Italy's Justice Referendum: What Judges' Accountability Rules Mean for You

Italy's Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has intensified his campaign for the upcoming justice referendum, promising that a "Yes" vote will finally allow judges who make errors to face sanctions, much like other professionals. With just three weeks until voters head to the polls on March 22-23, the constitutional referendum has become a divisive national debate over judicial accountability and the separation of judicial powers.

Why This Matters:

• No turnout threshold required — the result is valid regardless of participation, making every vote decisive.

• Fundamental restructuring of Italy's judiciary: separate career paths for judges and prosecutors, two distinct governing councils, and a new disciplinary court.

• Polling shows a toss-up — latest surveys place the "Yes" and "No" camps within margin of error, with the outcome hinging on turnout levels.

• Voting runs Sunday, March 22 (7 AM–11 PM) and Monday, March 23 (7 AM–3 PM).

What Salvini Is Promising

In his weekly newsletter, the League party leader and Transport Minister framed the vote as a matter of basic fairness. "If you jail the wrong person — which has unfortunately happened many times — you cannot remain unpunished or even get promoted," Salvini wrote, arguing that judges should be held to the same accountability standards as other workers. He described the referendum as "an unprecedented opportunity to change this justice system that doesn't work."

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has echoed this confidence, publicly betting that the "Yes" will prevail and using the referendum to bolster her broader agenda of institutional stability, including planned electoral law reforms. Yet the Cattaneo Institute, one of Italy's leading polling organizations, has cautioned that predicting the winner remains "impossible" given the narrow margins.

The Core Reforms on the Ballot

This is a constitutional confirmatory referendum, meaning Parliament has already passed the legislation, but without the required two-thirds supermajority. Voters are now being asked to ratify or reject changes that would fundamentally reshape Italy's judicial architecture:

1. Separation of Judicial Careers

Currently, Italian magistrates can switch between serving as judges (giudicanti) and prosecutors (requirenti) throughout their careers. The reform would permanently separate these roles from the outset, barring any crossover. Proponents argue this enhances the perceived impartiality of judges in criminal trials by preventing a judge from ever having served as a prosecutor.

2. Two Separate High Councils

Instead of a single Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (CSM) overseeing all magistrates, the reform establishes two distinct CSMs — one for judges, another for prosecutors. Each council would independently manage appointments, evaluations, and career progression for its respective branch.

3. A New High Disciplinary Court

An Alta Corte Disciplinare would be created at constitutional rank to handle all disciplinary proceedings against magistrates. This strips disciplinary authority from the CSMs, aiming to cleanly separate career management from sanctions.

4. Sortition for Council Members

The reform introduces random selection (sortition) for part of the membership of both CSMs and the disciplinary court. Magistrate representatives would be drawn by lot from the entire judicial corps, while lay members would be selected from a pool of legal experts compiled by Parliament. This is designed to weaken the influence of internal judicial factions (correnti) that have long shaped appointments and promotions.

What the Referendum Does NOT Address

Crucially, the reform does not alter civil liability rules for magistrates or introduce new mechanisms for citizens to directly sue judges. Italy's existing framework — Law 117/1988, revised in 2015 — maintains indirect liability: citizens harmed by judicial misconduct involving intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence sue the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which may then seek reimbursement from the individual magistrate. This two-step process, intended to safeguard judicial independence, remains unchanged.

Nor does the referendum tackle case backlogs, trial duration, or procedural efficiency — the chronic issues that frustrate Italian citizens and businesses alike. The reform is strictly about judicial organization and self-governance, not operational performance.

The Numbers: Polls Show a Knife-Edge Race

Recent polling data presents conflicting scenarios heavily influenced by projected turnout:

• Ipsos (released February 16): With 46% turnout, "Yes" leads 51.5% to 48.5%.

• YouTrend (published February 27): At 46% turnout, "No" edges ahead 53.1% to 46.9%. At 55.4% turnout, the camps tie at 50% each.

• AGI/YouTrend Supermedia (February 27): "Yes" narrowly leads 51.2%, down 1.7 points, with "No" gaining to 48.8%. Some institutes within the aggregate now show a "No" lead or dead heat.

Because the referendum is confirmatory, not abrogative, there is no quorum. The side with more votes wins, regardless of how many people participate — a rule that could favor the more mobilized camp.

Opposition from the Judiciary and Civil Society

The reform has faced fierce pushback from prominent magistrates and advocacy groups who argue it threatens judicial independence and the constitutional balance of powers.

Edmondo Bruti Liberati, a former magistrate, has criticized what he calls the "Nordio law" (named after Justice Minister Carlo Nordio) for failing to address the real dysfunctions of Italy's justice system. Naples chief prosecutor Nicola Gratteri and former magistrate Luigi Leghissa have both publicly backed the "No" campaign, participating in events organized by the Committee for the Defense of the Constitution.

Labor union FLAI-CGIL outlined five reasons to reject the reform, warning that splitting the CSM into three separate bodies disrupts the equilibrium among legislative, executive, and judicial powers enshrined in the Constitution. Oxfam Italy, while not formally endorsing either side, expressed concern that the restructuring could weaken protections for citizens with less economic or political power. The ANPI (National Association of Italian Partisans) has also mobilized against the reform, hosting public forums in multiple cities.

Critics contend that the risk is not greater accountability, but subordination of the judiciary to executive influence, particularly through the sortition mechanism and the division of self-governing bodies.

How Italy Compares to Europe

Italy's current system of indirect judicial liability mirrors the approach in France, Germany, and Spain, where citizens sue the state, which may then seek recompense from the individual judge in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct. This model is standard across Europe to protect judicial independence.

What sets Italy apart is that state recourse against magistrates is mandatory once liability is established, whereas in France it is discretionary and in the Netherlands and Germany it does not exist at all. Italy's disciplinary system is managed by the CSM, similar to Spain's Consejo General del Poder Judicial, but unlike Germany, which uses specialized disciplinary courts without a self-governing council.

The referendum does not change Italy's civil liability regime, despite Salvini's rhetoric implying otherwise.

Impact on Residents and Legal Practitioners

For residents navigating Italy's justice system, the practical effects of the reform — should it pass — would be indirect and long-term. The changes target internal governance and career structures, not case processing or citizen access. Those expecting faster trials or more responsive courts may be disappointed; the referendum does not address staffing shortages, procedural bottlenecks, or digital infrastructure.

For legal professionals and defendants, the separation of careers could shift courtroom dynamics. A judge who has never served as a prosecutor might approach evidence differently, though whether this translates to fairer outcomes is contested.

Expatriates and foreign investors should note that Italy's judicial unpredictability — a frequent complaint in business circles — is unlikely to improve based solely on this reform. The country's civil justice system remains one of the slowest in the EU, a problem rooted in resources and procedure, not judicial organization.

The Final Sprint

With the vote now three weeks away, both camps are mobilizing supporters. The government coalition — led by Meloni's Brothers of Italy, Salvini's League, and Forza Italia — is pushing hard for "Yes," framing the referendum as a mandate for accountability and modernization. Opposition parties, including the Democratic Party and Five Star Movement, largely back "No," joined by much of the organized judiciary.

The absence of a quorum requirement means turnout strategy is critical. A low-participation vote could favor the more disciplined "Yes" coalition; higher engagement might tilt toward "No" as mobilized opposition voters turn out.

Italy's ballot box will deliver a verdict not only on judicial reform, but on the broader question of whether citizens trust their government to restructure one of the Republic's foundational institutions — or whether they prefer the imperfect status quo.