On October 30, 2025, the Italian Parliament approved a constitutional amendment with the intention of reorganising the judicial system. On March 22-3, 2026, Italy voted on this matter through a confirmatory referendum—a public vote to either approve or reject the parliamentary amendment.

As reported by JURIST, voters rejected the referendum on March 23, 2026, with roughly 53% of voters opposing the proposed changes. The outcome reflected broader concerns about maintaining judicial independence, as critics argued the reform risked exposing the judiciary to political influence.

Italy’s justice system is divided into three main parts: administrative courts, military tribunals, and the ordinary judiciary. The ordinary judiciary handles most civil and criminal cases under Italy’s Civil and Penal codes. The referendum focused solely on this branch, leaving administrative and military courts unaffected.

Currently, within the ordinary judiciary, public prosecutors investigate cases while judges deliver sentences. Both roles undergo the same public examination to be elected, are governed by the same council, and can switch positions within certain limits. Although the judiciary is constitutionally independent under Article 104 of the Italian Constitution, there is no strict separation of powers between judges and prosecutors—a dynamic that was central to the referendum debate. The proposed reforms aimed to restructure how these roles are managed and overseen.

For this reason, the referendum proposal included the institution of two Supreme Judicial Councils (one for judges and one for public prosecutors), the selection of their members by lot, and the creation of a High Disciplinary Court for ordinary judges. This built upon the 2022 Cartabia reform, which had already limited the switch between the judge and prosecutor roles.

Those who voted “Yes” claimed that the constitutional amendment would guarantee judicial impartiality, autonomy between the two branches, and align the judicial system with international standards. At the beginning of January, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government accused the judiciary of holding conflicts of interest and biases in different areas of law. Prime Minister Meloni’s government argued that a positive outcome of the referendum would improve accountability for such conduct.

Those aligned with “No” worried that separating the two careers would open the door to political influence. This was outlined by public prosecutor Giuseppe Lombardo on January 26, during a lecture at King’s College London. The lawyer outlined that, by virtue of Art. 101 of the Italian Constitution, judges are subjected to the law only. Public prosecutors are protected by the same obligation, as they do not have a separate role. For this reason, separating careers would make the judiciary susceptible to political pressure.

Legal experts Gianluigi Cassandra and Ivan Galenda [links to be added] respectively analysed in-depth the reasonings behind voting “yes” or “no.” Further, they highlighted the importance of Italians living abroad voting on constitutional amendments like this one.

What was happening in the Italian legal arena was a collision between two ideas of justice. One envisioned separation of powers, arguing that dividing the careers of judges and prosecutors would prevent conflicts of interest and align Italy with international standards. The other prioritized the independence of the judiciary, warning that separating the roles could expose prosecutors to political pressures—since both share the same constitutional protections under Article 101. Being that the Italian legal system is inquisitorial, the independence of the judiciary has traditionally been valued over strict separation. The referendum forced voters to choose which principle should guide the future of Italy’s judiciary.