Judge Massimo Russo: "It was not a victory for one side, but rather a Yes from me that goes against the tide. Now let's work together."

Massimo Russo, a magistrate of the juvenile court in Palermo, has publicly supported the Yes vote in the constitutional referendum on justice. What does the victory of the No mean?

"This is not a victory for one side. It is a choice that belongs to the entire country and, for this reason, cannot be bent to opposing logics. The referendum does not close a chapter. It opens one. The referendum campaign has brought to light a widespread demand for reflection on the functioning of the judiciary that runs through Italy and which, regardless of the outcome, remains open. The voters — legislators on this occasion — have chosen not to intervene on a constitutional level, rejecting the amendments proposed in the referendum question. For this reason, it is now crucial to make justice work with the available tools: organization, resources, and ordinary legislation. Because the efficiency of the system does not depend solely on constitutional reforms, but above all on the quality of concrete choices."

Why did you choose to support the Yes cause?

"It was not a taken-for-granted gesture. It was a counter-current choice, made in a context where the associated judiciary has taken an opposing position, promoting a committee for the No and participating in an organized manner in the public debate. A dissonant position that signals the presence, within the judiciary itself, of a plurality of voices and the ability to responsibly take non-aligned positions. Alongside this commitment, the role of the legal profession has been particularly significant, as it has always been engaged on issues of the separation of careers and the impartiality of judges, as a safeguard of guarantees and rights."

What will happen now? What consequences will this vote produce?

"A new phase opens up and the risk is twofold: to transform the result into division or to consider it a point of arrival. It is neither of those things. It is a starting point. The task of the institutions is clear: to interpret the vote with balance and translate it into a coherent path. A high-level reading is needed, a dialogue among all political forces, and a frank discussion with the judiciary and the legal profession. The justice system requires interventions on organization, timing, efficiency, and the relationship between process and person. The referendum has indicated a direction. Now it is necessary to proceed with coherence."

How do you assess the commitment of many of your fellow magistrates during the referendum campaign?

"The judiciary has been perceived, in part, as a fundamental protagonist of the political debate. An exposure that, although matured in the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, has impacted an essential element: the perception of impartiality. The strength of the judiciary does not reside in consensus, but in its ability to appear impartial, equidistant, and detached from the partisan dynamics of political conflict. For this reason, a deeper reflection is now necessary. Fully reconstructing the impartiality of the judiciary means strengthening its role, not weakening it."

To whom does this victory primarily belong?

"The referendum did not deliver a victory to anyone, but a responsibility to all: to politics, to institutions, to the judiciary, to the legal profession. And for those who chose to expose themselves, that responsibility is now even greater. This is where we must start again. Not to establish who was right. But to rebuild a healthy institutional balance. Because justice does not need winners. It needs credibility. And this is a challenge that concerns the very quality of democracy."