The civil society coalition launches its campaign against Stabilicum in 25 courts

Rome. Like a ballet, and like in the theatre, where any unforeseen event – from a dancer taking too long to change to an imperceptible delay in the timing of a step – can jeopardise the entire choreography: this is how lawyer Pietro Adami describes the adventure of ‘Day X’, that is, the day of the simultaneous filing of appeals against the electoral law. That is to say, yesterday, 26 October, ‘Day X squared’: it has, in fact, been two days since the ‘Stabilicum-Melonellum’ came into force, and the appellants hope that the race against time to reach the Constitutional Court will crown the symbolic relay between the political world’s opposition to the law and the identical battle waged by civil society. This is the hope of constitutional lawyer Roberto Zaccaria, who, together with Professor Enrico Grosso, coordinates the Network for a Free and Equal Vote. Among the appellants, both well-known and lesser-known figures are lining up at the starting blocks. Among the well-known figures are former Prime Minister Romano Prodi, Pierluigi Bersani, Rosy Bindi, Livia Turco, Fausto Bertinotti, Tomaso Montanari, Lucia Annunziata, Stefano Bonaga, Gad Lerner, Luciano Canfora, Gianrico Carofiglio, Paolo Fresu, Monica Guerritore and Marisa Laurito. There are also a few magistrates among the appellants, says Professor Maria Agostina Cabiddu. It began with an appeal by constitutional experts and has now led to action being taken in 25 cities on the same day; and further appeals are on the way. There is confidence, says Zaccaria, and this is evident among the appellants from a number of indications. Indeed, there are those, such as Zaccaria himself, who believe that if the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, has promulgated the law rather than referring it back to Parliament, it must mean there is some chance of the Court issuing a ruling in time. The army of citizens fighting against the law is therefore preparing to mobilise according to the model that led to the ‘No’ vote’s victory in the referendum on the justice reform, and will be supported, in the various initiatives, by Articolo 21 and the Demo Foundation chaired by the Democrat Gianni Cuperlo, and backed externally by the parties of the broad coalition that fought against the law in Parliament (with an eye on the CGIL). The cases will therefore be brought before the courts simultaneously, based on a sort of template appeal drafted by Professor Enrico Grosso – a text that can be replicated or amended by the various lawyers who have made themselves available across the regions, and which is set to undergo further changes in the appeals due to be filed in the coming days from areas where linguistic minorities are present. “This is a civil society initiative; we have no political affiliation. Over the years, we have fought various battles in defence of the Constitution,” says lawyer Anna Falcone. “The appeals,” says Grosso, “technically address the doubts regarding the constitutional legitimacy of the law”, drawing on “a legal framework that the Court has already established” in the past. Citizens “need reassurance”, says Grosso, “and even the governing majority should be keen” to dispel any doubts regarding constitutionality. The challenge therefore targets eight aspects of the Melonellum: the majority bonus and the distortion of representation; the bonus awarded to candidates on closed lists; the national allocation of seats and the relationship between voters and their local area; the national bonus for the Senate and the mandatory link between the two Houses; the presence of fixed list leaders and multiple candidacies (in the sense that the selection of those elected becomes detached from the voters); gender balance and the effectiveness of representation; and the obligation to nominate a candidate for Prime Minister, which is regarded as an ‘indirect transformation of the form of government’. Finally, the excessive increase in the number of signatures required to stand for election, which acts as a barrier to the participation of new political forces. “The combined effect of these elements,” says Zaccaria, “gives us an electoral law that deprives the voter of the ability to choose and, in effect, of the exercise of political sovereignty: an electoral law should, in fact, call upon the voter to elect their representatives, not to choose the government”. There is a judge not so much in Berlin, so the argument goes, but in every city where an appeal has been lodged. “This is a law that rigs the game to ensure victory,” is the view expressed within the Article 21 movement, where it is hoped that this simultaneous flurry of activity will not falter, but rather reach the Court in one fell swoop.