a small political force, they want to create an insurmountable barrier to the presentation of the list at the elections. Almost all the oppositions have fought against this point in Parliament, including me with a non-violent action of fasting”. That of signatures, explains Boschi, is not “the priority profile for Italia Viva. Having said this, it seems that the signatures to be collected are actually a very large number, especially in some regions in relation to the population. We therefore know the critical issues that are indicated. The point is the number which is very large. On the issue itself, however, it is not so unusual that there is a differentiation between those who have already demonstrated – by running for office with the symbol and by being elected – that they have a consensus on the territory and those who, instead, as a formation new, must collect signatures to enter.

A “very profitable” alliance between politics and civil society for the red and green Filiberto Zaratti. An alliance which now, for Magi, must be brought to the territories “with a mobilization in the country. We are trying to make a contribution so that the citizens’ vote has adequate weight and is not manipulated. Felice Besostri, senator and lawyer, was remembered. I always remember a joke he made to me: by dint of wanting an electoral law that gives us the result of the vote on the same day of the vote, we will end up having one that will tell us the day before. It is precisely in that direction that we are going”.