Citizenship referendum at risk of inadmissibility? The former Consulta reveals the mistake –

There is a possible problem with the text of the referendum on citizenship, which intends to reduce the deadline for granting Italian citizenship to 5 years of legal residence. “Our system provides for repealing referendums, the problem that arises if the question is ‘cut-out’, that is, it eliminates some parts and words, is that sometimes a law is not repealed but a new one is introduced. In this case we would be faced with a proactive referendum which is not admissible. If by changing the words I remove the ‘DO NOT’ from a ‘MUST NOT’ I modify the rule. With the ‘cut’, in reality a new provision could be introduced which would make the referendum inadmissible”, the opinion of the president emeritus of the Constitutional Court, Cesare Mirabelli.

Reading the referendum question, Mirabelli notes: “It is a combination of the letter b with the drop of the letter f. The combination risks having the referendum evaluated as proactive, in the sense that the resulting regulation innovates and does not merely repeal”. “In fact, the referendum – he explains to Adnkronos – in letter f repeals the law which provides for foreigners who legally reside in Italy for 10 years to obtain citizenship. And at b, which allows a shorter term (5 years) for those adopted by Italian citizens, eliminates the part relating to adoption, essentially applying the 5-year term to all. There is therefore a risk of inadmissibility.”

“Of course – comments the president emeritus of the Consulta – they were good”. Even the collection of signatures in a few days thanks to the rule authorizing online collection, introduced in September 2022, “leaves one to assume there is a strong organization on site”. Is regulatory intervention necessary to avoid abuse? “First of all – replies the president emeritus – we need to evaluate what will happen with the verification of the correctness of the collection of signatures online. I remember that even with the traditional method there is a lack of relevant and necessary certifications. Secondly, remote computerized signature collection certainly reduces costs, therefore it is a positive tool. But if this ease leads to excesses, then it may be appropriate to vary the number of signatures required.”