Justice Referendum, that noon turnout already close to 15%: the thermometer that can change everything

At 12, the first national snapshot of today's vote indicated that 14.9% of eligible voters participated in the constitutional referendum on justice reform, a figure that approaches 15% and varies across regions: Emilia-Romagna over 19%, Sicily at 10%. Bare numbers? No: they are, literally, the political fabric of the consultation. Because this time there is no quorum: the winner is the one who gets the most votes between Yes and No, but the symbolic weight and the legitimizing effect depend on how many people decide to participate.

What’s on the ballot

Voting is today until 23 and tomorrow from 7 to 15. It is a confirmatory constitutional referendum, provided for by Article 138: it does not require a quorum, unlike abrogative referendums. Abroad, voting is done by mail. Information and operational guidelines have been disseminated in recent weeks by embassies and consulates.

On the ballot, voters are called to confirm or reject the justice reform promoted by the government led by Giorgia Meloni and the Minister of Justice Carlo Nordio. The three pillars are: the separation of careers between the judiciary (the judges) and the prosecution (the public prosecutors); the creation of two Superior Councils of the Judiciary (one for judges and one for prosecutors), both presided over by the President of the Republic; the establishment of an autonomous High Disciplinary Court for disciplinary proceedings against judges.

These changes affect several articles of the Constitution and redefine the architecture of the self-governance of the judiciary. The text completed the parliamentary process on October 30, 2025 with an absolute majority but less than two-thirds, paving the way for the referendum.

The 12 o'clock data

According to the midday survey, national turnout “approaches 15%.” Participation is driven by the North and some major cities: Bologna exceeds 21%, Milano and Rome are around 17%, Florence near 19%. At the bottom are Calabria and Basilicata, both below 10% at noon. In Sicily, by 12, 10.03% of those called to vote had participated, with the highest turnout in the province of Siracusa (11%) followed by Palermo at 10.7% and Catania at 10.5%.

It is a higher level compared to several similar consultations measured at the same time, with the exception of 2016 (single-day vote), when at 12 it reached 20.1%. In 2001 (Title V) it was 7.8%, in 2006 (devolution) 10.1%, and in 2020 (cutting the number of parliamentarians) 12.2% on the first day.

Why does it matter? In a referendum without a quorum, the final percentage does not determine validity, but defines the political strength of the verdict. Higher participation can reduce the effect of "asymmetric mobilization" between the two sides, can push towards outcomes less conditioned by the votes of highly motivated minorities, and can influence the post-vote narrative, especially if the margin between Yes and No is narrow.

The "needle" of participation

Analyses by Ipsos released before the halt to polls indicate that in a turnout scenario around 42%, No would be slightly ahead (about 52% against 48%), but with 7-9% of undecided voters capable of overturning the situation. Other polling exercises (from YouTrend for Sky TG24 to the work of Nando Pagnoncelli for Corriere) adjust the balance between Yes and No based on participation: with "high" turnout, the gap narrows or reverses, while with "low" turnout, a lead for the opposition may solidify. The picture remains, in any case, elastic and dependent on the ability to mobilize in the last hours.

A useful precedent for reasoning about participation dynamics is the abrogative referendums of June 2025: there the quorum was necessary and was not reached (final turnout around 30%), with a progression that from 12 to 7.4% reached about 23 at 22% before closing the next day just above 30%. On that occasion, some areas – again Emilia-Romagna – proved to be more participative. Although it is a very different consultation, the comparison shows how the early time windows weigh in defining the psychological "push" of the electorate.

What changes with the reform

• Separation of careers. Today, judges and prosecutors belong to the same judicial order, with paths that have, in practice, communicated little for years. The reform constitutionalizes the separation: once undertaken, the career would no longer be interchangeable. Supporters speak of greater guarantees of judge impartiality and procedural equality between prosecution and defense; critics fear a weakening of the unity of the judiciary and the autonomy of the prosecutor.
• Double CSM. The current Superior Council of the Judiciary would be divided into two parallel bodies, each responsible for the career, assignments, and “first-level” discipline of its members. Both would be presided over by the Head of State. Supporters see a reduction in factions and conflicts of interest between functions; detractors warn of the risk of a dismembered and weakened CSM, with less cohesion and more organizational costs.
• High Disciplinary Court. A third pillar is a High Court that would concentrate disciplinary proceedings for judges and prosecutors, with a mixed composition and quotas selected by lottery from lists prepared by Parliament. For supporters, it is a guarantee of impartiality; for opponents, a possible factor of pressure, especially if the appointment balances do not protect independence.

The associations of the judiciary have largely taken a stand against the proposal, highlighting the risks of an “asymmetry” in self-government compared to European models and the danger of a prosecutor more exposed to the pressures of the Executive. It is a rare convergence among traditionally distant factions, from Independent Judiciary to Unity for the Constitution to Area and Democratic Judiciary. Recent study documents from the Anm emphasize comparative standards and guarantees of independence for the public prosecutor.

The words of politics

For the President of the Council Giorgia Meloni, the reform is "a commitment kept" and a piece of the accusatory process; the Minister of Justice Carlo Nordio called it "a very important step" towards independence from political currents. The oppositions referred to it as a "punitive project" against the judiciary: from the Democratic Party and Five Star Movement to figures like Roberto Scarpinato, the criticisms evoke a break in the unity of the judicial order. The debate was heated in Parliament as well, with symbolic settings and references to republican history.

Voter Turnout: How to Read the Data

• The "S-curve" of participation. In the two-day consultations, the first window of 12 is just an appetizer: the useful comparison is with the past (here positive, excluding 2016). The peak of turnout – usually – is measured between 19 on Sunday and late morning on Monday. If the day continues at a sustained pace in the regions that are "hot" today, the 50% hypothesized by some analysts as a potentially favorable threshold for Yes is not excluded, but the path remains narrow.
• The geography that anticipates the flows. A more engaged North favors, according to various analysts, the Yes camp; a more mobilized Center-South could shift the needle towards No. This is a hypothesis that the municipal data from Bologna, Milano, Roma, Firenze, Palermo help to follow, with attention to capitals and their hinterlands.
• The undecided factor. Even with medium-high turnout, the share of declared undecided voters remains capable of determining the outcome. In Ipsos simulations, their weight increases with higher participation.

Previous Instances

In 2001, the Yes to the reform of Title V passed with a turnout of 34%; in 2006, the No prevailed with 53.8% of voters; in 2016, the No won in a plebiscitary consultation with a turnout of 65.5%. These three cases are useful for measuring the elasticity of the electorate on constitutional issues. However, caution is advised: these were very different political and media contexts, and in 2016, voting took place in a single day, with a "rush" effect that cannot be replicated.

Recent abrogative referendums (from 2022 to 2025) indicate that the "cold" participation of Sunday morning can warm up, but not always enough to change history. Here, without quorum, the first threshold to observe is not legal but political: a final turnout below 40% would still yield a legally binding outcome, but with a more fragile symbolic capital; above 50%, the same outcome – whatever it may be – would count as a clear mandate from the country.

Pros and cons: the real issues

• For supporters, the heart of the reform is the neutrality of the judge and full equality between prosecution and defense in the accusatorial model: two distinct careers would avoid cultural and organizational promiscuity, while the double Csm and the High Court would reduce the power of the factions. Additional costs and complexities would be the price of a clearer structure.
• For opponents, the risk is a fragmented and more vulnerable judiciary; the separation would not truly increase the impartiality of judges, already guaranteed by existing rules, and could erode the autonomy of the prosecutor, especially if self-governing bodies lost critical mass. The new High Court would be too sensitive to appointment balances and politics. The main factions of the judiciary and studies from the Anm have expressed a reasoned no in recent weeks.

The political point

In a confirmatory referendum on a system reform, turnout is not just a matter of accounting: it is legitimization. If the Yes prevails by a small margin and with low participation, the government would still claim the change; but a high figure, especially above 50%, would equate to a full mandate. Conversely, a No with many people at the polls would weigh as a political stop, while a No with few voters would open a debate on the adequacy of the mobilization. No hyperbole is needed: the numbers are enough. Those from the south, today, say that the game is alive. And that it will be played, until the last hour of tomorrow Monday, March 23, by the voters who decide to be there.