Elections in Hamburg

The election in Hamburg regulates the elections to citizenship ( = Hamburg state parliament ) and to the District Assemblies.

• 2.1 Criticism of the suffrage amendment in 2006
• 2.2 Judgment of the Hamburg Constitutional Court on the right to vote change

Right to vote in 2004

On 13 June 2004, by referendum with 66.5 % votes of 385 542 valid votes cast, a new electoral law for Hamburg Act. These were a highly personalized proportional representation. The law was valid until 11 October 2006 when the ruling CDU Hamburg with a majority of 62 of the 121 votes for a new amendment to the electoral law, the revised critical elements, agreed. Thus, the influence of the parties has been restored to the composition of citizenship, the right to vote passed in 2004 so it was never used.

State election

List general election

The list suffrage was personalized in the state election by the fact that the order of the candidates as well as had no meaning on the lists submitted by the parties for election. Crucial to the prospect of a mandate ( = seat ) in the citizenry was only the number of votes that each candidate could unite on personally ( the voters would have his crosses no longer able to make generally possible only with the lists, but also in the individual candidate lists). Only by order of the candidates votes the seats had been distributed per list after the election (the party list order would have decided only at candidates tie vote ). The power of the parties who would otherwise decided in members or delegate meetings, which of their candidates with the probability (the higher the Rank, the higher the probability) would move into the next Parliament, would have been so suspended.

The voters would have been able to make as his cross at a party generally. His voice, however, would then only affect the party Tight office result which would have been for a party the sum of votes for candidates of one party and the general cast, from which the number of seats would have resulted that would have granted the party, but not what people these seats would occupy. Of the voters of a party This decision would then those candidates had chosen personally leave.

State list of election

From the country list election result ( ie the sum of votes for candidates of a party and votes for that party in general) would have been like so far the total number of seats a party in the citizenry. Moreover, as before, the five-percent hurdle for regional lists would have applied.

50 of the 121 citizenship mandates had been occupied from the national lists.

Constituency electoral list

71 of 121 citizenship mandates would have been awarded on the results in 17 constituencies. In the constituencies it was by the new electoral law to mandate more constituencies with 3 to 5 ( depending on the size of the constituency ) to be awarded mandates and corresponding lists of candidates to choose from. Here, too, would eventually only the number of personal votes that could unite the individual candidates to be decided which candidates would be granted the mandates. So it would have occurred even in the constituencies a personal competition between candidates of the same party. How many seats would have enjoyed in the constituency of a party at all, would have been like in the country list from the sum of votes for the candidates of the party and of the general votes for the party. Party or individual candidates who had been elected in the constituency, in any event, had a seat in the citizenry, even if the country's list of party candidates could not overcome the five-percent hurdle.

Number of votes

Each voter would have had a total of ten votes, five for the country list and five for the constituency list. Each candidate (or party in general) would also have had five checkboxes on the ballot. The voter would now have more than one vote on a candidate or party can accumulate ( cumulative ) or on different candidates or parties distribute ( panaschieren ). If the voter so five candidates personally would have considered very capable and would have wanted to leave these represented in Parliament, he would distribute his votes accordingly, even if the candidate had five different parties consulted.

• The new state election law was transferred to the elections to the District Assemblies.
• The elections to the district assemblies were separated from the state election and the European election merged ( every five years). This is the political independence of the district assemblies to be strengthened.
• The five-percent hurdle was - according to the development at the local level in other states - canceled.

See also: local elections

Comparable existing election law

The principle of dynamic party lists and the polyphony of other federal states, such as Bavaria, Hesse and Rhineland -Palatinate is already anchored for some time in the local elections and will be applied accordingly. The party list dynamics is enshrined in the right to vote in the Bavarian parliament.

The attitudes of the parties the right to vote in 2004

The two parties, the CDU and SPD lodged with the referendum on the new electoral law in 2004 before a joint counter-proposal that was similar to that proposed by the Citizens' Initiative in most respects, however, the decisive points, namely multi- mandate constituencies and dynamic party lists, not included. Voters decided in favor of the draft law of the citizens' initiative.

• CDU: The only ruling by absolute majority CDU taught after not their ideas corresponding referendum a secret commission under the long-term CDU party chairman Jürgen Echternach ( † 4 April 2006) a. This Commission prepared a electoral reform proposal. In the opinion of choice initiative, this proposal should increase the influence of the parties on the staff composition and show the influence of voters virtually impossible. From the perspective of the CDU proposal in particular served to resolve small-scale errors in the legal text of the initiative. About a legislative proposal, the CDU parliamentary group should decide in a special meeting on 31 October 2005. This did not happen as it is not safe seemed that the bill would be found in the citizenry a majority, although the CDU has an absolute majority in the citizenry. Criticism came, for example, from the CDU local chairman of Hamburg- Nienstedten, Lars Möller, who as "a secret operation that was rushed through from above" described the project. On 8 May 2006, the ruling CDU party approved a bill for a new electoral law, with the abstention of Harburg's deputies. This saw, inter alia, rigid party lists and only a citizen's vote ( ie no cumulating / cross-voting possible) for the country's electoral list, the reintroduction of the 5 % threshold at the district level, as well as a Nachbesetzen of unoccupied constituency seats from the country list before, so the crucial characteristics of the particular from the popular election law be abolished should.
• SPD: SPD parliamentary leader Michael Neumann assured in the show hamburg journal that referendums from the perspective of the SPD " are morally binding and may not be attacked ." The Hamburg SPD accepted that their defeat in the referendum.
• Alliance 90/The Greens GAL: The Constitutional expert and citizenship deputies of the GAL Group Farid Müller supported the new electoral law, both before and after the referendum with numerous speeches and press releases. In his opinion it was " a good recipe against politics and extremism ", as it strengthens the voters towards the parties. He prophesied the SPD and CDU a painful defeat in the referendum. The plans of the CDU amending the electoral law, he condemned as " electoral robbery". Also, Krista Sager, chairman of the parliamentary group of Alliance 90/The Greens and former Deputy Mayor of Hamburg took, in favor of the new electoral law position.
• FDP: Ekkehard hull, constitutional policy spokesman of the FDP parliamentary group, praised the sophistication that would allow the cumulating cross-voting and the voter. The new electoral law corresponds according to his statement, " a year-long demand of the FDP ", and awarded him the full support of his party.

Suffrage amendment in 2006

On 11 October 2006, the Hamburg Parliament decided by the votes of the CDU ( with the exception of a Christian Democrat ) voting against the opposition crucial changes to the electoral law for Hamburg, which, the core elements of the electoral law of 2004, which was thus never applied reversed made ​​.

By the amendment, the five votes were converted for country lists in a list or a party vote (see second vote). In the constituencies a candidate must receive 30 % of the vote count as a personality voices to improve its ranking ( this clause was later annulled by the Hamburg Constitutional Court considered unlawful). Taking into account the legislative intent stated in the example so that the possibility of personal choice was de facto abolished for voters. At district level, there is a five-percent clause to make it difficult to move into the district assemblies ( so the CDU design ) extremist parties.

Win a party in the constituency more seats than it has up candidates, so the empty spaces are now filled by candidates from the country's list of the Party concerned. Contrary to popular suffrage, where empty seats would have been distributed among the other parties, which the parties had massive incentives for security set up more candidates than they thought to get elected, this incentive is not applicable now. Essentially you could after the change now, each party put up only one candidate in the constituency and safely place any substitutes in the desired priority on the national list, so that from the originally desired by the people larger selection of candidates and the possibility to choose the candidate personally (and also ) can no longer talk to deselect and change not only the order.

The suffrage amendment also introduces the consideration of the relationship of people to the list votes cast. For example, with 50% of list votes and 50 % people cast half of the seats are occupied first by the candidates in order of personal votes, the other half with list of candidates with possibly selected in the first step, now candidates will be disregarded and the empty seats are filled by substitutes on the list, which also allows a list of security.

Criticism of the suffrage amendment in 2006

The change of just under two-thirds majority of those voting certain electoral law pushed by the three- vote majority of a single party in the citizenry not only to criticism of the democracy of the Hamburg CDU (previously was in Germany the right to vote only by large majorities and effective only for changed on the next election ), but also raised legal questions, such as after the trust protection of constitutional institutions ( referendum ) and the authority of the five-percent hurdle on the municipal level ( in Germany now uncommon ).

Relying on an opinion of the former vice president of the Federal Constitutional Court of Ernst Gottfried Mahrenholz, attracted the citizenry parties SPD and GAL together before the Hamburg Constitutional Court to appeal against measures adopted by the CDU changes to the electoral law. According Mahrenholz ' had the citizenship majority the people vote " completely changed " and thus " violates the principle of organ loyalty to the nation legislature ."

After the persons choice on the country list was abolished altogether depends the opportunity to meet as a voter in the constituency a real choice people ( and especially deselection), in particular on the following factors:

Judgment of the Hamburg Constitutional Court on the right to vote change

On 27 April 2007 the Constitutional Court of Hamburg said the judgments in judicial review and the dispute between organs. Here, the Court declared the amendment to the adopted by referendum election law by the Hamburg Parliament before this option was applied at all once, be permitted. A breach of the following from the organ fiduciary duties was not given.

However, the relevance threshold for the people of the constituency election candidates was assessed at the state election as unconstitutional. Nor is there any confusion on the voter when overcoming the relevance threshold but not if only theoretically, practically feasible and the voters this could not easily identify. The five-percent hurdle in the District Assembly elections was against constitutional.

The popular initiative, which had brought the suffrage referendum on the way, the court dismissed the action for lack of permission constitutional powers, the people legislative process had been completed with the referendum and the initiative after that have no more constitutional powers. However, two of the nine Constitutional Court judges were of a different opinion.

Suffrage amendment in 2007

The citizenry had to change to the relevance threshold in the constituency elections after the judgment, the right to vote in respect. Therefore, in 2007, it adopted a suffrage amendment, which should take account of the declared in the judgment of the unconstitutionality of the amendment adopted national suffrage. By this change a constituency list vote to be recorded as a confirmation of the list order by the candidate and weakened by the chosen order of seat allocation, the influence of personality voices on.

Suffrage amendment in 2009

The Hamburg State Association of Greater democracy had started after the not insignificant changes to the electoral law adopted in 2004 a new attempt to change the option on. After a successful popular initiative in the autumn of 2008, beginning of 2009, a successful referendum was conducted. The proposal was adopted by the citizenship on 26 June 2009. If a referendum would have come to this had taken place 27 September 2009 (parallel to the general election ).

In the parliamentary election, the fact remains that in the 17 constituencies of three to five seats can be won by the parties. What is new is that the Hamburg voters have the option not to award her five votes on the constituency lists exclusively to persons and as before at parties. According to the number of votes received depends who moves into the citizenry.

In the country lists parliamentary election is new, that now the voters instead of have five votes to one vote. This can even be awarded to those presented by the parties, persons, but also to the party list. The latter means that they vote for the party to be awarded to the allotted seats in the order in which it has placed the party in their list of candidates.

These structures are valid also for the elections to the district assemblies, but with the particularity that instead of the 5 percent threshold, a 3- percent threshold is introduced. The current versions of the BezVWG and BüWG have been in force since 7 July 2009. As a result, found the state elections and elections to the District Assemblies for the last time in February 2011 instead of together. From 2014, the elections will take place at the district meetings every five years in conjunction with the European elections.

Suffrage amendment in 2013

The voting age was lowered to 16 years old.

Swell