Justice referendum, the reasons for yes and no

In the first video, a vademecum for voting, reminding us of some practical information for the exercise of the right to vote and the practical consequences of voter choice.

As is well known, the text approved by Parliament provides for the separation of careers between judges and prosecutors, but also for the creation of two separate High Councils of the Judiciary, one for judges, one for prosecutors.

The reform also introduces a Disciplinary Court of constitutional rank, whose members are predominantly clerks, with jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings against ordinary magistrates.

The face-to-face meeting between constitutionalists Enrico Grosso and Nicolò Zanon opens on the issue of the separation of the careers of investigating and judging magistrates envisaged by the constitutional reform law at the centre of the referendum consultation.

In the time available to him, Grosso warned that the separation of careers 'will lead to a greater risk of a less independent judiciary, because in reality, the reform is aimed more at the separation of the Csm than at the separation of careers'.

For Zanon, however, it is 'a reform that has been awaited for 40 years and brings us into line with the largest Western democracies. It separates the career of those who judge from the career of those who accuse'.

In order to explore the contents of the constitutional referendum of 22-23 March 2026, Enrico Grosso and Nicolò Zanon discussed the splitting of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, envisaged by the constitutional reform law approved by Parliament in October 2025.

For the president of the Committee Yes to Reform Zanon, 'this reform was intended to clear the field of any misunderstanding about the hypothesis that the political power wants to get its claws into the prosecution'.

President Grosso took the opposite view: 'it makes a de facto political influence on both categories more likely'.

The central theme of the third confrontation was the establishment of the High Disciplinary Court with jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings against ordinary magistrates, introduced by the constitutional reform law at the centre of the referendum question.

For the honorary president of the Just Say No Grosso Committee, with the reform 'the intention was to make an absolutely selective intervention by entrusting only ordinary magistrates with disciplinary justice to a body that even from its name alone seems to have been designed to instil fear'.

For Zanon, 'this is not about intimidation or more punishment, it is about building an authoritative body that is genuinely third party to the guild and that is able to perform this disciplinary function'.