GSix weeks before the federal election, it has been decided which rules will be used to determine the members of the next legislative period: the November version of last year’s federal election law applies.That Federal Constitutional Court The opposition party’s motion against the amendment has been rejected. With the vote of the Major League, the Bundestag decided that up to three outstanding tasks in the future will not be supplemented by compensatory tasks.
So far, a party has won more electoral districts directly after the second vote than it is entitled to, and its advantage must be offset by additional authorizations from other parties.The changes in the electoral law are the result of years of conflict between parties, such as Bundestag It is to be prevented. During the upcoming legislative period, the Bundestag has 709 members, 111 more than the statutory minimum requirement.
The plaintiff has valid arguments
The revised election law was finally held in Karlsruhe because the parliamentary group Liberal Democratic Party, The Green Party and leftists have filed legal proceedings. The three opposition parties put forward a joint reform proposal: they want to reduce the number of electoral districts. They accused the Coalition Party of violating the principle of equality in the amendments, because the Trade Union Party particularly benefited from unpaid suspended tasks. In addition, the content of the amendments to the law is not clear, which violates the principle of clear regulations.
The Second Senate of the Constitutional Court finally rejected the application, but Marco Buschmann, the parliamentary manager of the Liberal Democratic Party’s parliamentary group, stated that Karlsruhe “proved that the plaintiff’s argument is valid” is absolutely correct. In the emergency procedure, the constitutional judge concluded that the motion against the new law was not inadmissible from the beginning, nor was it clearly unfounded. The Federal Constitutional Court did not clarify whether the law meets the requirements of the Basic Law, but mentioned the main proceedings in many places.
The judges of the Second Senate simply dropped an interim order because they could not determine the reason for revoking the new order after weighing the consequences. Right to vote “Obviously dominant.” The decision pointed out that only in this case, substantive intervention in the “legislative field” is reasonable. If Karlsruhe bans the application of the new law in the upcoming federal elections, it will cause some political unrest, which of course is not mentioned in the resolution. The alliance will be exposed, some voters will feel uneasy, and the enemies of democracy may win.
Up to 800 councillors?
This was not the case, but the Second Senate’s doubts about the new electoral law were very clear. Since up to three outstanding tasks will not be compensated in the future, Karlsruhe believes that equal opportunities for political parties will be affected. In fact, if the pending authorization is not compensated, the value of the second vote is different: if a party wins the pending authorization without corresponding compensation, then each of its seats will receive a second vote that is less Few parties are applicable.
Every Tuesday
Karlsruhe cited the preservation of the Bundestag as a possible reason for interfering with the principle of election equality. A further increase — and the forecast is based on the more than 800 members of the Bundestag in the future — will undoubtedly be a financial and organizational burden. The decision stated that Karlsruhe has not yet answered where the border is, which requires “a more careful review in the main procedure.”
The new law becomes more complicated
In subsequent litigation, it should also be clarified to what extent the legal amendment meets the constitution’s requirements for clarity and intelligibility of legal norms. Karlsruhe solved a problem familiar to everyone who has dealt with German electoral law: Even before the recent reforms, the procedure for allocating seats was difficult to understand. The first allocation, the increase in the number of seats, and the second allocation are related to the intermediate steps of the upper and lower allocations and are stipulated in one regulation.
Karlsruhe criticized that this change adds to the complexity. The judges also raised concerns, because the new regulations do not specify the content of the three direct authorizations, and should not be considered when increasing seats in the future: each country or each political party or a total of three authorizations from all countries and political parties?
Karlsruhe concluded that the best Bundestag election According to a law that may later prove to be unconstitutional, instead of not applying a law that may later prove to be constitutional, a consideration is worth noting to justify the judge: suspected violation of the constitution is also It may be in the context of election review complaints to determine what the sequence of new elections might lead to. This is almost like a reminder to losers on September 26.
