People's legislation in Berlin

The people's legislation in the city-state of Berlin comprises the instruments of direct democracy , with the help of which the electorate directly participates in the legislation of the state . It complements the existing instruments of representative democracy ( indirect democracy ), ergo the election of people's representatives in the House of Representatives , who also vote on the legislation there .

Legal basis

The legal foundations of direct democracy at the state level can be found in Articles 59 and 61–63 and 100 of the state constitution and in Sections 29–40 of the Voting Act. The implementation provisions for the instruments of direct democracy are also regulated in several ordinances (voting rules, state election rules).

The constitutional articles in their current version were adopted in an obligatory referendum , which was held parallel to the House of Representatives election on September 17, 2006, with a majority of 84% yes-votes. The current version of the Voting Act was passed on February 20, 2008 and simplified popular legislation on many points. Before the constitutional situation now in force, there were hardly any popular legislative procedures.

Instruments of popular legislation

Structure of the three-stage people's legislative process in the State of Berlin with the various quorums

The State of Berlin knows five instruments with which the electorate can directly influence the legislative process:

• compulsory constitutional referendum
• Popular initiative
• Application to initiate a referendum
• Referendum
• Referendum

While the popular initiative stands on its own as an instrument, the motion to initiate a referendum, a referendum and a referendum build on each other in a three-stage process. The obligatory constitutional referendum is the only one that cannot be actively initiated by the population.

Compulsory constitutional referendum

According to Article 100 of the state constitution, amendments to Articles 62 and 63 of the state constitution must be subject to a referendum in the state of Berlin. In these two constitutional articles, the people's legislation is regulated by referendum and referendum. The referendum planned for this is intended to prevent the House of Representatives from depriving the sovereign (the electorate) of their direct participation in the legislative process without their express consent. If the sovereign refuses to consent, the constitutional amendment is rejected. In contrast to the referendum, there are no voting quorums for the mandatory constitutional referendum.

Popular initiative

With the popular initiative, a law or issue can be presented to the House of Representatives. A popular initiative comes about when 20,000 Berlin residents who have reached the age of 16 and have had their primary residence in Berlin for at least three months sign it in the six months prior to submission. A popular initiative can also be supported by people without German citizenship.

After submitting the popular initiative, the signatures are compared with the registration lists by the district offices and checked for correctness. The Senate Department for the Interior examines the cause of the popular initiative for obvious legal inadmissibility.

After a popular initiative has been successfully submitted and examined, the House of Representatives must deal with and vote on it within four months. The House of Representatives can accept or reject the popular initiative, but may not change its essence. The representatives of the popular initiative can take part in the deliberations in the House of Representatives.

After the treatment in the House of Representatives, the procedural path is completed. In contrast to some other federal states, a popular initiative cannot initiate a referendum or referendum in Berlin.

Application to initiate a referendum

The first step in obtaining a referendum in Berlin is the application to initiate a referendum. The request must contain a constitutional amendment, a law or a general subject of political decision-making, which the House of Representatives could also decide on. The state budget law, fees, tariffs of public companies as well as personnel decisions or concerns directed against concluded contracts may not be the subject of a motion to initiate a referendum. Furthermore, a referendum can only be held once within an electoral term on the same issue.

For a successful application, 20,000 valid signatures must be proven, which were given a maximum of six months before submission. 50,000 signatures are required for a motion aimed at changing the constitution or for new elections. All citizens who have had their primary residence in Berlin for at least three months, have German citizenship and are 18 years of age or older are authorized to sign.

After submitting the application, the signatures are compared with the registration lists by the district offices and checked for correctness. The Senate Department for the Interior examines the matter contained in it for obvious legal inadmissibility. The examinations must be completed within 15 days of the submission of the documents.

After successful submission and examination, the House of Representatives can deal with and vote on the motion to initiate a referendum within four months. In contrast to the popular initiative, the treatment is not compulsory.

Referendum

The initiators have the option of carrying out a referendum up to a maximum of seven months after the submission of a successful application to initiate a referendum, or a maximum of three months after the application has been dealt with and the application has been explicitly rejected in the House of Representatives. The issue of the application can be changed in its execution, provided that its essence remains unaffected.

For a successful referendum, 7% of the citizens have to sign within a period of four months. If the referendum aims to change the constitution or to bring about new elections, 20% of those entitled to vote must sign within the same period. As with the application, all German citizens who have reached the age of 18 and have been registered with their primary residence in Berlin for at least three months are authorized to sign. After the referendum has been submitted, the signatures are compared with the registration lists by the district offices and checked for correctness. If the examination is positive, a referendum must be carried out within four months (in the case of a request for new elections within two months), provided that the House of Representatives does not accept the request unchanged or, in the case of a request for new elections, does not decide to dissolve it itself.

Referendum

A referendum must be held no later than four months (two months for new elections at the latest) after the referendum has been submitted. If a regular election takes place in Berlin in the eight months after the submission, the referendum can be combined with this. The Berlin House of Representatives can formulate an alternative draft to the request at least 60 days before the referendum. In this case, both drafts will be voted together in a referendum.

In order to be adopted in a referendum, the majority of those who vote, but at least 25% of those entitled to vote, must agree (so-called approval quorum ). Voters also include invalid votes. In the case of a constitutional amendment or a request for new elections, 50% of those entitled to vote and at least two thirds of those actually voting must vote “yes”.

If two competing proposals are to be voted on, a key question will also be asked. Even if this has not yet happened at the state level in Berlin, the design of the key question should be based on the procedure already practiced in some referendums at the district level. The voters can vote “Yes” or “No” for both proposals and indicate in the key question which of the two proposals (“A” or “B”) they prefer.

Results of previous referendums broken down by district

No	district	THF Yes (SB)	THF Yes (T)	ProReli Yes (SB)	ProReli Yes (T)	Water yes (SB)	Water yes (T)	Electricity Yes (SB)	Electricity Yes (T)	THF II Yes (SB)	THF II Yes (T)	Tegel Yes (SB)	Tegel Yes (T)
1	center	18.0%	58.4%	10.9%	44.8%	22.0%	97.8%	24.1%	87.1%	29.5%	65.2%	37.7%	54.7%
2	Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg	12.0%	39.2%	06.7%	25.8%	26.7%	98.2%	34.3%	92.9%	41.8%	77.0%	32.5%	44.9%
3	Pankow	09.6%	34.0%	08.0%	28.7%	28.0%	98.4%	28.1%	88.1%	29.0%	62.5%	32.2%	43.0%
4th	Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf	31.0%	71.6%	20.7%	60.3%	24.0%	98.4%	25.0%	80.2%	32.1%	60.7%	50.4%	68.3%
5	Spandau	27.6%	75.8%	19.4%	69.2%	25.0%	97.9%	17.8%	75.7%	23.2%	59.0%	39.9%	57.1%
6th	Steglitz-Zehlendorf	37.5%	73.8%	27.4%	66.3%	32.0%	98.2%	24.9%	75.6%	34.4%	61.2%	50.3%	66.5%
7th	Tempelhof-Schöneberg	33.0%	70.1%	20.5%	60.9%	28.2%	98.2%	24.7%	81.2%	36.9%	69.4%	45.1%	62.5%
8th	Neukölln	30.9%	74.1%	16.4%	61.8%	25.6%	97.8%	23.7%	84.3%	34.4%	74.4%	39.2%	58.9%
9	Treptow-Koepenick	14.7%	44.3%	07.2%	26.1%	32.8%	98.4%	25.4%	85.6%	27.8%	63.8%	41.9%	58.6%
10	Marzahn-Hellersdorf	07.7%	33.4%	04.9%	22.8%	26.3%	98.3%	19.2%	82.5%	18.9%	57.5%	34.0%	52.4%
11	Lichtenberg	07.6%	30.4%	05.0%	21.3%	23.1%	97.8%	21.1%	84.6%	21.9%	60.0%	32.4%	47.7%
12	Reinickendorf	33.3%	77.0%	22.9%	69.1%	29.7%	98.2%	19.6%	73.3%	24.4%	55.5%	45.7%	63.8%
	Berlin (overall)	21.7%	60.1%	14.1%	48.4%	27.0%	98.2%	24.1%	83.0%	29.6%	64.3%	40.1%	56.4%

Legend: Yes (SB): share of approval of those entitled to vote, Yes (T): share of approval of participants,
colors of the district numbers: former west , former east , west / east merged district

General information about the instruments

Subject matter, admissibility and liability

In Berlin, popular initiatives and plebiscites are generally permissible on the constitution, on laws and on general questions of political decision-making - provided that these are the decision-making competence of the House of Representatives. However, a concern may only be the subject of a referendum once per electoral term of the House of Representatives. In addition, it is possible up to a maximum of 46 months after the constitution of the House of Representatives to bring about new elections by referendum and referendum. Petitions for a referendum are not permitted on the State Budget Act (as a whole), in the event of serious interventions in the current budget, on taxes, tariffs of public companies and personnel decisions. Petitions and initiatives that violate the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany or the constitution of the State of Berlin are not permitted. In contrast to other federal states (e.g. Saarland ), referendums cannot be inadmissible simply because they have financial implications.

In Berlin, the Senate Department for Home Affairs and Sport is responsible for the legal review of the instruments at state level. First of all, a non-binding and essentially formal examination takes place when the procedure is registered. If the Senate Administration declares the procedure to be inadmissible, the initiative can file an action against this decision before the State Constitutional Court. By October 2009, after the signatures of a motion to initiate a referendum had been submitted, the Senate again extensively examined the matter for its material admissibility. After a complaint by the “Wassertisch” initiative against the non-admission of the referendum Our Water , the court made it clear that a comprehensive constitutional examination of issues of the people's legislation is generally only possible after their entry into force (e.g. after a possible acceptance in a referendum) be. The Senate may only superficially examine requests for obvious violations of the state constitution or the Basic Law.

If a referendum has a law or a constitutional amendment as its content, the result of a referendum is binding and a law passed in this way must come into force. However, there is no protection of any kind against subsequent changes by the House of Representatives. If a referendum has a general subject of the formation of political will, on which the House of Representatives is not allowed to make a binding decision, the referendum is only of a recommendation. Apart from the exceptions set out in the constitution (e.g. levies and tariffs for public companies), referendums are on an equal footing with the decisions of the House of Representatives.

Procedural formalities

Five confidants must be named in Berlin for popular initiatives, applications and referendums . The confidential counselors act as contacts for both the Senate and the citizens and are authorized to make binding declarations as part of the direct democratic procedure.

For motions, petitions and initiatives, an estimate must be submitted of the likely costs of implementing the matter. In addition to the cost estimate of the initiative, the Senate also prepares one.

The person responsible for the procedure (the initiative) and the persons of trust must be named on the signature lists. The cost estimates by the initiative and the Senate must be printed, as well as the main concerns of the procedure listed. Several people may express their support on a signature list. The signatories must legibly enter their full name, the address of their primary residence, their date of birth and a handwritten signature. The information does not necessarily have to be complete, but it must be suitable to clearly identify the person signing. Within the framework of the legal requirements, the initiative creates the signature lists on its own responsibility, but these must be checked for admissibility by the state returning officer before the start of the collection. For reasons of data protection, the district offices - which check and count the signature lists - are obliged to destroy all signature lists submitted there after the end of a procedure.

Motions, petitions and initiatives can be signed in Berlin both at the citizens' offices and in so-called free collection on the street by entering them in signature lists that comply with the legal requirements. Entry by letter or online signature is not possible. In principle, collections can be made anywhere in public space - special registration of collections of signatures is not necessary.

Donation transparency

In Berlin, since an amendment to the Voting Act passed on July 1, 2010, the sponsor of a popular initiative or a referendum must disclose received donations from a total amount of 5,000 euros together with the name of the donor. This is to ensure that citizens can recognize whether and which financially strong interests support an initiative. This regulation was only introduced in Berlin in 2010 after the first two referendums on Tempelhof Airport and ProReli revealed massive financial support from interested parties without the public having any more detailed information about the individual donors or the amount of the donations. Previously, in Berlin there was a disclosure requirement for individual donations of 50,000 euros or more.

Procedural costs

Motions, plebiscites and initiatives initially do not cause any particular additional expenditure by the public sector , since the work required for this in the district offices (checking the signatures) can be carried out with the available human resources. The public costs of holding a referendum can vary considerably. If the vote is combined with a regular election, additional costs only arise to a relatively small extent due to the additional time required by the election workers. If the decision is made without such a link, all costs are incurred that would also have to be incurred for carrying out an election (notification by letter, expense allowance for voting assistants, etc.). A referendum costs around 1.6 million euros.

The practice of people's legislation in Berlin

Concern of previous popular initiatives

Against the Transrapid

The citizens' initiative against the Transrapid was the first popular initiative in the state of Berlin and turned against the planned construction of the Transrapid line from Berlin to Hamburg . From April 1 to September 30, 1998, the initiative collected 122,910 signatures, which they submitted on October 14, 1998. The hearing in the House of Representatives took place on January 13, 1999, the corresponding vote on February 25. The initiative's request was rejected by 100 votes to 79, with four abstentions. The initiative was supported by the BUND and 30 other groups including citizens' initiatives, environmental associations, the Greens of the PDS and parts of the SPD.

The construction of the Transrapid line was ultimately rejected by the Red-Green Federal Government due to rising costs and the ICE line between Berlin and Hamburg was expanded instead .

More democracy in voting

The popular initiative More Democracy in Voting was initiated by the alliance of the same name, to which, in addition to the association Mehr Demokratie, parties such as the ödp and the animal welfare party , the Humanist Union , the Turkish Federation and a number of other organizations belong. The popular initiative aimed both at expanding the right to vote and lowering or abolishing the threshold clauses in Berlin. It was called for the right to vote at the state level to be reduced to 16 years (this is already the case with the BVV elections in the districts). In addition, residents from countries that are not members of the European Union should also have the right to vote in the BVV elections at the district level . The Senate should also be asked to take a Federal Council initiative to introduce voting rights for citizens without German citizenship at state level. Finally, the popular initiative called for a lowering of the threshold clauses in Berlin. The currently valid 3% blocking clause in the districts should be completely abolished, the currently valid 5% blocking clause for elections to the House of Representatives should be reduced to 3%.

The popular initiative started at the same time as a motion of the same name for a referendum that contained further demands regarding the right to vote in Berlin. Most of the demands contained in the popular initiative could only be implemented through a constitutional amendment. Since the initiators judged the hurdles for a constitution-amending referendum to be factually insurmountable, it was decided to raise the issue via a popular initiative.

The collection of signatures started in March 2008 and lasted until September 2008. The necessary 20,000 signatures could not be collected during this time, so that the initiators decided to petition the popular initiative with the recently collected slightly more than 10,000 signatures in the House of Representatives. The responsible committee in the House of Representatives did not make use of the possibility of hearing the petitioners and rejected the petition as a whole in January 2009 without going into the individual claims separately in the statement of reasons.

School in freedom

→ Main article : Berliner Volksinitiative Schule in Freiheit

The Volksinitiative Schule in Freiheit wants to establish the following principles in the Berlin school system: Educational freedom: schools should be able to independently design the content and quality standards of their work; Equal financing: State and independent schools should be accessible without school fees; Independent organization: All schools that want it should be given the greatest possible organizational independence.

The first collection of signatures took place in 2010, on November 23, 2010 the initiative handed over 28,717 signatures to Walter Momper , then President of the House of Representatives, of which 24,420 were found to be valid. On January 13, 2011, there was a first debate in the House of Representatives on the popular initiative. On March 10, 2011, the initiators presented their popular initiative at a hearing there. On April 7th, the committee issued a recommendation for a resolution in which some points of the popular initiative were included in a modified form. In the final discussion of the popular initiative on April 14, 2011, this recommendation was accepted with a majority of the SPD and the Left .

A second collection of signatures was started on April 29, 2013 and collected signatures until the end of October 2013. The three main objectives of the current initiative have remained the same as in 2010, but their detailed implementation has been revised and specific implementation proposals have been added.

Improvement of non-smoker protection

The people's initiative Fresh Air for Berlin wants to improve the protection of non-smokers in Berlin. To this end, all previously existing exemptions in the protection of non-smokers for restaurants are to be lifted and smoking of tobacco is also to be prohibited in children's playgrounds and the open spaces of health facilities. The initiators decided to introduce their demands as a popular initiative in order to be able to bring the issue into the political process before the 2011 parliamentary elections .

The collection for the popular initiative began on September 24th, 2010. On April 14th, 2011 the initiative handed over 27,000 signatures to the President of the House of Representatives Walter Momper. 23,633 of them were valid.

Concern of previous referendums

Since the reform of the people's legislation in Berlin in 2006, a whole series of petitions has been initiated. The following is an overview of referendums that have been initiated and politically implemented in the State of Berlin since 2006 or that have led to a referendum.

Remunicipalisation of Berlin's energy supply

→ Main article : Referendum on the remunicipalisation of Berlin's energy supply

The Berliner Energietisch initiative pursued the goal of operating the Berlin electricity grid in the future on a communal basis and building a municipal utility that follows ecological and social criteria. For this purpose, two public-law institutions should be founded, whose board of directors is directly elected by the residents . The Berlin electricity network is currently operated by Vattenfall Europe Distribution Berlin GmbH , and the concession expired at the end of 2014.

In the summer of 2011, the Berlin energy table was created based on the successful model of the Berlin water table . The alliance included over 40 organizations, such as the Berlin sections of Attac , the BUND , Volkssolidarität or the GEW , but also local organizations such as the Berlin tenant community or For a Left Current . The alliance saw itself as independent of parties , but it was supported by the Berlin associations of the SPD , Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen , Die Linke , Piratenpartei and ödp .

According to an official census, 30,660 valid signatures had been collected by July 3, 2012, thus fulfilling the legal requirements for the petition for a referendum. In a statement dated August 14, 2012, the Senate expressed content-related concerns, but no legal objections to the admissibility were raised. The House of Representatives then had four months to comment on the project.

After the House of Representatives did not comment, the initiators applied for the referendum to be carried out. On January 25, 2013, the referendum was announced by the State Returning Officer. The title of the referendum was redefined for the announcement (formerly: New Energy for Berlin - democratic, ecological, social). By the end of the registration period on June 10, 2013, the initiators had collected 271,496 signatures, 227,748 of which were valid. Thus the referendum came about. In the vote in November 2013, however, the quorum was just missed.

Disclosure of the partial privatization agreements at Berliner Wasserbetriebe

→ Main article : Referendum on the disclosure of the partial privatization agreements at Berliner Wasserbetriebe

The referendum put an end to secret contracts - we Berliners want our water back , which the Berlin water table initiated, aimed at the formal legal disclosure of the partial privatization contracts between the Berlin Senate and the companies Veolia Wasser and RWE Aqua . The contracts, which are subject to trade secrets, were concluded by the Red-Red Senate in order to prevent claims for damages that arose from a court ruling by the Berlin Constitutional Court . The state of Berlin and the private shareholders receive a contractually guaranteed interest rate for the capital required for operations, which currently amounts to EUR 3.3 billion.

In the spring of 2007, the Berlin Water Table Alliance was formed as a network of different groups, initiatives and people. The initiative set itself the goal of changing the Berlin Freedom of Information Act by means of a referendum and referendum . In a further step, the initiators of the campaign wanted to force the Senate to subsequently change the contracts, which are subject to trade secrets. The Berlin Senate saw this procedure as unconstitutional. A review by the Berlin Constitutional Court has not yet taken place.

In the summer of the same year the water table began to collect signatures for the initiation of a referendum. After a slow start, the initiators brought 39,659 signatures to the regional returning officer on February 1, 2008, of which 36,062 were valid. On March 4, 2008, the Senate declared the referendum to be invalid. On the same day, the initiative announced an action against the decision before the Constitutional Court.

On October 6, 2009, the court ruled that the referendum was admissible. In the reasoning, the court did not comment on the question of whether this referendum violated the state constitution, but denied the Senate the right to decide on the admissibility of a referendum. Since a negotiated solution failed, the initiative started the actual referendum on June 28, 2010. By October 27, 2010, the initiative had collected around 265,400 signatures. Together with the signatures given at the Citizens Registration Office, around 320,700 signatures came together, 280,887 signatures were valid. The required signature quorum of 172,000 valid signatures was thus clearly exceeded. At the end of November, the Senate determined that the referendum had been successful.

On October 30, 2010, three days after the signatures had been submitted, the taz published the central document of the partial privatization agreements. The daily did not name your informant. On November 10, 2010, the state of Berlin and Veolia also disclosed the contract for partial privatization and other parts of the contract.

Prior to the vote, the need for a referendum was at the center of the discussions. The Senate and the House of Representatives argued that the partial privatization agreement was disclosed and that the referendum would decide on something that had long since happened and was therefore superfluous. The initiative argued that the central filing of the treaty was published, while around 180 were still under lock and key. Therefore, the referendum is not outdated.

The proposed law was passed on February 13, 2011 with 665,713 votes in favor. This corresponded to an agreement of 98.2%. The turnout was 27.0% and exceeded the required approval quorum of 25%. This referendum was the first in the history of Berlin to be valid by referendum.

The initiators of the referendum assumed that the referendum would have no impact on the budget of the State of Berlin . However, the State of Berlin was of the opinion that the costs could not be estimated. The public costs for the implementation of the referendum amounted to 1.6 to 1.85 million euros.

Improvement of the daycare facilities

In February 2008, the State Parents Committee of Kita Berlin (LEAK) started collecting signatures for the petition for a referendum for daycare children + education from the start = profit for Berlin . The aim was to guarantee children from three years of age a part-time kindergarten place without a need test , to employ more educational staff at the Berlin day-care centers and to allow them more preparation and follow - up time and to intensify their further training.

With 66,181 signatures submitted, the motion effortlessly skipped the quorum of 20,000, making it the most successful petition in the history of Berlin to date. Due to the estimated annual additional costs of around 100 million euros, the Senate declared the referendum to be inadmissible. The initiative sued the Constitutional Court against this decision and was found to be right in its judgment of October 3, 2009. The court made it clear that referendums are only inadmissible if they intervene directly in the budget law or the current budget of the country. A general inadmissibility is not to be derived solely from the fact that a referendum provides for high additional expenditure for future households.

In the negotiations with the Senate that followed the judgment, an agreement was finally reached that provided for the broad implementation of the concerns of the referendum in a multi-stage plan stretched over several years. The initiative then decided not to carry out the actual referendum.

Religion as an elective in schools

→ Main article : Referendum on the introduction of the ethics / religion elective

Posters by supporters and opponents of the popular initiative We want freedom of choice! in the voting campaign before the referendum (2009)

The association Pro Reli e. V. pursued with the referendum We want freedom of choice! For the introduction of the elective subject ethics / religion! the goal of changing Berlin's school law through a referendum. Since 2006, this has provided the newly introduced subject of ethics as a regular subject for grades 7 to 10, while religion and ideology lessons - as since 1948 - can also be attended voluntarily in Berlin from the first grade. The Pro Reli association, which is strongly supported by the Christian churches, wanted to replace this regulation with a compulsory elective subject group ethics / religion from the first grade onwards, separated by denomination.

The referendum initiated by Pro Reli was the first procedure carried out after the reform of direct democracy in Berlin in 2006, with which a law was to be changed in a binding referendum. After the motion was clearly successful with 34,472 and the referendum with over 265,823 valid signatures, the initiative failed in the referendum on April 26, 2009. Of the approximately 713,000 Berliners who took part in the vote, only 48.4% voted for, 51, 4% against the proposal. Due to the low participation, the referendum would have clearly failed, even if the majority situation had been reversed, with the required approval quorum of 25% of those entitled to vote.

Keeping Tempelhof Airport open

In 1996 the Berlin Senate reached an agreement with the Brandenburg state government on the construction of the major Berlin Brandenburg International (BBI) airport , in favor of which the two inner-city airports Tempelhof and Tegel should be closed. After the completion of the planning approval procedure , the Senate finally decided in 2003 to close Tempelhof.

With the referendum, Tempelhof remains a commercial airport! the interest group City-Airport Tempelhof e. V. (ICAT) to keep Berlin-Tempelhof Airport open. The initiative received strong support from the two opposition parties, CDU and FDP . Immediately after the reform of direct democracy in Berlin, in November 2006, the initiative began collecting signatures for the petition to initiate a referendum. This was concluded in April 2008 with almost 30,000 valid signatures. The referendum took place between October 15, 2007 and February 14, 2008. Since the necessary implementing ordinances for referendums had not yet been adopted at this point in time, signatures for this could only be made at the citizens' offices. On January 30, 2008, the necessary signature quorum of 172,000 valid signatures had already been skipped. The referendum took place on April 27, 2008 and resulted in what is known as a false failure of the matter. Although 60.1% of the voters voted for the referendum with only 36.1% no votes, the approval quorum of 25% was missed, as a total of only 21.7% of the Berliners entitled to vote voted “Yes”.

Even in the run-up to the vote, the referendum polarized for a variety of reasons. The referendum, for example, was not binding because its goal was not a law, but an administrative act to keep an airport open. Even if a referendum had been successful, the Senate would not have been bound by its implementation. Governing Mayor Wowereit referred to this fact several times in the run-up to the vote and clearly stated that the Senate would hold on to the closure of the airport regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Proponents of the referendum saw this as evidence of a lack of understanding of democracy and as an attempt to deter as many citizens as possible from participating in the referendum. The opponents of the referendum mainly criticized the opaque financial interests behind the referendum. The initiative probably spent more than three million euros on the entire voting process, the origin of which is still not clearly established. In addition, the supporters of the referendum would have known from the start that a referendum would be non-binding, but would not have clearly communicated this to the citizens.

The closure of Tempelhof Airport was maintained even after the referendum. The last aircraft took off on November 24, 2008. The area is now open as a park and in a new referendum in May 2014, a law was passed that is intended to prevent parts of the open area from being built on.

Relaxation of the protection of non-smokers in restaurants

The association Initiative für Genuß Berlin e. With the referendum, V. wanted freedom of choice for guests and innkeepers - no smoking ban in Berlin restaurants and a weakening of the smoking ban. This should be done so that all restaurants can choose whether they are smoking or non-smoking and only have to indicate this at the entrance. Previous regulations, which stipulate the proportions between smoking and non-smoking areas or regulate the distribution of food in one-room bars, should be abolished. The referendum was unsuccessful because not enough signatures were collected.

Improvement of primary school equipment and after-school care

The Parents' Committee Kita Berlin (LEAK), which already organized the referendum motion for daycare facilities, which was completed with a result of negotiations, launched in June 2010, the collection of signatures to request the referendum elementary school children, live and learn in the day school, 1+ for Berlin ( Volksbegehren primary school) whose goals were to create more jobs in primary schools by changing the staffing ratio, especially with a high number of children with a migration background. Furthermore, the needs test of primary school children for after- school care should be dropped. In addition, school meals and further training for primary school teachers should be improved. On October 30, 2010, 28,255 signatures were handed over. The initiative estimated the cost of implementing the concerns at 99 million euros per year. Due to the upcoming election to the House of Representatives , the initiators saw good circumstances for a negotiated solution because they assumed that the parties in the House of Representatives would not have a showdown with their parents parallel to the election campaign. However, since no result of the negotiations was initiated, the collection of signatures for a referendum began on July 11, 2011. However, the required quorum of 172,000 signatures was not achieved.

Tempelhof Airport as a World Heritage Site

The action alliance be-4-tempelhof.de , which had also successfully carried out a successful referendum (see referendum in Tempelhof-Schöneberg ) in Tempelhof-Schöneberg on the same topic, wanted to achieve a law through the referendum on the Tempelhof World Heritage Site and more transparency in politics , which stipulates the use of Tempelhof Airport on the basis of the land use plan of 1984 and obliges the State of Berlin to campaign for the entry of Tempelhof on the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites . Furthermore, parallel to the existing Freedom of Information Act, a right to inspect files should be established in public companies, senators should not be allowed to carry out secondary activities and should no longer be able to hold seats on boards, supervisory or administrative boards. The Senators and the President of the House of Representatives should disclose all income, perks, company shares and memberships that could represent a conflict of interest for their activities, retrospectively for three years. Finally, analogous to the regulations for manager liability in corporations , senators should be liable for damage caused by them, whereby the Federal Prosecutor's Office should have the authority to investigate.

On April 29, 2009, 24,946 were submitted to petition for the referendum, of which 21,414 were declared valid. The referendum was only partially approved by the Senate. The central concern of the referendum is not the preservation of monuments, but rather the use of Tempelhof as a commercial airport. Since, according to Article 61 of the state constitution, only one referendum on a matter may be carried out in the same electoral term of the House of Representatives, the corresponding sections of the referendum are thus inadmissible. Furthermore, not all of the concerns contained are within the competence of the State of Berlin or are in part contrary to the rule of law. The action alliance has filed a complaint with the state constitutional court against the non-admission of central parts of the referendum.

Bicycle referendum initiative

The Volksentscheid Fahrrad initiative has been committed to improving cycling in Berlin since 2016. The aim is for cyclists to be able to get around safely and comfortably so that even more citizens will use their bikes in the future. The main concerns of the initiative led by Heinrich Strossenreuther are climate protection , human health and a "Berlin worth living in". The initiative criticized the fact that the Senate had long promised measures to promote cycling hardly or only very slowly. It worked out a ten-goal law to promote cycling in Berlin (RadG) (short: "Radgesetz"), with the help of which Berlin should become bicycle-friendly. The Berlin Senate had given the mandatory cost estimate for the implementation of the referendum to be around two billion euros over a period of eight years. The cost estimate of the initiative itself, however, was well below it at 320 million euros.

In June 2016, the initiative collected signatures from across the city for the first stage of the process and submitted them to the Senate Interior Administration. A total of 105,425 signatures were collected after only 3.5 weeks (this corresponds to five times the theoretically required 20,000 signatures).

The successful initiative planned to be the first federal state to pass a cycling law together with the red-red-green Senate of Berlin . The project was originally supposed to be implemented by autumn 2017. To this end, in the summer of 2017 a dialogue group made up of members of the Berlin government coalition, the bicycle referendum initiative and other partners negotiated common cornerstones for the draft bill of a holistic "Mobility Act". According to this, the share of cycling in all distances covered within the urban environmental zone is to increase from currently 13% to 30% by 2025. In the entire state of Berlin, the proportion is to increase to 20%. In addition, Berlin is committed to "Vision Zero", ie to reduce the number of road deaths to zero. During the joint negotiation rounds, the initiative sharply criticized the Senate several times for alleged delays. In August 2017, the completed draft for the first nationwide mobility law was submitted to the Berlin Senate for voting. On October 12, 2017, the Berlin Senator for Transport, Regine Günther, announced in an interview that the planned date for the passage of the Mobility Act would be postponed. On June 28, 2018, the Cycling Act was passed as part of the Berlin Mobility Act by the Berlin House of Representatives. This achieved the goal of the referendum, it was formally withdrawn by the initiators.

Table overview

The following is a tabular overview of all popular legislative procedures carried out in Berlin since 1995, sorted by type of procedure.

See also

• Citizens' petitions and referendums in Berlin
• Direct democracy in Berlin
• Direct democracy
• Referendum (Germany)

Web links

• The regional returning officer of Berlin
• State constitution of Berlin on the state portal of Berlin
• List of all popular petitions, petitions and popular initiatives in Berlin on the website of Mehr Demokratie e. V.

Individual evidence

Laws and Regulations

• Section V (Art. 59 (2), 61, 62 and 63) of the state constitution of Berlin on the state portal of Berlin
• Section XI (Art. 100) of the state constitution of Berlin on the state portal of Berlin
• Voting Act (regulations for procedures at state level) on the website of the Berlin State Returning Officer
• State election law (PDF; 16 kB) on the state portal of Berlin
• District administration law on the state portal of Berlin
• Ordinance on the implementation of the law on popular initiatives, referendums and referendums (Voting Regulations - AbstO) (PDF; 11 kB) on the Berlin state portal
• State election regulations (PDF; 43 kB) on the state portal of Berlin
• Ordinance on the validity of state suffrage for citizens' decisions (PDF; 11 kB) on the state portal of Berlin

Official sources

1. ^ Andreas Schmidt von Puskás, the regional returning officer: Elections in Berlin. House of Representatives, District Assemblies, referendum on the new regulation of referendums and referendum in the Berlin Constitution in Berlin on September 17, 2006. (PDF) Final result. In: www.wahlen-berlin.de. Statistisches Landesamt Berlin, October 5, 2006, p. 160 , archived from the original on March 4, 2011 ; Retrieved March 4, 2011 . 
2. ^ Walter Momper: Legal admissibility of the popular initiative "Fresh Air for Berlin". (PDF; 710 kB) Letter from the President of the House of Representatives. In: Drucksache 16/4115. Berlin House of Representatives, May 11, 2011, p. 3 , accessed on May 22, 2011 . 
3. ↑ Petra Michaelis-Merzbach, the head of the state vote: Final result determined: referendum came about. (PDF; 24 kB) Press release. In: wahlen-berlin.de. Statistical Office, June 25, 2013, accessed June 25, 2013 . 
4. ↑ Berliner Wassertisch: Referendum on the disclosure of the partial privatization contracts at the Berliner Wasserbetriebe. (PDF) In: wahlen-berlin.de. Petra Michaelis-Merzbach, Berlin State Returning Officer, May 2010, p. 1 , archived from the original on March 4, 2011 ; Retrieved March 4, 2011 . 
5. ↑ Senate discloses contracts for the partial privatization of Berliner Wasserbetriebe. State of Berlin, archived from the original on February 11, 2011 ; Retrieved February 11, 2011 . 
6. ↑ Berlin water table; Senate of Berlin; Berlin House of Representatives: Official information on the referendum on the disclosure of the partial privatization contracts at Berliner Wasserbetriebe on February 13, 2011. (PDF) In: wahlen-berlin.de. Petra Michaelis-Merzbach, Berlin State Returning Officer, p. 20 , archived from the original on March 5, 2011 ; Retrieved March 5, 2011 . 
7. ↑ Petra Michaelis-Merzbach, the head of voting: Report of the head of the regional voting . (PDF) Referendum on the disclosure of the partial privatization agreements at Berliner Wasserbetriebe. In: wahlen-berlin.de. Office for Statistics Berlin-Brandenburg, February 14, 2011, p. 4 , archived from the original on February 14, 2011 ; Retrieved February 14, 2011 . 
8. ^ Initiative Pro Reli e. V .: Referendum on the introduction of the compulsory elective area ethics / religion. (htm) In: www.wahlen-berlin.de. Andreas Schmidt von Puskás, Berlin State Returning Officer, June 1, 2007, p. 1 , archived from the original on March 5, 2011 ; Retrieved March 5, 2011 . 
9. ↑ Andreas Schmidt von Puskás, Regional Returning Officer Berlin: Report of the regional voting leader, referendum on the introduction of the compulsory elective area ethics / religion on April 26, 2009. (PDF) Final result also statistical report B VII 4-1. In: www.wahlen-berlin.de. Statistisches Landesamt Berlin, May 2009, p. 1 , archived from the original on March 5, 2011 ; Retrieved March 5, 2011 . 
10. ^ Initiative for Enjoyment Berlin e. V .: Popular initiative on the lifting of the smoking ban in restaurants. (PDF) wording. In: www.wahlen-berlin.de. Andreas Schmidt von Puskás, Berlin State Returning Officer, November 2007, p. 2 , archived from the original on March 5, 2011 ; Retrieved March 5, 2011 . 
11. ↑ Senate Department for Home Affairs and Sport: Senate largely permits referendums for monument protection at Tempelhof. In: www.berlin.de. State Press Office, June 9, 2009, p. 1 , archived from the original on March 5, 2011 ; Retrieved March 5, 2011 . 

Sources of initiatives

1. ↑ Internet presence of the Turkish Federation Berlin-Brandenburg
2. ↑ Internet presence of the initiative School in Freedom
3. ↑ Internet presence of the Initiative Fresh Air for Berlin
4. ↑ Popular initiative Fresh Air for Berlin successful. Press release. (No longer available online.) People's Initiative Fresh Air for Berlin, April 14, 2011, archived from the original on April 26, 2011 ; Retrieved April 14, 2011 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
5. ↑ berliner-wassertisch.net
6. ↑ Internet presence of the popular initiative "Kita"
7. ↑ Internet presence of the Pro Reli e. V.
8. ↑ Internet presence of the association Initiative für Genuß Berlin e. V.
9. ↑ Internet presence of the State Parents' Committee in Berlin
10. ↑ Internet presence of the referendum for elementary schools
11. ↑ Mehr Demokratie eV, Landesverband Berlin / Brandenburg: Overview of referendums. Retrieved February 6, 2019 . 
12. ↑ Internet presence of the action alliance be-4-tempelhof.de
13. ↑ Coalition be-4-tempelhof.de: Tempelhof Airport: New petition. Wording of the referendum. In: www.volksentscheid-berlin.de.de. October 2008, p. 1 , archived from the original on March 5, 2011 ; Retrieved March 5, 2011 . 
14. ↑ Internet presence of the Mietvolksentscheid Berlin e. V.

Press coverage

1. ↑ Sabine Beikler: Referendum: Gearing up for the water table. In: Der Tagesspiegel Online. January 19, 2011, archived from the original on January 27, 2011 ; Retrieved March 6, 2011 . 
2. ↑ Senate disputes correct conclusions from referendum . In: Die Welt , February 15, 2011
3. ↑ The water privatization contract published by the taz ( memento of the original of November 21, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 7.7 MB) 
4. ^ Ddp: Referendum on water companies on February 13th. In: Märkische Oderzeitung Online. November 23, 2010, archived from the original on February 12, 2011 ; Retrieved February 12, 2011 . 

Other evidence

1. ↑ Complete listing of all people's legislative procedures in Berlin on the website of the Berlin / Brandenburg regional association of Mehr Demokratie e. V.
2. ↑ Berlin Water Contracts published. Press release. Veolia Wasser, November 10, 2010, archived from the original on February 11, 2011 ; Retrieved February 11, 2011 . 

Remarks

1. ^ Constitution of Berlin - Section V: The Legislation , at www.berlin.de, accessed on August 4, 2018
2. ^ Constitution of Berlin - Section IX: Transitional and Final Provisions , at www.berlin.de, accessed on August 4, 2018
3. ↑ Voting Act Act on popular initiatives, referendums and referendums , at www.wahlen-berlin.de, accessed on August 4, 2018
4. ↑ In Hamburg z. B. in a passed by referendum and then changed by the citizenship law z. B. the possibility of an optional referendum .
5. ↑ Section 40B of the Voting Act (PDF)
6. ↑ ^{a b} Objectives of the Berliner Volksinitiative Schule in Freiheit ( Memento of the original from November 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
7. ↑ Verbatim minutes (PDF; 160 kB) of the meeting of the Committee on Education, Youth and Family on April 10, 2011.
8. ↑ Resolution recommendation ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 42 kB) of the parliamentary committee for education, youth and family. 
9. ↑ Sebastian Erb: Vattenfall turn off the electricity . In: taz (Berlin), March 5, 2012
10. ↑ The Alliance
11. ↑ Ulrich Zawatka-Gerlach: Senate rejects referendum on energy . In: Der Tagesspiegel , August 15, 2012
12. ^ Statement of the Senate on the popular initiative "New Energy for Berlin - Democratic, Ecological, Social". (PDF) Berlin House of Representatives, printed matter No. 17/0452.
13. ^ Page no longer available , search in web archives: Official Journal for Berlin from January 25, 2013 , p. 110
14. ↑ Law , on volksentscheid-fahrrad.de, accessed on August 4, 2018
15. ↑ Background text on the bicycle referendum . In: Bicycle referendum . ( volksentscheid-fahrrad.de [accessed on October 28, 2017]).
16. ^ Matthias Breitinger: Referendum bicycle: Hundred thousand want the wheel law . In: The time . June 14, 2016, ISSN  0044-2070 ( zeit.de [accessed October 28, 2017]).
17. ↑ Referendum: Berlin gets a wheel law . In: The time . April 6, 2017, ISSN  0044-2070 ( zeit.de [accessed October 28, 2017]).
18. ↑ Referendum on bicycles lets lawyers examine the bill on the Internet. Retrieved October 28, 2017 . 
19. ↑ Project Tempo 30 is making slow progress. Retrieved October 28, 2017 . 
20. ↑ ^{a b c} At the time of the popular initiative, a free collection was not yet possible, so that all signatures had to be made at offices and checked there directly for admissibility.
21. ↑ At the time of the referendum, there was a quorum of 10% signatures that had to be achieved in two months.
22. ↑ Airmen can be noisy at night . In: taz ; accessed February 14, 2013
23. ↑ Figures on the referendum on the “night flight ban”. Regional Returning Officer of Berlin; accessed February 14, 2013

Please note the information on legal issues!