A flawed linkage

In June 2025, the Zurich Cantonal Council decided to introduce a substitution rule for members of the Cantonal Council by amending the Cantonal Constitution, the Cantonal Council Act, and the Municipal Act. Municipalities should also be able to adopt such a rule for their parliaments. After the summer break, the Cantonal Council must formally approve the bill in a second reading. The amendment to the cantonal constitution will then be subject to a mandatory referendum, while the amendments to the law will be subject to an optional referendum. The change was controversial in the Cantonal Council. The motion was only passed by 96 votes to 74, and at the end of the debate, the constitutional and legislative amendments were adopted by 120 votes to 49.

In addition to the fundamental question of whether a substitute should be allowed in the event of a member of parliament being unable to attend for a prolonged period, the legal form of the regulation was also controversial. Politicians were particularly divided on the question of in which cases a substitute should be permitted. According to the adopted regulation, this is only possible in cases of maternity, illness, or accident. Minority motions to allow substitution in cases of paternity, education and training, and military and civil service were rejected.

As the amendments to the Cantonal Council Act and the Municipal Act require a basis in the cantonal constitution, they can only come into force if the new constitutional provision is accepted in the mandatory referendum. In view of the considerable opposition to the change, it is uncertain whether voters will approve the constitutional amendment. According to Zurich practice, amendments to laws that are dependent on a constitutional amendment passed at the same time are published in the official gazette immediately after being passed by the Cantonal Council. This triggers the 60-day period for an optional referendum before the mandatory referendum on the constitutional amendment takes place. This means that political groups that want a different legal regulation than the one that has been decided must collect signatures against the legislative amendments before it is clear whether there is a constitutional basis for the controversial regulations.

Regardless of the content of the legal amendments, I consider this to be legally and politically questionable. The correct approach would be to first hold a referendum on the constitutional amendment. Only if this is accepted should the referendum period for the legislative amendments be triggered. If the referendum period is triggered before the constitutional vote, signatures must be collected for the legislative referendum, even though the legislative amendments may not come into force at all if the constitutional amendment is rejected. This would result in unnecessary effort for voters as well as for the administration of the canton and municipalities. At least in cases such as this one, where the legal regulation is politically controversial, the triggering of the referendum period for the legislative amendments must be postponed until the result of the constitutional vote is known.