A significant number of judges in Italy have aligned themselves against a proposed constitutional reform, which has raised concerns about the integrity of the ongoing referendum process scheduled for March 22 and 23. Their involvement in a decision by the Supreme Court, which could potentially derail the referendum, is now under scrutiny, especially as several of these judges also participated in public initiatives supporting the No campaign against the reform.

Among those leading the opposition is Raffaele Frasca, president of the Third Civil Section, known for his collaboration with various left-leaning justice publications. His prominent role, coupled with the activities of other judges who have made their anti-reform stance clear, poses questions about the appropriateness of their engagement in official decisions regarding the referendum. Despite their vested interests in the outcome, these judges did not recuse themselves from the decision-making process, which further complicates the legitimacy of the judiciary's involvement in politically charged issues.

This unfolding scenario reflects a broader tension in Italy regarding judicial independence and the role of the judiciary in political processes. The decision to possibly postpone or alter the referendum raises fears about the potential influence of partisan interests within judicial ranks. As the referendum approaches, the implications of this situation could significantly affect public trust in the judiciary and the proposed changes, which aim to alter the constitutional framework of governance in Italy.