March 22–23, 2026, Referendum in Italy

What AIRE-Registered Citizens in the U.S. and the Americas Need to Know

By Coco Ruggeri - January 15, 2026

March 22–23, 2026, Referendum in Italy

What Is the Referendum About?

In March 22–23, 2026, italian citizens are called to confirm or reject a significant  reform of the Constitution. This is a confirmative referendum, meaning no quorum is required: the outcome is valid regardless of how many people vote. A majority of “Yes” votes will confirm the reform; a majority of “No” votes will maintain the current constitutional setup.

How to Vote from the U.S. and Other American Countries: Guidance for AIRE Citizens

Italian citizens living abroad and registered with AIRE (Anagrafe degli Italiani Residenti all'Estero) can vote by mail for the March 2026 referendum. In fact, you will automatically receive a ballot package by mail from your Consulate of jurisdiction. 

Italian citizens who are ordinarily resident in Italy, but are temporarily abroad for at least three months (for work, study, or medical reasons), including cohabiting family members, may also vote by mail if they submit a formal request by Wednesday, February 18, 2026.

The Justice Reform: What Are Italians Voting On?
At the heart of the referendum is a sweeping restructuring of how judges (giudici) and public prosecutors (pubblici ministeri) are governed within the Italian judiciary.

Now, how Italy Selects Judges and how they are governed

  • National public exam organized by the Ministry of Justice.
  • Applicants must have a law degree and advanced legal training.
  • Candidates face rigorous written and oral exams.
  • Selected candidates become judicial trainees before assignment.
  • The Italian Constitution entrusts the High Council of the Judiciary (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, C.S.M.) is a organ of judicial self-governance, safeguarding the autonomy and independence of the judiciary. It is a single body, composed of:
    • Two-thirds judges and public prosecutors (members of the judiciary) elected by their peers (i.e., judges and prosecutors). Judicial members are generally elected from among members of various associative groups, known as “correnti” (currents), which reflect different interpretations of judicial independence and autonomy. 
    • One-third lawyers and university professors in legal disciplines, elected by Parliament in joint session  by qualified majority vote, ensuring a balance between majority and minority political forces.
    • This system ensures professional competence and aims to preserve impartiality and judicial independence by avoiding political interference.
    • The Council is vested with three key powers related to the Judicial function: Normative (regulatory) Administrative and Disciplinary (first instance).
A “Yes” Vote Means:
  • Creation of two distinct High Councils to be selected by lottery instead of vote between judges or in the Parliament.
    • One for judges.
    • One for prosecutors.
  • Introduction of a third Council, the Constitutional Disciplinary Court to manage all disciplinary proceedings. Currently, the disciplinary section of the High Council of the Judiciary (C.S.M.) includes one public prosecutor and two lay members, who together represent 50% of its composition. These members do not take part in decisions on appeals, which are presently adjudicated by the United Sections (Sezioni Unite) of the Court of Cassation, the highest judicial authority in Italy.
    Under the proposed reform, disciplinary proceedings involving judges would fall under the jurisdiction of a special court composed of only 15 members. This body would consist of nearly two-thirds public prosecutors, lawyers, and university professors (so-called lay members), and one-third judges of the Court of Cassation. The public prosecutors and lay members would thus represent 60% of the disciplinary court, and, notably, they would also participate in the decision-making process during appeals, which would take place before the same High Disciplinary Court.
    If the current system remains unchanged, as is likely, the disciplinary prosecution will continue to be exercised by the Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation, i.e., the highest-ranking figure within the public prosecution service, and therefore an authority external to the judiciary. The public prosecutor (PM) will be a constitutionally distinct magistrate from the judge. The prosecutor will be subject to a different High Council of the Judiciary and to a different set of laws governing the judicial system than those applicable to judges.
    As a result, the prosecutor will no longer be "subject only to the law", as judges are, but may instead become subject to rules imposed by the executive branch.
  • Abolishment of elections within the High Councils; members 
  • Structural separation of prosecutorial and judicial governance
A “No” Vote Means:
  • Preservation of the single, unified High Council of the Judiciary (C.S.M.).
  • Continued elected representation of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and professors.
  • Maintenance of the current disciplinary process under the C.S.M. with contained influence of the executive branch.
< Go Back