Italy to vote on separating judges and prosecutors

While much of the world’s public debate in recent weeks has focused on international crises and economic uncertainty, Italian voters are also preparing for an important constitutional decision.

On 22 and 23 March, Italians will vote in a referendum on a reform that would significantly reshape the organisation of the judiciary. The proposal focuses on the relationship between judges and prosecutors, the structure of the body that governs the judiciary, and the system that handles disciplinary proceedings against magistrates.

The reform was approved in Parliament by the centre-right governing majority, which has made justice reform one of its main institutional priorities. Because constitutional changes in Italy require either a two-thirds majority in Parliament or a confirmatory referendum, the vote is now going to the public. The reform did not reach the two-thirds threshold during the parliamentary votes, and the government itself requested the referendum, although the opposition had already signalled that it would have done so.

This is a confirmatory constitutional referendum, meaning that there is no turnout quorum. The result will therefore be valid regardless of how many people vote. If the reform is rejected, the constitutional changes will fail. If it is approved, the new framework will enter into force and Parliament will have one year to pass the implementing legislation needed to make the system operational.

How the system works today

Under the current constitution, judges and public prosecutors belong to the same professional body, known collectively as the magistracy.

They enter the profession through the same national exam and are governed by a single institution, the High Council of the Judiciary (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, or CSM). This body plays a central role in the Italian justice system. It decides appointments, promotions, transfers and disciplinary measures affecting magistrates.

The system was designed after World War II to guarantee strong independence of the judiciary from political power, one of the central concerns of the framers of the 1948 constitution. For this reason, many of those campaigning for a Novote argue that the current institutional balance should not be altered, warning that the reform could weaken protections that were originally designed to shield the judiciary from political interference.

Over time, however, the internal organisation of the magistracy has also developed structured groups known as correnti. These organised factions compete for influence within the governing bodies of the judiciary and often play a role in negotiations over senior appointments. Because judges and prosecutors belong to the same institutional structure, both participate in the same system of career decisions and governance. Critics of the current system — including supporters of the Yes campaign — argue that this dynamic has given internal factions excessive influence over careers and key appointments within the judiciary.

How the reform would change the system

The reform submitted to voters would modify several parts of this institutional architecture.

The first change concerns the structure of the magistracy itself. The constitution would explicitly state that the judiciary consists of two distinct career tracks: one for judges and one for public prosecutors. Italy would therefore still have a single magistracy, but with clearly separate professional paths. Judges and prosecutors would follow different careers and would no longer be able to move from one role to the other.

A second major change concerns the governance of the judiciary. The current High Council of the Judiciary would be replaced by two separate councils: one responsible for judges and another for prosecutors. Both bodies would be presided over by the President of the Republic. The heads of the Court of Cassation — the first president and the prosecutor general — would sit on the councils as members by right.

These councils would remain responsible for decisions affecting magistrates’ careers, including appointments, transfers, professional evaluations and assignments of functions.

Another significant innovation concerns how members of these councils would be selected. Today many members of the CSM are elected, often through organised groups within the magistracy. The reform proposes replacing elections with a system largely based on random selection, or sortition. Each council would be composed of two-thirds magistrates and one-third lay members. The lay members would be drawn by lot from a list of jurists compiled by Parliament, while the magistrate members would also be selected by lot among judges or prosecutors who meet the eligibility criteria. Members would serve four-year terms and could not immediately be selected again.

Finally, the reform would remove disciplinary powers from the councils. Instead, disciplinary proceedings involving magistrates would be handled by a new institution called the High Disciplinary Court. The court would have 15 members: 3 appointed by the President of the Republic, 3 drawn by lot from a list of jurists elected by Parliament, 6 judges with at least twenty years of experience and service in the Court of Cassation, selected by lot, and 3 prosecutors with the same seniority requirements, also selected by lot. Magistrates would therefore form the majority of the court, although its president would be chosen from among the lay members.

The court’s decisions could be appealed only before the same body sitting in a different composition, and not before the Court of Cassation.

Why supporters want the reform

Supporters of the reform argue that the current system blurs the roles of judges and prosecutors. Separating the two careers, they say, would strengthen the perception that judges act as completely neutral arbiters between the prosecution and the defence.

Another key argument concerns the internal dynamics of the magistracy. Critics of the current system say that the organised factions within the judiciary have become too influential in decisions about promotions and appointments. According to supporters of the reform, introducing random selection for many members of the governing councils would reduce the power of these internal networks.

They also point out that in most European countries judges and prosecutors follow separate professional careers, whereas Italy’s unified system is relatively unusual.

Why opponents reject it

Opponents of the reform argue that the current institutional design is one of the strongest guarantees of judicial independence in Italy.

They say separating the careers of judges and prosecutors risks weakening the magistracy, particularly the position of prosecutors, who today operate within the same constitutional framework as judges. According to critics, the reform could ultimately reduce the institutional strength of the judiciary and make it more vulnerable to political pressure.

Some opponents also argue that the reform does not address the problems that most directly affect citizens, including the length of trials and delays in the justice system.

Constitutional referendums in Italy

The upcoming vote also fits into a broader pattern in Italian politics. Constitutional referendums have often become highly political contests between government and opposition.

In the period known as the Second Republic, several major constitutional reforms have been submitted to voters — including those proposed by centre-left governments in 2006 and by Matteo Renzi’s government in 2016. In both cases, the reforms were rejected.

Political analysts often note that these votes tend to become referendums on the government of the day, rather than judgments on the technical merits of the constitutional changes themselves. As a result, the “No” side has frequently prevailed when the political debate becomes strongly polarised.

For that reason, the outcome of the March referendum will likely be interpreted not only as a decision about the structure of Italy’s judiciary, but also as a test of the current political balance in the country.

(Cover photo: The Column of Justice in Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence)

❤️ Support Florence Daily News

If you liked this article, please consider supporting Florence Daily News.

We are an independent news site, free from paywalls and intrusive ads, committed to providing clear and reliable reporting on Florence and Tuscany for everyone.

Your support — whether a one-time gift or a regular contribution — helps us stay independent and keep telling the stories that matter.

Donate securely via Stripe below.