Digital signature: disabled voters denied the possibility of signing electoral lists with digital signatures: issue referred to the Constitutional Court.

The Court of Civitavecchia raises a question of constitutional legitimacy concerning the preclusion, for persons with disabilities unable to sign, of signing a list of candidates for submission to the regional elections pursuant to Article 9 of Law no. 108/1968 with a digital signature.

An Italian citizen with a disability wished to exercise his right to sign the electoral lists for the election of the Regional Council, pursuant to Article 9 of Law no. 108 of 17 February 1968. He was unable to provide a handwritten signature due to his health condition and had provided himself with a digital signature that he could use independently.

The political group to which he applied represented to him that Article 9 of Law No. 108/1968, according to the interpretation adopted by the competent electoral offices, precluded the possibility of affixing signatures in digital format and that this preclusion also derived from Article 2(6) of Legislative Decree No. 82 of 7 March 2005 (Digital Administration Code).

The citizen therefore applied to the Region of Lazio, formally inviting it to expressly declare the possibility of affixing the signature provided for by Article 9, Law No. 108/1968 with a digital signature.
The request submitted by the citizen remained unanswered, while the same request - submitted by an association - was confirmed by the Region that it was impossible to collect the signature by digital signature.

The citizen therefore applied to the Court of Civitavecchia asking it to "ascertain and declare the applicant's right to sign a list of candidates for submission to the regional elections, pursuant to Article 9, Law no. 108/1968, with his own digital signature" and, in the alternative, "uphold the above conclusions [...] subject to suspension of the proceedings and referral to the Constitutional Court of the preliminary issue of constitutional legitimacy, considered relevant and not manifestly unfounded, of Article 9 of Law no. 108/1968 and Article 2, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree no. 82/2005, for breach of Articles 2, 3, 48 and 49 of the Constitution".