

### Referenda Category Clarifications

### 1. Category Weight Distribution

### 1.1 Basic Distribution Principles

When evaluating the Referenda category (worth 10% of total DFI), it's critical to understand how weights are distributed when a country has only one type of referendum mechanism:

1. **When only Legislative Referenda exist:**
   - The Legislative Referendum score accounts for 80% of the category weight
   - The remaining 20% receives a score of 0% (not redistributed)
   - Final category score = (Legislative Referendum score × 0.8)

2. **When only Policy Issue Referenda exist:**
   - The Policy Issue Referendum score accounts for 50% of the category weight
   - The remaining 50% receives a score of 0% (not redistributed)
   - Final category score = (Policy Issue Referendum score × 0.5)

3. **When both types exist:**
   - Legislative Referendum = 61.5% of category weight
   - Policy Issue Referendum = 38.5% of category weight
   - Final category score = (Legislative score × 0.615) + (Policy score × 0.385)

### 1.2 Calculation Examples

#### Example 1: Country with only Legislative Referendum
- Legislative Referendum raw score: 75%
- Final Referenda category score: 75% × 0.8 = 60%
- Contribution to total DFI: 60% × 10% = 6%

#### Example 2: Country with only Policy Issue Referendum
- Policy Issue Referendum raw score: 90%
- Final Referenda category score: 90% × 0.5 = 45%
- Contribution to total DFI: 45% × 10% = 4.5%

#### Example 3: Country with both types
- Legislative Referendum raw score: 70%
- Policy Issue Referendum raw score: 80%
- Final Referenda category score: (70% × 0.615) + (80% × 0.385) = 43.05% + 30.8% = 73.85%
- Contribution to total DFI: 73.85% × 10% = 7.385%

### 1.3 Important Methodological Notes

1. **No redistribution principle:** Unlike some other categories (like Elections without presidential elections), when a referendum type is absent, its weight is not redistributed to the existing type.

2. **Maximum possible scores:** The maximum possible scores for countries with only one type of referendum are:
   - Legislative only: 80% of category (8% of total DFI)
   - Policy only: 50% of category (5% of total DFI)

## 2. Distinguishing Between Referendum Types

### 2.1 Definitions and Key Differences

#### Citizen-Initiated Legislative Referendum
A citizen-initiated legislative referendum occurs when:
- Citizens trigger a public vote through signature collection
- The referendum includes a fully drafted legislative text/bill
- Voters decide whether to adopt this specific legislative text into law
- If approved, the exact text becomes law without further parliamentary modification

**Key characteristic**: A complete legislative text appears on the ballot or is directly tied to the vote.

#### Citizen-Initiated Policy Issue Referendum
A citizen-initiated policy issue referendum occurs when:
- Citizens trigger a public vote through signature collection
- The referendum presents a general policy question or direction
- The ballot contains a question without specific legislative text
- If approved, parliament/government must subsequently draft implementing legislation

**Key characteristic**: Only a policy question or directive appears on the ballot, not complete legislative text.

### 2.2 Definitive Criteria for Classification

When determining referendum type, apply these sequential tests:

1. **Initiative source**: Both must be citizen-initiated (unlike mandatory or government-triggered referendums)

2. **Content origin**: Legislative referendums address parliament-originated content; policy referendums address citizen-originated content

3. **Institutional relationship**: Legislative referendums interact with the parliamentary process; policy referendums operate independently

### 2.3 Important Distinction from Other Categories

- **Not to be confused with Category 2 (Accountability)**: Abrogative referendums that repeal already-enacted laws
- **Not to be confused with Category 7 (Constitution)**: Constitutional amendment referendums
- **Not to be confused with government-initiated referendums**: Category 4 focuses exclusively on citizen power

## 3. Penalties Application

### 3.1 Understanding Referenda Penalties

The DFI framework includes multiple penalties for factors that restrict citizens' ability to effectively use referendum mechanisms. These penalties ensure the score accurately reflects the practical accessibility of direct democracy tools, not just their theoretical existence.

### 3.2 Cumulative Application of Penalties

Penalties in the Referenda category are **cumulative** - they add together to determine the total reduction in score, with these important rules:

1. **All applicable penalties are added together**, even if the sum exceeds 100%
2. **Minimum score principle**: The final score cannot be below 0% (even if penalties would mathematically result in a negative score)
3. **Penalties apply to the specific referendum type** first, then to the overall category score

### 3.3 Step-by-Step Penalty Calculation Process

Follow this sequence when applying penalties:

1. **Calculate the base score** for each referendum type (Legislative and/or Policy Issue)
2. **Identify all applicable penalties** from the list in section 5 of the Referenda framework
3. **Sum all penalty percentages**
4. **Apply the combined penalty** to the component score
5. **Apply the minimum score principle** if penalties exceed 100%
6. **Calculate final category contribution** based on referendum type weights

### 3.4 Penalty Categories and Magnitudes

The DFI framework recognizes several types of referendum restrictions:

1. **Veto powers** (-100%): When political institutions can block citizen-initiated referendums
2. **Time restrictions** (varying penalties):
   - Less than 60 days for signatures: -50%
   - 60-120 days for signatures: -35%
   - 120-180 days for signatures: -20%
3. **Procedural barriers**:
   - Judicial review after signature collection: -25%
   - Very high signature requirements (10%+ of voters): -25%

## 4. Time Period Penalties

### 4.1 Rationale Behind Timeframe Thresholds

The DFI framework applies penalties for short signature collection periods because time constraints directly impact citizens' practical ability to exercise their referendum rights. These thresholds are based on empirical research into successful citizen mobilization:

1. **Under 60 days (-50% penalty)**: Extremely challenging timeframe that effectively prevents most grassroots organizations from succeeding. Only well-funded or pre-existing organizations can mobilize sufficient resources this quickly.

2. **60-120 days (-35% penalty)**: Still restrictive but allows minimal organization time. Research shows this timeframe severely disadvantages citizen groups without substantial pre-existing infrastructure.

3. **120-180 days (-20% penalty)**: Moderately restrictive timeframe that allows some organization but still limits the ability to conduct widespread signature gathering, especially in larger or geographically diverse countries.

4. **Over 180 days (no penalty)**: Considered sufficient time for citizen organization and comprehensive signature gathering campaigns.

### 4.2 Real-World Impact of Collection Time Constraints

The significance of these timeframes is demonstrated by examining successful and unsuccessful referendum campaigns:

- **Under 60 days**: Even in small countries, successful campaigns in this timeframe typically require extensive pre-planning, significant financial resources, and existing organizational structures. In Croatia, the 30-day period for signature collection has been criticized as too restrictive for genuine citizen initiatives.

- **60-120 days**: California's 90-day period for referendum petitions shows that even in systems with strong direct democracy traditions, this timeframe favors well-funded and organized groups over grassroots movements.

- **120-180 days**: Finland's 6-month signature period for citizens' initiatives has enabled several successful signature drives, balancing democratic accessibility with administrative efficiency.

- **Over 180 days**: Switzerland's 18-month period for constitutional popular initiatives (Category 7) allows even grassroots organizations to mount successful campaigns, demonstrating how longer timeframes enable more inclusive democratic participation.

### 4.3 Evaluation Methodology

When evaluating a country's signature collection period, assessors should:

1. **Identify the exact timeframe** specified in constitutional or legal provisions
2. **Document both calendar days and official collection days** if they differ
3. **Note any differences between referendum types** if different timeframes apply to legislative versus policy referenda
4. **Consider extensions or exceptions** that may affect the effective time available

## 5. Judicial Review Assessment

### 5.1 Understanding Judicial Review for Citizen-Initiated Referenda

Judicial review of referendum proposals can serve as a significant limitation on citizen power when applied after the signature collection phase. The DFI framework applies a -25% penalty when such reviews can block referendum proposals after citizens have invested time and resources in gathering signatures.

### 5.2 Types of Judicial Review and Their Democratic Implications

#### Substantive Judicial Review (-25% penalty applies)

This type of review occurs when courts can block referendum proposals based on content evaluation after signature collection is completed. It includes:

1. **Policy content review**: Courts evaluate whether the proposed referendum addresses prohibited subjects (beyond basic constitutional constraints)
2. **Compatibility assessment**: Courts determine whether the proposal is compatible with higher norms or international obligations
3. **Discretionary rejection**: Courts have broad authority to reject proposals based on substantive grounds

**Example**: Italy's Constitutional Court can block referendum questions even after signature collection if they concern tax or budget laws, amnesty or remission of sentences, or authorization of treaty ratification.

#### Procedural/Technical Review (No penalty applies)

This type of review focuses solely on technical compliance with referendum requirements and includes:

1. **Signature validity verification**: Checking whether signatures meet legal requirements
2. **Format compliance**: Ensuring referendum questions meet technical standards
3. **Administrative requirements**: Verifying proper filing and documentation

**Example**: Switzerland's Federal Chancellery conducts preliminary examination of initiative text for technical compliance before signature collection begins.

### 5.3 Timing Considerations for Penalty Application

The -25% penalty applies specifically when:

1. Judicial review occurs **after the full collection of required signatures**
2. This review has the power to **block the proposal from proceeding to vote**
3. The review includes **substantive assessment** beyond technical verification

No penalty applies when:
- Review occurs before signature collection begins
- Review is limited to technical or procedural verification
- Review cannot block proposals but can only modify wording/format

## 6. Veto Power Classification

### 6.1 Defining Veto Power in the DFI Framework

For the purposes of the DFI methodology, a "veto power" over citizen-initiated referendums is a formal legal mechanism that allows authorities to prevent a referendum from proceeding to a vote, even after citizens have fulfilled the signature collection requirements. This deserves a significant penalty (-100%) because it fundamentally undermines the democratic empowerment that referendums are meant to provide.

### 6.2 Criteria for Identifying a Veto Power

A mechanism constitutes a veto power when ALL of the following criteria are met:

1. **Authority**: An institutional actor (president, parliament, government, etc.) has formal legal power to block a referendum
2. **Timing**: This power can be exercised after citizens have collected the required signatures
3. **Discretion**: The blocking decision is based on political or policy considerations, not just technical compliance
4. **Finality**: There is no effective appeal or override mechanism available to citizens

### 6.3 Types of Veto Powers

#### 6.3.1 Parliamentary Veto

Occurs when:
- The legislature can block a referendum through a vote or resolution
- This decision is made after signature requirements are met
- Parliament can reject the proposal based on substantive disagreement

**Example**: In some systems, parliament may have explicit authority to deny a referendum request even after citizens have collected the required signatures.

#### 6.3.2 Executive/Presidential Veto

Occurs when:
- The head of state or government can unilaterally block a referendum
- This power exists after signature collection phase
- The decision is discretionary rather than purely procedural

**Example**: A president might have constitutional authority to reject referendum proposals they deem contrary to national interests.

#### 6.3.3 Governmental Veto

Occurs when:
- The cabinet or ministerial council can prevent a referendum
- This authority exists after citizens have collected signatures
- The decision is based on policy considerations

**Example**: A government council may have power to declare certain topics unsuitable for referendum, even after signature collection.

### 6.4 What Does NOT Constitute a Veto Power

The following mechanisms do NOT qualify as veto powers under the DFI framework:

1. **Pre-collection reviews**: Technical or legal screening that occurs before signature collection begins

2. **Neutral technical verification**: Validation of signature counts or procedural compliance

3. **Constitutional court review**: When based solely on clear constitutional compatibility and with transparent criteria

4. **Scope limitations**: Constitutional provisions that exclude certain topics from referendums, if these are clearly defined in advance.

