Overview
Italy is set to hold a constitutional referendum on March 22-23 to decide on a government-proposed reform of the justice system. The package seeks structural changes to how judges and public prosecutors are trained, appointed and overseen, a subject that has reignited tensions between the judiciary and the governing coalition.
What the reform would change
The centrepiece of the proposal is a formal separation of judicial and prosecutorial careers. Today, judges and prosecutors enter the judiciary via a common exam, follow the same career track and may transfer between roles early in their careers. Under the reform, those two professions would be split from the outset: prosecutors and judges would take separate career paths with no ability to switch between them.
In addition, the plan envisages dividing the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM) into two distinct bodies, one dedicated to judges and the other to prosecutors. The rules for selecting members of these new institutions would change, introducing a method of sortition - selection by lottery - for some members. The reform would also establish a High Disciplinary Court to handle misconduct cases involving magistrates.
Arguments for and against
Supporters of the package argue the measures will modernise Italy's judicial organisation and bring it closer to the systems used in some other democracies. They contend that removing shared career paths between judges and prosecutors will bolster impartiality by reducing professional overlap, and that random selection for membership of the new CSM bodies will limit the influence of entrenched factions that often have political ties. Proponents further say the disciplinary court will facilitate accountability for wrongdoing among judges and prosecutors.
Opponents counter that the changes risk weakening judicial independence. Critics argue the reforms could make it easier for governments to exert influence over prosecutors and thereby affect what investigations are pursued. They also warn that selecting members of the reformed CSM by lottery could lower the quality or willingness of those chosen to serve.
Why the reform is going to voters
The constitutional changes received parliamentary approval twice, as required. However, because the government did not secure the two-thirds majority needed to avoid a public vote, law mandates a confirmatory referendum. As a confirmatory referendum, the vote does not require a turnout quorum: a "Yes" will put the proposed changes into effect, while a "No" will preserve the existing arrangements.
Polls and political dynamics
Polling through much of last year showed the "Yes" camp ahead, but more recent surveys published in a national newspaper indicate the contest has become tightly balanced, with the two sides running neck-and-neck. Turnout is expected to be decisive. Observers note that high abstention would likely favour opponents of the reform. This is a particular concern for the governing coalition because centre-right voters have historically been less motivated to participate in referendums.
The centre-left has additional incentive to mobilise: the ballot represents an opportunity, in their view, to weaken the governing coalition ahead of the next parliamentary election scheduled for 2027.
What is at stake
The referendum will determine whether long-standing proposals to separate judicial careers and reconfigure judicial governance are implemented. The debate, which has resurfaced periodically since the late 1980s, has repeatedly been stymied by partisan divisions. The coming vote will settle whether the reform becomes constitutional law or whether the status quo is retained.