2008 Latvian constitutional referendum

Under the ‘Latvian Law on National Referendums and Legislative Initiatives’, the procedure on calling popular referendums has several stages. The first stage involves the collection of 10,000 signatures certified by notaries, which are then presented to the Latvian Central Election Commission (CEC). Following positive verification of these signatures, the Latvian Government must then provide facilities for signature gathering in every town and village in the country, to enable the population to sign in favour of a proposal for a referendum.[8]

In order to be successful, more than one-tenth of citizens eligible to vote in the previous parliamentary elections must sign in favour. Again, the signatures are verified by the CEC. If the 10% threshold is met, then the draft amendments are presented to the president who submits them to parliament for approval. If two thirds of MPs approve the changes at a sitting in which at least two thirds of the parliament is present then the changes are passed into law without the need for a referendum. If parliament rejects the laws, then a referendum is held.[7]

Opposing the referendum, Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis pointed out that political instability had also been a feature of pre-Soviet Latvia. He also argued that “Electing the parliament is a creative process, while a referendum would be a destructive process without any result."[10][11] Parliamentary speaker Gundars Daudze argued that such referendums could create a huge crisis with neither parliament nor president operating. Meanwhile, the head of the People's Party in parliament, Māris Kučinskis, stated his belief that such referendums would allow a small number of people to change the election results.[10] The advertisements of the no campaign also played on fears of Russian influence, with one advertisement, illustrated by pictures of ethnic Russian politicians from the opposition left wing parties playing a balalaika in a sauna, declaring “If you vote tomorrow, then you, brother, are crazy. In our places, the Russians will come. The Russians will come.” [12]

Former Prime Minister Einars Repše, a member of the opposition New Era party, argued that a yes vote of the majority of the electorate would be in accordance with basic democratic principles and that many contemporary Latvian politicians were working not for the state interest but for the interest of “Godfathers.” [10] Civic Union party leader Sandra Kalniete also called for a yes vote on the grounds that the amendments could force MPs “to finally listen to the will of their voters.” [10] For Human Rights in United Latvia MP Juris Sokolovskis supported a yes vote on the basis of perceived alienation of the electorate from their MPs and on the grounds that, even if the 50% quorum was not reached, a large yes majority would still be difficult for politicians to ignore.[10]