Summary

The Swiss Federal Chancellery launched a voluntary code of conduct for signature collection in popular initiatives and optional referendums on March 26, 2026. The code obligates participants to comply with standards such as traceability of commercially collected lists and prevention of unfair practices. The measure is based on voluntary self-regulation without legal binding force. Since autumn 2024, intensified controls and awareness campaigns have shown effect: suspected cases of forged signatures have declined significantly.

Persons

Topics

  • Direct Democracy
  • Signature Forgeries
  • Self-Regulation
  • Popular Initiatives and Referendums

Clarus Lead

The code of conduct marks a strategic middle path in Swiss democracy policy: it avoids legal tightening that would have required a constitutional amendment, but relies on personal responsibility instead of laissez-faire. The track record to date – a clear decline in suspected cases since autumn 2024 – legitimizes this approach and signals that institutional integrity can be secured even without coercive measures. Whether the code remains effective in the long term depends on adoption by initiative committees, parties, and collection organizations.

Detailed Summary

The Federal Chancellery had already filed initial criminal complaints against allegedly forged signatures in 2022. After suspected cases increased in early 2024, it systematically intensified its measures from autumn 2024 onward: expansion of enhanced controls, introduction of reporting monitoring for municipalities and cantons, scientific exchange, and awareness campaigns for committees and authorities. In parallel, the Federal Chancellery filed four additional criminal complaints.

The new code supplements these control measures through voluntary standards. Participants declare by joining that they comply with good practices – such as traceability of commercially collected lists in order to identify collectors in case of suspicion. The deliberately low-threshold access to signature collection is preserved; the code is not legally binding. This design reflects the outcome of the public consultation: there is a sufficient number of actors supporting voluntary self-regulation.

Key Messages

  • The code of conduct relies on voluntary self-regulation rather than legal coercive measures, thereby preserving low-threshold access to direct democratic participation.
  • Since autumn 2024, intensified controls and awareness campaigns have shown measurable success: suspected cases of forged signatures have declined significantly.
  • Traceability of commercially collected signature lists is a central control feature for uncovering unfair practices.

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence: On what concrete data is the claim of a "significant" decline in suspected cases since autumn 2024 based – what are the case numbers before and after?

  2. Source Validity: Have the four criminal complaints filed already been heard in court or do they remain in preliminary investigation? How meaningful is a preliminary assessment without completed proceedings?

  3. Conflicts of Interest: Which actors have joined the code to date – particularly commercial collection organizations that carry the highest forgery risk?

  4. Causality: Can the decline in suspected cases be clearly attributed to the autumn 2024 measures, or do other factors play a role (declining number of initiatives, increased public attention)?

  5. Feasibility: How is compliance with the voluntary code monitored and sanctioned if there is no legal binding force?

  6. Side Effects: Could the focus on forgeries distract from other integrity problems (pressure on signatories, data trading)?

Bibliography

Primary Source: Integrity of Signature Collection: Launch of the Code of Conduct – Federal Chancellery, 26.03.2026

Supplementary Resources:

Verification Status: ✓ 26.03.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: 26.03.2026