According to The Guardian, nearly 54% of Italians voted against the proposed overhaul, with turnout approaching 60%, far higher than expected for a measure initially framed as a technical constitutional reform.

The reforms sought to introduce significant structural changes to Italy’s judicial system. Central proposals included separating the career paths of judges and prosecutors, restructuring the judiciary’s self-governing body into two councils, and altering the selection process for members, including the use of random selection mechanisms. The plan also aimed to create a new disciplinary court for magistrates and was presented by the government as a way to modernise what it described as a slow and inefficient justice system.

However, critics argued the reforms risked undermining judicial independence and increasing political influence over the courts. Opposition parties and legal experts warned that the changes could weaken the separation of powers, framing the referendum as a broader defence of democratic institutions. Analysts also noted that the proposals failed to address long-standing issues such as delays in Italy’s legal system, contributing to public scepticism.

The campaign itself became highly politicised, evolving into a referendum on Meloni’s leadership rather than solely on judicial reform. Tensions between the government and the judiciary, coupled with concerns over governance and rising economic pressures, further influenced voter sentiment.

Conceding defeat, Meloni acknowledged the outcome while defending her intentions. “The Italians have decided and we respect this decision,” she said, describing the result as “a lost chance to modernise Italy.” She added that her government would continue to govern “with responsibility, determination and respect.”

The result is expected to weaken Meloni’s political momentum and embolden opposition forces ahead of future elections, signalling a shift in Italy’s political landscape.