Swiss Review 4/2019

Swiss Review / July 2019 / No.4 14 Society MARC LETTAU The votewas on an issue that affects high-earningmarried couples. They pay more federal tax than unmarried cou- pleswho earn exactly the same income. This ‘marriage pen- alty’ has been a political issue for years. The ChristianDem- ocrat People’s Party (CVP) attempted toabolish themarriage penalty with their rather cumbersomely-named referen- dum “For marriage and family – against the marriage pen- alty”. But the initiative failed at the ballot box in 2016when 50.8 percent voted against it. More than close Just 55,000 votes divided the yes and no camps, so it was a narrow defeat. However, the figures that the Federal Council quoted before the vote were incorrect. It claimed that themarriage penalty affected only 80,000 double-in- come married couples. Later it conceded that it had fun- damentally miscalculated – by a factor of five. It turned out that 450,000 married couples are fiscally disadvan- taged. On the basis of this admission, the CVP eventually submitted a voting complaint. Historical significance The Federal Supreme Court judgement on this matter on 10 April 2019 is of historical significance. The court upheld the complaint and annulled the referendumdecision. This is ground-breaking – the first annulment of a national ref- erendum result since the foundation of the modern Swiss federal state in 1848. The federal judges deemed the misin- formation of the Federal Council to be “grave”, and a “shock- ing infringement” of the freedomof vote. In light of this, it was “probable” that the voting results had been distorted, they ruled. “A slap in the face for the Federal Council” was the ti- tle of the article published by the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” after the judgement. In contrast, the newspapers of the Tamedia Group viewed the judgement as a seal of ap- proval for Swiss democracy, as it has strengthened the rights of committed citizens vis-à-vis the administrative apparatus. What now? Will this initiative be placed before the people once more? That is by no means mandatory. The CVP itself is not inter- ested in a further referendum. Opinions are dividedwithin the party on the text of the initiative, as it dictates a very narrowly formulated definition of marriage as “legally reg- ulated cohabitation between a man and a woman”. That goes too far for the CVP members who are open to same- sex marriage. Against this backdrop, the initiators hope to abolish the marriage penalty through legal channels. That would make a second referendumon the initiative obsolete. This hope is not unfounded as one month after the judgement, the National Council approved a cantonal initiative from the canton of Aargau. It demanded that the discrimination against married couples not only be ended with regard to taxes but also for social insurance. Upon retirement, they receive amarried couples’ pensionwhich is lower than two individual pensions for a couple that lives together with- out a marriage licence. That is just as disturbing as the fiscal marriage penalty. A clear judgement with unclear consequences A popular vote has been annulled by the courts in Switzerland for the very first time. Is this a slap in the face for the Federal Council, or proof of the power of democracy? Opinions are divided, and the consequences of the judgement are unclear. After the sweetness of the wedding cake comes the bitter taste of the fiscal marriage penalty for solvent double- income married couples. Photo: Keystone