On March 26, the Riigikogu approved a constitutional amendment by a vote of 93 in favor and seven against, under which citizens of non-EU countries will no longer be able to vote in this year's local elections. Starting next year, stateless residents will also lose their right to vote.

The Kohtla-Järve city council petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the amendment unconstitutional, arguing that it infringed on the right of local governments to self-govern. The petition noted that nearly half of Kohtla-Järve's residents would be excluded from voting due to the change, which they said undermines public trust in government and weakens the link between municipalities and their communities.

The city council maintained that stripping long-term residents of their voting rights — people who have previously been allowed to vote and who have a legal and sustained connection to the local community — was disproportionate. The petition also pointed out that, according to international standards, significant changes to election laws should generally not be made less than a year before elections.

In a ruling published Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The court stated that provisions affecting municipalities can be amended via constitutional procedure, provided that the process follows the required formalities. Therefore, the potential conflict with the Constitution would primarily lie in procedural violations.

The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit changing election rules in the run-up to an election. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that any significant change should take effect well in advance of an election. This principle is meant to safeguard legal certainty and public trust in the electoral process and to prevent undemocratic influence on election outcomes. According to the Council of Europe's Venice Commission guidelines, significant changes to election laws should not be made less than a year before an election.

The court found that the amendment in question did not violate the Constitution. It emphasized that the restriction on voting rights was enacted through a constitutional amendment, not ordinary legislation. Because amending the Constitution requires a rigorous process and broad political support in the Riigikogu, such changes are likely to reflect wide societal consensus rather than the interests of a single political force. In this case, the amendment passed with overwhelming support and was adopted nearly seven months before the elections, not immediately beforehand.

The court also noted that any potential negative impact on public trust resulting from such a change can be mitigated by open and broad public debate.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the constitutional amendment followed proper procedure and did not violate municipalities' right to self-govern. Limiting voting rights to EU citizens does not conflict with the Constitution's democratic principles. Voting is a political fundamental right and Estonia has no obligation under international law to extend that right to non-citizens.

--

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