Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government is pushing ahead with an overhaul of Italy’s judiciary that would redraw the balance of power between judges and prosecutors – and feed into the EU’s debate over judicial independence.

Italians will vote on the constitutional reform on 22-23 March. While supporters say the changes would make the justice system more impartial and reduce the risk of politically motivated prosecutions, critics warn they could weaken judicial independence.

For Meloni, the referendum could dent the perception of political invincibility surrounding her leadership, according to Lorenzo Pregliasco, head of the Italian polling agency YouTrend.

The reform will change the internal structure of the judiciary, touching one of the deepest fault lines in modern Italian politics: the decades-long clash between the right and the magistracy.

Meloni has kept a notably low profile on the vote, careful not to be too closely associated with a battle that may backfire and damage her reputation.

A loss could also diminish the political authority Meloni has built within the EU, where she has sought to position herself as a stable player.

Italy and the judiciary

In the country, tensions between the judiciary and political power date back to the “Clean Hands” scandal of the early 1990s.

The vast anti-corruption probe uncovered a nationwide system of illegal party financing. It led to the dismantling of much of Italy’s political establishment and the collapse of several major parties, such as the centre-right Christian Democracy and the Socialist Party.

This perception intensified during the era of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in the first decade of the 2000s. Berlusconi spent years battling prosecutors in court and in public, reinforcing tensions between parts of the political class and the magistracy.

The highly publicised battle have – in right-wing circles – reinforced the perception that prosecutors had excessive influence over political life. Meloni herself said the overhaul is meant to address the judiciary’s “ideological degenerations”, accusing judges of blocking the government’s action on migration and security.

What is the reform really about

Italy has a system of career magistrates, who are recruited through a national exam and usually choose at the beginning of their careers whether to pursue the path of becoming a judge or a prosecutor. During the first nine years of service, it is possible to switch roles.

Judges and prosecutors also belong to the same judiciary and are governed by the same body, the Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM).

In many other countries, these roles are separate professions, with distinct career tracks and institutions responsible. Introducing such a separation is the core aim of the government’s reform, with supporters arguing that this institutional closeness risks undermining the perceived neutrality of judges in criminal trials.

The reform would create two new bodies and change how members are selected. Currently, 20 out of the 33 members of the governing body are magistrates elected internally by judges. The government instead wants to introduce a lottery mechanism, under which magistrate members would be randomly drawn from a pool of eligible candidates. The president of the republic would remain a guarantor for both bodies.

Another key element of the reform is the creation of a High Disciplinary Court, which would take over the disciplinary powers currently exercised by the governing body.

The new body would consist of 15 members (nine magistrates and six lay members), with several chosen by lottery, others appointed by the Italian president of the Republic, or selected from lists prepared by parliament.

The government says that all these measures will weaken the influence of internal factions within the judiciary.

These organised groups operate within the National Association of Magistrates (ANM), the judiciary’s main professional body, and have been accused by the government of exerting excessive influence over CSM elections and decisions.

In a February interview, Justice Minister Carlo Nordio – widely seen as the architect of the reform – compared the council to a “mafia-like mechanism”.

Meloni’s risky bet

Polls suggest the outcome remains too close to call, with turnout likely to be a decisive factor on voting day, which could complicate the government’s plans.

“The right seems to be lacking the momentum needed to mobilise support for the ‘Yes’ vote, so it remains an open game, especially if turnout stays low,” Pregliasco told Euractiv. “If participation increases, the outcome becomes more uncertain. In any case, it’s not an easy scenario for Meloni.”

Pregliasco also pointed to a structural challenge for the centre-right, saying it is not “an easy vote” for the electorate, which is not used to voting in referendums. These voters, he added, tend to mobilise mainly when they perceive a major political stake.

Lower turnout could favour the ‘No’ camp, whose supporters currently appear more motivated to vote, he said.

(mm, adm, aw)