2010 Icelandic Constitutional Assembly election

Last updated

Constitutional Assembly elections were held in Iceland on 27 November 2010. The Supreme Court invalidated the results of the election on 25 January 2011 following complaints about several faults in how the election was conducted. [1] [2] However, it was decided on 25 February 2011 that the elected assembly members would instead be appointed to a Constitutional Council with effectively the same role. [3] The proposed changes to the constitution were approved in a referendum in October 2012.

Contents

As of 2024, the changes had not been implemented, despite continued public support. [4]

Background

This would be the first time in Iceland's history that a body had reviewed broad areas of the constitution. It was given the mandate to examine: [5]

  1. The foundations of the Icelandic constitution and its fundamental concepts;
  2. The organisation of the legislative and executive branches and the limits of their powers;
  3. The role and position of the President of the Republic;
  4. The independence of the judiciary and their supervision of other holders of governmental powers;
  5. Provisions on elections and electoral districts;
  6. Public participation in the democratic process, including the timing and organisation of a referendum, including a referendum on a legislative bill for a constitutional act;
  7. Transfer of sovereign powers to international organisations and the conduct of foreign affairs;
  8. Environmental matters, including the ownership and utilisation of natural resources.

The Constitutional Assembly was also empowered to address additional matters beyond "reviewing the Constitution of the Republic".

The Assembly was required to convene by 15 February 2011 and finish its work no later than 15 April 2011. The 25 members were to be elected using the single transferable vote system under the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method. Over 500 candidates filed to run in the election, more than double the most optimistic estimates. [6]

Electoral system

The elections were held using single transferable voting in one multi-member electoral district covering the whole island.

Results

Turnout in the elections was only 36%. Fifteen men and ten women were elected, fulfilling the required quota of 40% women. Had fewer women been elected, up to six women (who had been closest to being elected under the regular method) would have been declared elected to achieve gender parity. [7]

Quota (amount that made candidate certain to be elected) was approximately four percent of valid votes.

The 25 members elected to the Constitutional Assembly were:

CandidateProfessionFirst pref.%
Þorvaldur Gylfason University Professor of Economics7,1928.74
Salvör NordalDirector of the University of Iceland Ethics Institute2,8423.45
Ómar Þorfinnur RagnarssonMedia Presenter2,4402.96
Andrés MagnússonPhysician2,1752.64
Pétur GunnlaugssonLawyer and Radio Presenter1,9892.42
Þorkell HelgasonMathematician1,9302.34
Ari TeitssonFarmer1,6862.05
Illugi JökulssonJournalist1,5931.93
Freyja Haraldsdóttir Manager1,0891.32
Silja Bára ÓmarsdóttirLecturer in International Politics1,0541.28
Örn Bárður JónssonPastor8060.98
Eiríkur Bergmann Reader of Political Science7530.91
Dögg HarðardóttirManager of the Division of Architecture at Reykjavik Art Museum6740.82
Vilhjálmur ÞorsteinssonChairman of CCP Games6720.82
Þórhildur ÞorleifsdóttirTheatre Director5840.71
Pawel BartoszekMathematician5840.71
Arnfríður GuðmundsdóttirUniversity Professor5310.64
Erlingur SigurdarsonFormer Museum Director and Teacher5260.64
Inga Lind KarlsdóttirMedia Presenter and University Student4930.60
Katrín OddsdóttirLawyer4790.58
Guðmundur Gunnarsson Trade Union Chairman4320.52
Katrín FjelstedPhysician4180.51
Ástrós GunnlaugsdóttirPolitical Scientist and University Student3960.48
Gísli TryggvasonConsumer Spokesperson3480.42
Lýður ÁrnasonFilmmaker and Physician3470.42
Other candidates50,30261.09
Total82,335100.00
Valid votes82,33598.57
Invalid/blank votes1,1961.43
Total votes83,531100.00
Registered voters/turnout232,37435.95
Source: Iceland Review

Aftermath

Annulment

The Supreme Court of Iceland ruled the election to the Constitutional Assembly null and void with a decision on 25 January 2011. [8] Six Supreme Court Justices examined complaints about the election process. The Justices were: Garðar Gíslason, Árni Kolbeinsson, Gunnlaugur Claessen, Jón Steinar Gunnlaugsson, Páll Hreinsson and Viðar Már Matthíasson.

The court received complaints from Óðinn Sigþórsson, Skafti Harðarson and Þorgrímur S. Þorgrímsson. The complaints regarded various faults of the election process, according to the complainants. The court found five separate faults on the election process. It considered two of them to be serious.

  1. The fact that ballot papers had bar-codes printed in consecutive numerical order, was considered a serious fault of the election process and deemed an infringement of laws mandating a secret ballot, which the Court considered "a fundamental provision of the Icelandic Constitution concerning public elections". [9]
  2. The fact that cardboard dividers had been used in place of election booths, was thought in breach of Icelandic law requiring the use of closed booths for the electorate to cast their vote. The use of cardboard dividers was considered a fault of the election process, "the fact it was possible to glance a voter's ballot paper, which took some time to fill out if all options were exercised, is likely to restrict the right of the voter to exercise his vote freely if someone, whom he is dependent upon, could observe him or if the voter had reason to suspect that this could happen". [10]
  3. The fact that the legal requirement stipulating that ballot papers should be folded before being cast, was not followed. According to the Supreme Court, this rule was intended to "secure the right of the voter to cast his ballot in secret". [11] A majority of the Supreme Court considered this a fault of the election process. Supreme Court Justices Garðar Gíslason and Viðar Már Matthíasson were of a different opinion in regards to this, and did not consider the process unlawful.
  4. The ballot boxes did not comply with Icelandic law, since it was not possible to secure them with a lock. Furthermore, the Supreme Court considered the ballot boxes "of a make so that it was possible without much effort to disassemble them and access ballot papers. The make and quality of the ballot boxes was thus conductive to reduce the security and secrecy of the election". [12] This was considered a fault of the election process.
  5. The legislation concerning elections mandated that the National Electoral Commission had to draft persons to observe the electoral process. The Supreme Court stated that since there had been doubt as to how to interpret 13-15% of the votes during the election, such observers had been of special importance to guard the rights of the candidates. The Supreme Court considered this a serious fault of the election process. [13]

The Supreme Court referred to the fact that it was the role of the legislature to establish clear and unambiguous rules for the conduct of public elections which take into account the circumstances resulting from their special nature. It was however not lawful for the government to deviate from the clear provisions of the laws concerning elections, because of the number of candidates or because of new procedures thought suitable for electronic tallying of votes.

The Court further pointed to case law supporting its decision. The Court referred to the fact that in Icelandic jurisprudence there was precedent for declaring elections null and void when the election process was in breach of law and suited to violate election secrecy. For example, elections in Helgafellssveit regarding the unification of municipalities had been declared null and void. That judgement was reached because the ballot paper was of such a make that it was possible to see writing though it, even though it was folded. In its reasoning in that case the Supreme Court said:

The ballot paper does thus not ensure, that the election is secret in accordance to Article 17 of Act no. 8/1986, which is among fundamental provisions in Icelandic law concerning public elections, pursuant to Article 87. and Article 91. of Act no. 80/1987 and Article 31. of the Icelandic Constitution. A fault in this regard is by its very nature conductive to influence the outcome of elections [14]

Another precedent from jurisprudence where elections have been declared null and void because of faults in election secrecy is the election to a Municipal Commission in Geithellnahreppur 25 June 1978. Like the precedent the Supreme Court referred to in its decision on the Constitutional Assembly, the ballot papers were of such a make that it was possible to see writing through them when folded. The Supreme Court stated:

We concur with the District Court decision, that the ballot paper was not of the make that is prescribed by law in Article 50. of Act no. 52/1959, pursuant to Article 1. of Act no. 5/1962, pursuant to Article 1. of Act no. 5/1966 and the principal rule of Article 7., 2. para, of Act no. 5/1962, and does not ensure, that the elections are secret. The provisions of Article 15., 1. para., of Act no. 58/1961, which stipulates, that these elections should be secret, is certainly among the fundamental provisions in Icelandic law concerning public elections. [15]

According to Þorvaldur Gylfason (the most popular candidate in the election) this was 'a bizarre technical complaint about the way the election to the constituent assembly had been conducted'.

After receiving their election certificate (kjörbréf) on 2 December 2010, [16] the elected delegates were informed on 27 January 2011, that the election certificates had been revoked by the National Election Commission. [17] The following day, all of the Commission members tendered their resignation citing the circumstances that had arisen and the harmony necessary for the Commission to carry out its functions. [18]

Parliament appoints the members

Parliament began the same day to deliberate whether and how to continue the process. It was decided on 25 February 2011 that the elected assembly members would be appointed by Parliament to a Constitutional Council with basically the same role. A resolution passed which appointed most of the delegates that had been elected. The Parliament voted thus:

ChoiceVotes%
For3058.82
Against2141.18
Total51100.00
Registered voters/turnout63–
Source: Althing

All members of Parliament for the Independence Party were against this solution. [19] Six of the seven who abstained were members of the governing coalition. [20]

Proposed constitutional amendments

The changes proposed by the Assembly included:

The constitution draft was finished on 29 July 2011 and presented to the Althing on the same day. [24] The proposed changes were approved in a referendum on 20 October 2012.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of Turkey</span> Head of state and government of Turkey

The president of Turkey, officially the president of the Republic of Türkiye, is the head of state and head of government of Turkey. The president directs the executive branch of the national government and is the commander-in-chief of the Turkish military. The president also heads the National Security Council.

A constitutional amendment is a modification of the constitution of a polity, organization or other type of entity. Amendments are often interwoven into the relevant sections of an existing constitution, directly altering the text. Conversely, they can be appended to the constitution as supplemental additions, thus changing the frame of government without altering the existing text of the document.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of Egypt</span> Head of state and government of Egypt

The president of the Arab Republic of Egypt is the executive head of state of Egypt and the de facto appointer of the official head of government under the Egyptian Constitution of 2014. Under the various iterations of the Constitution of Egypt following the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, the president is also the supreme commander of the Armed Forces, and head of the executive branch of the Egyptian government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Lithuania</span> Laws of Lithuania since 1992

The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania defines the legal foundation for all laws passed in the Republic of Lithuania. The first constitution of the contemporary republic was enacted on 1 August 1922. The current constitution was adopted in a referendum on 25 October 1992.

Election law is a branch of public law that relates to the democratic processes, election of representatives and office holders, and referendums, through the regulation of the electoral system, voting rights, ballot access, election management bodies, election campaign, the division of the territory into electoral zones, the procedures for the registration of voters and candidacies, its financing and propaganda, voting, counting of votes, scrutiny, electoral disputes, electoral observation and all contentious matters derived from them. It is a discipline falling at the juncture of constitutional law and political science, and involves "the politics of law and the law of politics".

In the politics of the United States, the process of initiatives and referendums allow citizens of many U.S. states to place legislation on the ballot for a referendum or popular vote, either enacting new legislation, or voting down existing legislation. Citizens, or an organization, might start a popular initiative to gather a predetermined number of signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The measure is placed on the ballot for the referendum, or actual vote.

The Constitution of Finland is the supreme source of national law of Finland. It defines the basis, structures and organisation of government, the relationship between the different constitutional organs, and lays out the fundamental rights of Finnish citizens, and individuals in general. The original Constitution Act was enacted in 1919, soon after Finland declared its independence in 1917. The current draft of the Constitution came into force on 1 March 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Council (France)</span> National constitutional ruling body of the French Republic

The Constitutional Council is the highest constitutional authority in France. It was established by the Constitution of the Fifth Republic on 4 October 1958 to ensure that constitutional principles and rules are upheld. It is housed in the Palais-Royal in Paris. Its main activity is to rule on whether proposed statutes conform with the Constitution, after they have been voted by Parliament and before they are signed into law by the president of the republic, or passed by the government as a decree, which has law status in many domains, a right granted to the government under delegation of Parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Belarus</span> Supreme law of Belarus

The Constitution of the Republic of Belarus is the supreme basic law of Belarus. The Constitution is composed of a preamble and nine sections divided into 146 articles.

The Constitution of Iceland is the supreme law of Iceland. It is composed of 80 articles in seven sections, and within it the leadership arrangement of the country is determined and the human rights of its citizens are preserved. The current constitution was first instituted on 17 June 1944 when Iceland became a republic; since then, it has been amended seven times.

The Tennessee Plan is a system used to appoint and elect appellate court judges in Tennessee. It is largely patterned after the Missouri Plan, and an earlier version in Tennessee was called the Modified Missouri Plan. At the end of every judge's eight-year term following a judicial appointment to the highest courts, retention elections are held, which have the option of whether each judge shall be retained through a yes-no option. This system applies to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Alaska Measure 2</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Ballot Measure 2 of 1998 is a ballot measure, since ruled unconstitutional, that added an amendment to the Alaska Constitution that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in Alaska. The Ballot measure was sparked by the lawsuit filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, after the two men were denied a marriage license by the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. In Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that the state needed compelling reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and ordered a trial on the question. In response, the Alaska Legislature immediately proposed and passed Resolution 42, which became what is now known as Ballot Measure 2. Ballot Measure 2 passed via public referendum on November 3, 1998, with 68% of voters supporting and 32% opposing. The Bause case was dismissed following the passage of the ballot measure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of Slovenia</span> National constitutional court

The Constitutional Court of Slovenia is a special court established by the Slovenian Constitution. Since its inception, the Court has been located in the city of Ljubljana. It is the highest court in the country for reviewing the constitutionality and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, otherwise the highest court in the country is the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia. The constitutional court is not part of any branch of government and is an independent state body.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir</span> Prime Minister of Iceland from 2009 to 2013

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is an Icelandic politician, who served as prime minister of Iceland from 2009 to 2013.

Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900), was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 30 and May 1, 1900, to decide the outcome of the disputed Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. The litigants were Republican gubernatorial candidate William S. Taylor and Democratic lieutenant gubernatorial candidate J. C. W. Beckham. In the November 7, 1899, election, Taylor received 193,714 votes to Democrat William Goebel's 191,331. This result was certified by a 2–1 decision of the state's Board of Elections. Goebel challenged the election results on the basis of alleged voting irregularities, and the Democrat-controlled Kentucky General Assembly formed a committee to investigate Goebel's claims. Goebel was shot on January 30, 1900, one day before the General Assembly approved the committee's report declaring enough Taylor votes invalid to swing the election to Goebel. As he lay dying of his wounds, Goebel was sworn into office on January 31, 1900. He died on February 3, 1900, and Beckham ascended to the governorship.

Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This article summarises referendum laws and practice in various countries.

An Icelandic Constitutional Council (Stjórnlagaráð) for the purpose of reviewing the Constitution of the Republic was appointed by a resolution of Althingi, the Icelandic parliament, on 24 March 2011. Elections were held to create a Constitutional Assembly (Stjórnlagaþing) body, but given some electoral flaws, had been ruled null and void by the Supreme Court of Iceland on 25 January 2011, leading the parliament to place most of the winning candidates into a Constitutional Council with similar mission. The question of whether the text of the proposed constitution should form a base for a future constitution was put to a non-binding referendum, where it won the approval of 67% of voters. However, the government's term finished before the reform bill could be passed, and following governments have not acted upon it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marsy's Law (Illinois)</span> Illinois law establishing protections for crime victims

Marsy's Law for Illinois, formally called the Illinois Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, amended the 1993 Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act by establishing additional protections for crime victims and their families. Voters approved the measure as a constitutional amendment on November 4, 2014. It became law in 2015.

References

  1. ↑ "Iceland's Constitutional Assembly Voting Invalid". Iceland Review. 25 January 2011.
  2. ↑ "News Review: The Supreme Court's Verdict". Iceland Review. 26 January 2011.
  3. ↑ "Constitutional Assembly Elects Appointed to Council". Iceland Review. 25 February 2011.
  4. ↑ "From Iceland — Poll: Most Icelanders Still Want A New Constitution". The Reykjavik Grapevine. 13 July 2021. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
  5. ↑ "Election of a Constitutional Assembly in Iceland 2010". Political Reform. 22 October 2010.
  6. ↑ "Hundreds to Run for Constitutional Parliament". Iceland Review. 19 October 2010. Archived from the original on 29 March 2012.
  7. ↑ "You Say You Want a Constitution?". HuffPost . December 2010.
  8. ↑ "Endurrit úr gerðabók Hæstaréttar 25. January 2011". Supreme Court of Iceland. Archived from the original on 22 January 2016. Retrieved 29 August 2015.
  9. ↑ Part VI.1 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Iceland 25 January 2011
  10. ↑ Part VI.2 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Iceland 25 January 2011
  11. ↑ Part VI.3 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Iceland 25 January 2011
  12. ↑ Part VI.4 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Iceland 25 January 2011
  13. ↑ Part VI.5 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Iceland 25 January 2011
  14. ↑ Decision of the Icelandic Supreme Court 8 December 1994 in case no. 425/1994
  15. ↑ Judgement of the Supreme Court of Iceland 9 February 1982 in case no. 96/1980
  16. ↑ "Assembly delegates received their election papers". RÚV (in Icelandic). 2 December 2010.
  17. ↑ "Election papers considered invalid". Morgunblaðið (in Icelandic). 27 January 2011.
  18. ↑ "National Election Commission resigns". Vísir (in Icelandic). 28 January 2011.
  19. ↑ "Constitutional Assembly Elects Appointed to Council". Iceland Review. 25 February 2011. Archived from the original on 28 February 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
  20. ↑ "Atkvæðagreiðsla". Althing.
  21. ↑ "Separation of Church and State (KH)". Iceland Review. 8 June 2011. Archived from the original on 29 March 2012.
  22. ↑ "Radical Ideas Discussed in the Constitutional Council". Iceland Review. 1 June 2011. Archived from the original on 15 June 2011.
  23. ↑ "Iceland's constitutional council presents draft documents". IceNews. 19 July 2011. Archived from the original on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 25 July 2011.
  24. ↑ "Frumvarp". Stjórnlagaráð.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.