The focus of the hearing on Tuesday morning was on those to whom the law is directed – here the voters and the administration that implements the regulations. Everyone agreed that citizens must fundamentally understand what they are doing with their vote. However, there was a dispute as to whether the law itself had to formulate the conversion of votes into mandates precisely and in a comprehensible manner, or whether this would lead to unwanted simplification.
The Bundestag passed the new regulation in 2020 with the votes of the then governing grand coalition of Union and SPD. It was intended to settle the years-long dispute over how the steady growth of Parliament could be turned back. Among other things, Union and SPD provided that up to three overhang mandates would not be compensated.
Overhang mandates arise when a party brings more direct candidates to the Bundestag than it would be entitled to based on the result of the second vote. The other parties receive compensatory mandates in return. In addition, further overhang mandates should be offset against list mandates of the same party in other federal states to a limited extent.
The then opposition factions of the FDP, Left Party and Greens considered the reform to be unconstitutional. Its 216 deputies turned to the court. Among other things, they criticized that equal opportunities for the parties and equal voting rights were being violated. The judges wanted to negotiate on Tuesday afternoon.
First there was another point of criticism – namely that the law was not precise and not clear enough. It was “very rushed” and “simply technically poorly regulated,” said the representative of the 216 MPs, Sophie Schönberger. Even those who make an effort can hardly understand the regulations and calculations.
The representative of the federal government, Heinrich Lang, on the other hand, referred to tax regulations that “certainly do not have to hide in complexity” behind the electoral law. Citizens could even be liable to prosecution if they do not follow tax laws.
Last month, the Bundestag had already decided on a new electoral law with the votes of the traffic light coalition. The 216 MPs who had contacted the court wanted to let the proceedings in Karlsruhe rest. However, the court rejected this. There is a public interest in the trial, it said.
Court Vice President Doris König justified this assessment by saying that the current members of the Bundestag were elected on the basis of the 2020 electoral law. In addition, “a possible repeat election to the Bundestag in Berlin will have to take place on the basis of this voting right,” she said in her introduction to the negotiation. The court does not want to decide on Tuesday. Experience has shown that there are several months between the trial and the pronouncement of the verdict in Karlsruhe.
