Estonia's current constitution was completed in 1992, following the formation of the Constitutional Assembly a year earlier. At that time, Jüri Raidla served as the chair of the Assembly's expert committee. In an interview with Kadri Põlendik, he referenced Section 156, Subsection 2 of the Constitution multiple times, which states: "Permanent residents of the territory of the local government, who are at least 16 years old, have the right to vote in local government council elections under the conditions prescribed by law."

What is your view of the current debate over whether to hurriedly amend the Constitution to take away the right to vote in local elections of Russian, Belarusian citizens and stateless persons?

First of all, provided we have a political decision on the level of parliament to revoke the voting rights of Russian and Belarusian citizens, it is my conviction that a constitutional amendment is the only legally correct way to do it.

I find deliberations over whether it could be done through other acts and without amending the Constitution inappropriate and undesirable. It would largely devalue what the Constitution provides in Section 156, giving permanent residents the right to vote in local elections.

How could the Constitution be amended to make sure people that who harbor anti-Estonian sentiment or could be influenced to harbor it could not vote in the next local elections?

There are three ways to amend the Constitution, as provided in Chapter 15: a referendum, by two consecutive compositions of the Riigikogu or in expedited process by a single composition. All three are suitable for resolving this matter. The relevant question is how to do it a sufficiently short span of time.

The Constitution Annotated tells us that the fastest this could be done is in seven months. However, it must be added that this would require all political forces who support the change to really work in tandem. Otherwise, there is the risk of theory not materializing as practice. Therefore, it is primarily a matter of political will whether the question of voting rights can be resolved by the time of local elections in 2025.

In other words, it could be feasible should the first reading of the amendment take place in November?

It could be feasible if all other readings take place by the deadlines provided in the Constitution. There needs to be at least three months between the first and second readings and another month before the third. After that come three months until the entry into force of the change, following its passing and promulgation. These deadlines are there to make sure amending the Constitution could not be done on a whim.

The Constitution is a fundamental thing, the very basis of our rule of law. That means that when it is amended, everyone living here must be given the chance to get used to the new constitutional order and know well enough in advance that something major has changed. So there is no way around those seven months. It is something that politicians will need to settle for if they want this thing to happen.

How should this matter be phrased in the Constitution to avoid infringing on the rights of all third-country citizens living in Estonia while still resolving the issue at hand?

That is a very difficult question both politically and legally speaking. Starting with the former, I would very much recommend politicians reconsider the order of thinking about things and talking about things, which has gotten thoroughly mixed up in recent years. In other words, the thinking should be done before the talking. And the thinking should start with reading the preamble of the Constitution. It is an infinitely bountiful source of constitutional recipes. It clearly provides that this country needs to be safeguarded and developed in a way to ensure external and internal peace and for it to serve as a guarantee for future generations. The Riigikogu is the only body authorized to decide whether stripping Russian and Belarusian citizens of their right to vote is something that fosters or harms that external and internal peace. I cannot answer that question. But once the decision is made to strip Russian and Belarusian citizens of the right to vote, there is a clear recipe for doing that in the Constitution: amending Section 156, Subsection 2.

Now, thinking about how to go about it, I would dare recommend the Constitutional Assembly method. In other words, once the political decision has been made, to bring in constitutional experts to help transform political will into a legally correct form.

Personally, I would make the distinction as clear and unequivocal as possible. This means only allowing Estonian and European Union citizens to vote in local elections. Why? There is a bill currently in Riigikogu proceedings that would give citizens of some states the right to vote based on mutual agreements. While this seems like a simple and positive solution in the current geopolitical situation, the thing about geopolitical situations is that they tend to change. This runs the risk of signing a voting rights agreement with a friendly country today only for that relationship to cool in the future. That might require Estonia to seek to rescind the contract, and we can only imagine the difficult international and domestic problems that might cause.

Where do you stand on the Social Democrats' proposal of having foreigners pledge they share Estonia's values and condemn Russian aggression before they are allowed to vote?

I side with the chorus of critics on this issue. Firstly, it is reminiscent of mentality control or at least a mentality demonstration, which I do not find compatible with the principles of the rule of law. Secondly, those who do take a hostile position toward Estonia would likely have no problem signing such a declaration. While this might constitute a clever ploy from the point of view of party politics, it's legal merit is modest to say the least.

It has been said that the Riigikogu needs a four-fifths majority to amend the Constitution in expedited process. What does that mean exactly?

I must admit I was anticipating this question. The media often makes it look like this four-fifths majority means four-fifths of the Riigikogu, or 81 votes. But Section 166 of the constitution makes no such point. It clearly says a majority of four-fifths /.../ – votes in favor outnumbering votes against by four times. What is clear, however, is that such a constitutional amendment needs two-thirds of the vote to pass, and that is 68 votes.

Looking at the constitutional debate as a whole, is the way in which this matter is being approached compatible with the spirit of the Constitution as envisioned by its authors?

There is no conflict between the constitutional amendment debate and the letter and spirit of the Constitution itself, nor could it be at odds with what was considered during the days of the Constitutional Assembly. Had the latter intended for the coalition to be immutable, Chapter 15 would not exist.

/.../

While the possibility to amend the Constitution as a matter of urgency was an innovative mechanism at the time and one that caused foreign experts to criticize us, I believe that the fact there is political will to make such a change today shows that the possibility serves a purpose.

The 1992 Constitution has been amended a total of five times. What was the reasoning in the past?

These amendments have been quite different. The preamble was complemented by adding a reference to the need to protect the Estonian language, and tell you the truth, it is a little peculiar we didn't think of it during the days of the Assembly. So, well done, Riigikogu for paying that debt to the Estonian people so to speak. /.../

Changes after that have largely served the purpose of providing additional rights. Section 156, which we have been talking about and which regulates local governments, has been amended twice. Once to extend the term of office of local councils from three years to four and the second time to lower the local elections voting age from 18 years to 16. Then there were a few national defense-related changes in terms of better organization. Therefore, past constitutional amendments have been relatively practicable.

How did it happen that non-citizens were left the right to vote in the first place?

It was thoroughly discussed, of course. I dare say now it was a conscious choice. Let is also be said that the draft the Assembly worked with provided a much broader set of voting rights still. In addition to permanent residents, it proposed giving people who work in the territory of the local government the right to vote. Deliberations concluded that this would be an overly broad designation of electorate and one difficult to monitor. That is how the Assembly arrived at what the Constitution provides today. I was clearly in favor of this point at the time myself. It was important at the time for people permanently living in the local government's territory and just freed from the Soviet Union to have a voice in local matters. We also needed to contain politics to representative bodies, instead of it spilling out into the streets.

The second important principle involved is that local governments are not instruments of state power in the meaning of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution proceeds from a so-called community principle when it comes to local governments. Local governments only carry out state-level functions if the central government delegates such functions to them. And since local governments were not treated as state organs, it was deemed possible and even necessary to give permanent residents the right to vote. Allow me to point out that non-citizens do not have the right to run for local office.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!