Next Voting Sunday
29 November 2026
Federal
Federal decree on additional funding for OASI pensions by increasing the VAT rate
Ballot question
Do you want to accept the Federal Decree of 19 June 2026 on the additional funding of the OASI by increasing value-added tax?
Requires a double majority: a majority of voters and a majority of the cantons.
admin.ch English summary (Link)
On 29 November 2026, Swiss citizens will vote on the federal decree on additional funding for OASI pensions by increasing the VAT rate.
In March 2024, Swiss voters approved an initiative calling for an extra 13th instalment of the OASI pension to be paid each year. This 13th pension payment will be made for the first time in December 2026 to the around 2.6 million people who receive an OASI pension. This will cost over CHF 4 billion initially and over CHF 5 billion later on. The federal government must cover a good fifth of the additional cost. At present, how the remainder is to be funded is undecided. From the outset, more will be spent in meeting the cost of the 13th pension payment than is being received in OASI contributions. Without additional revenue, the deficit will grow year on year and the OASI scheme will find itself in an increasingly precarious financial position.
Parliament has therefore decided to finance part of the 13th OASI pension payment by increasing value-added tax (VAT) by 0.4 per cent. There will be no increase in VAT on certain everyday goods such as food and medicines. The increase will generate additional revenue for the OASI fund estimated at CHF 1.4 billion a year. Together with the federal contribution, it will cover around half of the additional costs of the 13th OASI pension payment. This will reduce the annual deficit caused by the additional expenditure on the 13th OASI pension payment, and the OASI's reserves will decline at a slower rate. A vote must be held on whether to raise the rate of VAT. The increase cannot come into force until the start of 2028 at the earliest. Consequently, there will be no additional funding for the 13th OASI pension payment in 2026 and 2027.
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
In March 2024, Swiss voters approved the initiative for a 13th OASI pension. The 13th pension will be paid out for the first time in December 2026 to the roughly 2.6 million pensioners. This will cost over CHF 4 billion to begin with, and later over CHF 5 billion. The federal government must bear a good fifth of this cost. The rest is currently unfinanced. Already in 2026, the OASI will spend more on the 13th pension than it takes in. Without additional revenue, the deficit will grow from year to year and the OASI will fall increasingly into financial difficulty.
Parliament has therefore decided to finance part of the 13th OASI pension by increasing value-added tax (VAT) by 0.4 percentage points. VAT on certain everyday goods such as food and medicines will not be raised. The increase gives the OASI additional revenue estimated at CHF 1.4 billion a year. Together with the federal contribution, it covers roughly half of the additional costs of the 13th OASI pension. As a result, the annual deficits caused by the additional expenditure on the 13th OASI pension shrink, and the OASI's reserves (the compensation fund) decline less quickly. An increase in VAT must be put to a vote. It can come into force at the earliest at the start of 2028. There will therefore be no additional funding for the 13th OASI pension payments in 2026 and 2027.
The Federal Council and Parliament recommend a "yes". They want a financially stable OASI, and the VAT increase for the 13th OASI pension is an important step towards this. Through VAT, the costs of expanding the OASI are spread across all generations. Certain everyday goods such as food are exempt from the increase.
A minority in Parliament opposes the proposal. It wants to finance the 13th OASI pension within the framework of the next reform. The OASI should be stabilised financially not only through additional revenue, but also through structural measures such as raising the retirement age.
Press
Coverage and commentary from the media, presenting a range of views. These are the outlets' positions, not the site's.
Swissinfo.ch (Link) — Explains the proposed 0.4-point VAT increase to fund the 13th OASI pension, setting supporters' argument that it spreads the cost across generations against opponents' concern that it strains purchasing power without structural reform.
The Local (Link) — Rounds up the four November votes and notes early polls pointing to rejection of the VAT increase and the debate over whether the pension should instead be funded by structural reform such as a higher retirement age.
Le Temps (Link) — Interview with trade union leader Pierre-Yves Maillard defending the VAT increase as protection for the OASI, set against right-wing and public-sector criticism that it burdens consumers.
Popular initiative 'For a restriction on fireworks'
Ballot question
Do you want to accept the Federal Popular Initiative 'For a restriction on fireworks'?
Requires a double majority: a majority of voters and a majority of the cantons.
admin.ch English summary (Link)
On 29 November 2026, Swiss citizens will vote on the popular initiative 'For a restriction on fireworks'.
Fireworks elicit a wide range of reactions. For some, they are a traditional part of the 1 August celebrations and, increasingly, of New Year's Eve festivities as well. For others, fireworks are a nuisance that cause noise and pollution and frighten animals. Today, numerous regulations govern the use of fireworks, such as age limits and licensing requirements. In addition, the cantons and communes may restrict or prohibit the sale and use of fireworks, thereby minimising their negative impact.
The authors of the popular initiative 'For a restriction on fireworks' are calling for better protection for people, animals and the natural environment against noise, air pollution, litter, accidents and fires caused by fireworks. The initiative seeks to ban the sale and use of fireworks that produce noise. It leaves open the question of which fireworks will be considered noisy and should therefore be banned. According to the authors of the initiative, low-noise fireworks such as Bengal lights and conventional volcanoes will still be permitted. In addition, the cantons could grant exemptions for events of supra-regional significance, such as the National Day on 1 August or other public festivals. However, even on those occasions, individuals should not be permitted to set off noisy fireworks.
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
Fireworks provoke very different reactions. For some, they traditionally belong to 1 August and, increasingly, to New Year's Eve as well. For others, fireworks are a nuisance that causes noise and pollution and startles animals. Today, numerous regulations govern the use of fireworks, such as age limits and permit requirements. In addition, the cantons and the communes may restrict or prohibit the sale and use of fireworks. They thereby have the possibility of reducing the negative effects of fireworks.
The initiators demand stronger protection of people, animals and nature from the noise, air pollutants, waste, accidents and fires caused by fireworks. The popular initiative "For a restriction on fireworks" seeks to ban the sale and use of fireworks that produce noise. It leaves open which fireworks count as noise-producing and should therefore be banned. According to the initiators, low-noise fireworks such as Bengal lights and conventional volcanoes should remain permitted. In addition, the cantons could grant exemption permits for events of supra-regional importance, such as the National Day on 1 August or other public festivals. Even at such events, however, individuals should not be allowed to set off noise-producing fireworks.
For the Federal Council and Parliament, the initiative goes too far. For many people, fireworks are part of the celebrations on 1 August or New Year's Eve. The burdens caused by fireworks are limited to a few days a year. Their use is already heavily regulated today. The cantons and the communes can restrict fireworks further.
According to the initiative committee, the initiative protects people, animals and the environment and creates clear national rules. It sets in where the burden arises: with loud, banging fireworks in private use. Public fireworks and atmospheric, quiet fireworks such as volcanoes would remain possible.
Press
Coverage and commentary from the media, presenting a range of views. These are the outlets' positions, not the site's.
Swissinfo.ch (Link) — Explainer laying out the initiative's call to ban noisy fireworks and the arguments of animal-welfare supporters against defenders of a popular tradition.
Le News (Link) — English-language piece presenting the case against a ban (tradition, local flexibility, business) and the case for it (animal welfare, pollution, safety), and noting a strong poll lead for the yes side.
Swissinfo.ch (Link) — Reports an early poll showing the initiative near 70 per cent support across all political camps and language regions.
Popular initiative 'Yes to fair federal taxes for married couples, finally ending discrimination against marriage!'
Ballot question
Do you want to accept the Federal Popular Initiative 'Yes to fair federal taxes for married couples, finally ending discrimination against marriage!'?
Requires a double majority: a majority of voters and a majority of the cantons.
admin.ch English summary (Link)
On 29 November 2026, Swiss citizens will vote on the popular initiative 'Yes to fair federal taxes for married couples, finally ending discrimination against marriage!'.
At present, married couples and unmarried couples are taxed differently. With the introduction of individual taxation, which was approved by the electorate on 8 March 2026, this difference in treatment will be eliminated. From 2032, all taxpayers will be taxed individually at federal and cantonal level. In other words: each person will pay tax on their own income and assets.
In contrast to the individual taxation system, the initiative proposes that a married couple's incomes should continue to be aggregated for the purposes of direct federal taxation. Furthermore, married couples should not be treated less favourably than other taxpayers. Both proposals should be set out in the Constitution. Parliament has three years to enact legislation to implement the initiative. If the new law does not come into force by 2030, the Federal Council will have to introduce what is termed an 'alternative tax calculation method': the direct federal tax payable by a married couple will be calculated both on the basis of joint taxation and on the basis of separate taxation for unmarried persons. The couple will then pay the lower amount. The financial implications of the initiative depend whether it is ultimately implemented by the Federal Council or Parliament. Based on current tax rates and depending on how the changes to the law are implemented, the overall direct federal tax burden is expected fall to 3 billion a year, an estimated reduction of CHF 680 million, mainly benefiting married couples. At cantonal level, however, individual taxation would apply from 2032 onwards unless the law is amended before then.
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
Today, married couples and unmarried couples are taxed differently. With the individual taxation approved by voters on 8 March 2026, this difference in treatment falls away. From 2032, all taxpayers will be taxed individually at federal and cantonal level. That means: every person pays tax on their own income and assets.
In contrast to individual taxation, the initiative provides that a married couple's incomes continue to be added together for the direct federal tax. In addition, married couples should not be disadvantaged compared with other taxpayers. Both should be newly written into the Constitution. Parliament has three years to implement the initiative by law. If no corresponding law comes into force by 2030, the Federal Council must introduce the so-called alternative tax calculation: the direct federal tax of a married couple is calculated both on the basis of joint taxation and on the basis of the taxation of unmarried persons. The married couple then pays the lower amount. The financial effects of the initiative depend on how it is implemented by the Federal Council or Parliament. Based on today's tax rates, and depending on the implementation, married couples in particular are expected to be relieved by an estimated CHF 680 million to CHF 3 billion a year in direct federal tax. At cantonal level, however, individual taxation would apply from 2032 unless the law is amended before then.
The Federal Council and Parliament recommend rejecting the initiative. The marriage penalty has already been abolished with individual taxation. The initiative privileges married couples over unmarried couples and creates new uncertainty, because it can lead to contradictory tax systems at federal and cantonal level.
For the initiative committee, the initiative stands for modernity, fairness and simplicity. It brings a pragmatic solution and anchors a clear principle in the Constitution: married couples are assessed jointly for the direct federal tax and must not be disadvantaged compared with other taxpayers.
Press
Coverage and commentary from the media, presenting a range of views. These are the outlets' positions, not the site's.
Swissinfo.ch (Link) — Explains the initiative to keep joint taxation for married couples at federal level and why it returns to the ballot after voters approved individual taxation in March.
Le Temps (Link) — Examines whether voters would reverse themselves eight months after approving individual taxation, and the contradiction the initiative could create between federal and cantonal tax systems.
SRF (Link) — German-language analysis of what a yes to the Centre party's initiative would mean, and the risk of parallel tax systems at federal and cantonal level.
Amendment to the War Materiel Act
Ballot question
Do you want to accept the Amendment of 19 December 2025 to the Federal Act on War Materiel (War Materiel Act, WMA)?
admin.ch English summary (Link)
On 29 November 2026, Swiss citizens will vote on the amendment to the War Materiel Act.
The War Materiel Act lays down the conditions by which weapons, weapon systems and weapon components may be exported. For example, an export licence will not be granted if the country of destination is involved in an armed conflict or is violating human rights. An export is also prohibited if there is a risk that the materiel will be used against the civilian population or passed on without authorisation.
Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has significantly worsened the security situation in Europe. To enable the Federal Council to respond appropriately to the new challenges, Parliament has decided to amend the conditions governing the export of war materiel. It will become possible for war materiel to be supplied to a partner state involved in an armed conflict provided this is compatible with Switzerland's neutrality and its foreign and security policy interests. In addition, the Federal Council may now choose not to follow the authorisation criteria if exceptional circumstances apply and this is necessary to safeguard Switzerland's interests. Furthermore, countries that purchase Swiss war materiel will no longer be required in every case to give an assurance that they will only pass it on to other countries with Switzerland's consent. Authorisation must continue to be consistent with the law on neutrality, human rights and other international obligations. A referendum was called against these amendments, with the result that the bill is being put to a popular vote.
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The War Materiel Act sets out the conditions under which weapons, weapon systems and weapon components may be exported. An export is not authorised, for example, if the destination country is involved in an armed conflict or violates human rights. An export is also excluded if there is a risk that the materiel will be used against the civilian population or passed on without authorisation.
Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has considerably worsened the security situation in Europe. So that the Federal Council can respond appropriately to the new challenges, Parliament has decided to adjust the conditions for exporting war materiel. Provided it is compatible with neutrality and with Switzerland's foreign and security policy interests, war materiel may now be supplied to a partner state that is involved in an armed conflict. The Federal Council may now also depart from the authorisation criteria if exceptional circumstances exist and this is necessary to safeguard Switzerland's interests. States that buy Swiss war materiel no longer have to assure in every case that they will pass it on to other countries only with Switzerland's consent. Authorisations must continue to be compatible at all times with the law of neutrality, human rights and other international obligations. Signatures were collected against these changes, so the proposal is being put to a popular vote.
The Federal Council and Parliament recommend a "yes". With the planned adjustments, they want to ensure that Switzerland can export war materiel to partner states and maintain a competitive armaments industry at home. This is a prerequisite for neutral Switzerland to be able to defend itself in the event of an attack.
Opponents, who collected the signatures against the amendment, argue that weakening the War Materiel Act makes it possible for Swiss weapons to be sold or passed on to unjust states. This considerably increases the risk that they end up with terrorist groups and in wars. The change to the law, they say, massively harms security and Swiss neutrality.
Press
Coverage and commentary from the media, presenting a range of views. These are the outlets' positions, not the site's.
Swissinfo.ch (Link) — Explainer on the amendment's easing of arms-export rules for partner states and the removal of the systematic re-export ban, and the tensions with European partners over deliveries to Ukraine.
Defense News (Link) — English trade-press report on the amendment and the challenge from neutrality proponents, noting it would allow arms shipments to 36 Western countries but not Ukraine.
Watson (Link) — German-language commentary arguing the looser law still leaves gaps through which Swiss weapons could reach conflict zones, a position critical of the revision.
Communal (Zurich)
Popular initiative 'Yes to 20 per cent senior housing in city-owned properties' and counter-proposal
Ballot question
Do you accept the popular initiative 'Yes to 20 per cent senior housing in city-owned properties' and the Municipal Parliament's counter-proposal?
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The popular initiative "Yes to 20 per cent senior housing in city-owned properties" demands that the City of Zürich aim for one fifth of the rental apartments in each of its own residential properties to go to people aged 60 and over. Properties where age-appropriate adaptation would be economically disproportionate are to be exempt, with compensation sought in other properties, and the city would report each year on the share of housing for older people. The City Council and the Municipal Parliament support the initiative's basic thrust but reject it, preferring a more flexible rule. The Municipal Parliament is therefore putting a direct counter-proposal to voters, based on the City Council's draft but amended in parliament.
The counter-proposal replaces the fixed one-fifth figure with a dynamic target tied to demographics: the share of residents aged over 60 in the municipal housing stock should correspond at least to that age group's share of the city's population, and it is applied to the municipal housing stock as a whole — mainly the properties managed by Liegenschaften Stadt Zürich — rather than to each individual property. The public-law housing foundations, in particular the Stiftung Alterswohnungen der Stadt Zürich (SAW), are expressly exempt. The counter-proposal also raises the SAW's endowment capital by CHF 100 million, paid out over five years from 2027, of which CHF 60 million remains in the foundation's assets. Voters decide on the initiative (A), the counter-proposal (B), and, if both pass, on a deciding question (C) as to which should come into force.
The Municipal Parliament recommends a "no" to the initiative (85 to 20 votes) and a "yes" to the counter-proposal (78 to 19 votes), and on the deciding question the counter-proposal. Its majority argues that a flexible quota that follows demographic change and the population share of the over-60s is more effective than a rigid 20 per cent per property, and that strengthening the SAW will provide more non-profit, affordable housing for older people.
The City Council rejects both the initiative and the counter-proposal. It supports the initiative's aim but prefers a more differentiated and flexible rule, and sees no current need for an additional SAW capital increase: voters already approved an extra CHF 100 million in 2024, and the city's debt is set to rise sharply, so a further CHF 100 million would mean cutting or postponing other projects.
The initiative committee recommends a "yes" to the initiative and a "no" to the CHF 100 million counter-proposal: the initiative improves older people's access to senior housing without burdening taxpayers with additional millions. The FDP minority rejects both the initiative and the counter-proposal: it argues that quotas and more money do not solve the housing problem but only redistribute it, and that what is needed is more housing and simpler, faster procedures.
Press
Coverage and commentary from the media, presenting a range of views. These are the outlets' positions, not the site's.
NZZ (Link) — Explains the vote on the initiative for a fixed 20 per cent share of senior housing in city-owned properties and the counter-proposal with a dynamic, demography-linked target plus CHF 100 million for the SAW foundation.
Tages-Anzeiger (Link) — Outlines the two competing proposals — the initiative's rigid 20 per cent quota and the counter-proposal's flexible rule tied to the population share of over-60s — and the additional capital for senior housing.
Limmattaler Zeitung (Link) — Reports on the city's vote on the senior-housing initiative and its counter-proposal, laying out the choice between a fixed quota and a more flexible approach.
Previous Voting Sundays
27 September 2026
Federal
Safeguard Swiss neutrality (Neutrality Initiative)
Ballot question
Do you want to accept the Federal Popular Initiative 'Safeguard Swiss neutrality (Neutrality Initiative)'?
Requires a double majority: a majority of voters and a majority of the cantons.
admin.ch English summary (Link)
On 27 September 2026, Swiss citizens will vote on the Federal Popular Initiative ‘Safeguard Swiss neutrality (Neutrality Initiative)’.
Switzerland’s neutrality has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution since 1848. It is internationally recognised and guaranteed by international law. Switzerland uses its neutrality to safeguard its security, independence and prosperity. Neutrality helps Switzerland to provide its good offices. While preserving its neutrality, Switzerland works with other countries to strengthen its security. It may also participate in sanctions regimes. By doing so, it supports the international order. For example, following Russia’s attack on Ukraine – which contravened international law – Switzerland largely adopted the EU’s sanctions.
The initiative calls for a stricter approach to neutrality and seeks to enshrine in the Constitution the provision that Switzerland’s neutrality is perpetual and armed. Switzerland should not join any military or defence alliance, nor should it cooperate with any such alliance – unless it is under military attack or an attack is imminent. Furthermore, it must not take part in military conflicts between third countries, nor impose sanctions on belligerent states. Exceptions would include United Nations (UN) sanctions and measures designed to prevent the circumvention of sanctions. Lastly, Switzerland should use its neutrality to its advantage in its role as a mediator.
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
Neutrality has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution since 1848. It is internationally recognised and guaranteed by international law. Switzerland uses its neutrality to safeguard its security, independence and prosperity, and it draws on its good offices. While preserving its neutrality, Switzerland cooperates with other states to strengthen its security and may adopt sanctions; this supports the international order. For example, after Russia’s attack on Ukraine, which violated international law, Switzerland largely adopted the European Union’s sanctions.
The initiative calls for a stricter practice of neutrality and wants to write into the Constitution that Swiss neutrality is perpetual and armed. Switzerland would join no military or defence alliance and would not cooperate with one, except in the event of a direct military attack or preparations for such an attack. It would take part in no military conflicts between third countries and would impose no sanctions on belligerent states. Exceptions would be United Nations (UN) sanctions and measures that prevent sanctions from being circumvented. Finally, Switzerland would use its neutrality in its role as a mediator.
Proponents argue that strict, credible neutrality is the best way to keep Switzerland out of armed conflict and to preserve its role as a reliable international mediator. They say that adopting sanctions against belligerent states, such as the European Union measures against Russia, has made Switzerland a party to a war.
Opponents, including the Federal Council and Parliament, reply that the current flexible practice of neutrality has proved its worth for more than 175 years and preserves Switzerland’s room for manoeuvre in a deteriorating security situation. They argue that the initiative would hamper security-policy cooperation and deprive Switzerland of an instrument for defending its interests, without making the country any more neutral: Switzerland is and remains neutral.
For food security – through increased sustainable domestic production, more plant-based food and clean drinking water (Food Initiative)
Ballot question
Do you want to accept the Federal Popular Initiative 'For food security – through increased sustainable domestic production, more plant-based food and clean drinking water (Food Initiative)'?
Requires a double majority: a majority of voters and a majority of the cantons.
admin.ch English summary (Link)
On 27 September 2026, Swiss citizens will vote on the Federal Popular Initiative ‘For food security – through increased sustainable domestic production, more plant-based food and clean drinking water (Food Initiative)’.
Switzerland’s population should have access to sufficient quantities of high-quality and affordable food at all times. To achieve this, the federal government must create the appropriate framework. This mandate is enshrined in the Federal Constitution. At present, Swiss agriculture meets just under half of the country’s food requirements; the rest is imported. To protect the environment, biodiversity and drinking water, the Swiss agricultural sector must comply with a number of requirements.
The food initiative wants Switzerland to produce significantly more of its own food. The aim is to make Switzerland less dependent on other countries. In future, at least 70 per cent of the food consumed in Switzerland should be produced domestically. This requires the Swiss agricultural sector to produce fewer animal-based foods and more plant-based foods. This way, more people can be fed using the same amount of land. In addition, the initiative aims to better protect the environment and drinking water, and to preserve soil fertility and biodiversity. Farmers should use fewer plant protection products and fertilisers. The aim is to achieve these targets within ten years of the initiative being adopted.
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The Federal Constitution requires the federal government to create the framework so that the population has access at all times to enough high-quality, affordable food. At present, Swiss agriculture covers just under half of the country’s food needs; the rest is imported. To protect the environment, biodiversity and drinking water, agriculture must already meet a series of requirements.
The initiative wants Switzerland to produce significantly more of its own food, so that the country depends less on other countries. In future, at least 70 per cent of the food consumed in Switzerland would be produced domestically. To reach this, agriculture would produce fewer animal-based and more plant-based foods, so that more people can be fed on the same area. The initiative also wants to protect the environment and drinking water better and to preserve soil fertility and biodiversity. Farmers would use fewer plant protection products and fertilisers. The targets would have to be met within ten years of adoption.
Proponents argue that Swiss agriculture is not currently set up to feed the population in a crisis and that drinking water is not sufficiently protected. They want to strengthen the supply of domestic, mainly plant-based food and clean drinking water.
Opponents, including the Federal Council and Parliament, say the initiative goes too far: its targets are hardly attainable within ten years. The state would have to intervene heavily in production and eating habits, which would cost a great deal and restrict consumers’ freedom of choice. They also argue that the 70 per cent target is unrealistic and would make food more expensive.
Cantonal (Zurich)
Teaching Staff Act (LPG) — amendment (adjustment of the newly defined professional mandate)
Ballot question
Do you accept the amendment of 2 March 2026 to the Teaching Staff Act (adjustment of the newly defined professional mandate)?
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The amendment to the Teaching Staff Act responds to the rising workload of compulsory-school teachers. It grants them higher flat-rate time credits — more time to prepare and follow up lessons — together with several administrative simplifications. This leads to recurring additional costs of around CHF 83 million a year. A minority of the Cantonal Parliament and 102 municipalities collected the signatures to put the change to a popular vote.
The Cantonal Parliament majority recommends a "yes". It argues that teachers now carry more additional duties than before and that these are not adequately compensated. To safeguard school quality in the long term, all teachers would be credited one additional hour per weekly lesson (59 instead of 58 hours a year), and class teachers would be credited 160 hours (up from 100). Merging activity areas and removing some time-recording would ease the administrative load, and raising the minimum employment level from 35% to 40% would help cover the need for teaching staff.
Opponents — a minority of the Cantonal Parliament, the Government Council and the association of municipal presidents speaking for the 102 municipalities — reject the change. They say the higher time credits amount to a disguised pay rise for a profession that is already well paid, and that the additional CHF 83 million would be spread across all teachers rather than targeted at the class teachers who carry the extra load. Around CHF 67 million would fall on the municipalities, which would have to raise taxes or cut other services. The Government Council supports the underlying aim but rejects the change as adopted: it had proposed a less costly version, at around CHF 31 million, focused on strengthening class teachers.
Patient Act and Health Act — amendment (counter-proposal to the popular initiative 'Self-determination at the end of life, also in retirement and nursing homes')
Ballot question
Do you accept the amendment of 30 March 2026 to the Patient Act and the Health Act (counter-proposal to the popular initiative 'Self-determination at the end of life, also in retirement and nursing homes')?
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The amendment is the Cantonal Parliament's counter-proposal to the popular initiative "Self-determination at the end of life, also in retirement and nursing homes", which has been withdrawn in its favour. Under current law, only retirement and nursing homes that are run or commissioned by a municipality must tolerate assisted suicide on their premises. The counter-proposal would extend this duty of toleration to all retirement and nursing homes in the canton, and to hospitals and rehabilitation clinics. A minority of the Cantonal Parliament collected the signatures to put the counter-proposal to a popular vote.
The Cantonal Parliament majority recommends a "yes". It argues that whether assisted suicide can be used in the place of one's final phase of life should not depend on the individual institution, and that a resident's freedom to decide the time and manner of their own death should take precedence over an institution's freedom of belief and conscience. Psychiatric institutions and prisons would be expressly exempt from the duty.
Opponents — a minority of the Cantonal Parliament and the Government Council — reject the counter-proposal. The minority says around 90 per cent of homes already permit assisted suicide, so no state compulsion is needed, and that the change would infringe the freedom of private homes that refuse it on ethical or religious grounds, as well as of residents who deliberately chose a home without assisted suicide. The Government Council rejects extending the duty to hospitals and rehabilitation clinics, which are primarily curative: it argues that the duty sits uneasily with palliative care, and that in practice individual solutions are already found.
Communal (Zurich)
BZO partial revision 'High-rise buildings' and counter-proposal
Ballot question
Do you accept the partial revision of the Building and Zoning Ordinance (BZO) 'High-rise buildings' and the City Council's counter-proposal?
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
High-rise buildings have shaped Zürich's cityscape since the 1950s. Special rules in the Building and Zoning Ordinance (BZO), a supplementary plan and guidelines govern where and how they may be built. The City Council revised these rules and proposed an amendment; the Municipal Parliament substantially changed it and approved its own version, against which 42 members collected the signatures to force a popular vote. The City Council now puts forward its original version as a counter-proposal, so voters decide on both proposals — A (the Municipal Parliament's) and B (the City Council's) — and, if both pass, on a deciding question as to which should take effect.
Both proposals tighten the rules for high-rise buildings and add no additional building capacity. The Municipal Parliament's version shrinks the high-rise zones markedly, especially the 40-metre zones, and adds stricter requirements: a competition procedure for every high-rise, a design plan approved by the Municipal Parliament from 60 metres, and any additional capacity devoted fully to affordable housing. The City Council's version keeps the overall zone area as today but excludes sensitive locations, widens the zones for buildings of 25 to 40 metres, and applies its stricter requirements from 80 metres.
On the deciding question, the Municipal Parliament recommends proposal A and the City Council proposal B. The majority of the Municipal Parliament (the Alternative List, the Greens, the SP and the SVP) recommends proposal A: it argues that A is a broad compromise to prevent a wave of demolitions and displacement through many new high-rises, and that it secures democratic control, a concrete benefit for the public, and housing for all income segments. The minority (the FDP, the GLP and Die Mitte) recommends proposal B: to protect green space while creating housing, the city must build upwards, and the parliament's version amounts to prevention guidelines that would further tighten the housing shortage.
Remuneration of the Municipal Parliament (total revision of the remuneration regulation)
Ballot question
Do you accept the total revision of the regulation on the remuneration of the Municipal Parliament?
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The remuneration of Municipal Parliament members was last adjusted in 1998. Since then the time the mandate demands has grown to roughly a 30 per cent workload, comparable to that of a member of the Cantonal Parliament. The Municipal Parliament therefore revised its remuneration ordinance; 90 members from across the parties collected the signatures to put the revision to a popular vote.
The revision replaces the expense allowance with a fixed basic remuneration of CHF 500 a month, adjusts the sitting fees, and raises total remuneration by around 30 per cent on average, to reflect inflation since 1998 and the greater time commitment. It also improves social protection for members, through pension-fund coverage, a childcare contribution and support for assistance needs.
The majority of the Municipal Parliament — the SP, the FDP, the Greens, the GLP, Die Mitte/EVP and the Alternative List — recommends approval. It argues that the increase offsets inflation and the much greater workload, that it makes the office compatible with work and family life, and that it will curb the high turnover of members. The minority (the SVP) argues against: the voters rejected an increase only last year, the existing remuneration is already generous, and the revision amounts to self-service at the expense of Zürich's taxpayers.
Framework credit of CHF 80 million for public-transport infrastructure
Ballot question
Do you approve the framework credit of CHF 80 million for the planning and project development of public-transport infrastructure and the implementation of operational network optimisation?
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The voters of the City of Zürich have set the goal of reaching net zero by 2040, and expanding public transport is a central lever to that end. The City Council's Network Development Strategy 2040 aims to build a ring system of new direct connections, relieve the city centre and better connect the growing districts in the north and west. The framework credit of CHF 80 million funds the planning and project development of this infrastructure and the implementation of operational network optimizations, such as service-track connections and turning loops.
The City Council and the Municipal Parliament recommend a "yes". They argue that early planning of large, time-intensive projects creates the basis for faster expansion, and that quick, inexpensive operational measures can make public transport more reliable and its connections faster and more direct.
The minority (the Alternative List and the SVP) argues against. The Alternative List calls the credit an ineffective compromise: most planned measures already fall within the ordinary financial powers of the City Council and the Municipal Parliament, and a lump-sum credit is the wrong instrument. The SVP says projects should not be pre-financed while it is unclear whether the canton will take them over, and that financing public-transport infrastructure is the canton's task.
Supplementary credit for the Zürcher Kunstgesellschaft and the Zürcher Kunsthaus
Ballot question
Do you approve the supplementary credit for the Zürcher Kunstgesellschaft and the Stiftung Zürcher Kunsthaus, increasing recurring expenditure by CHF 7.3 million per year to CHF 25.7932 million?
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The Kunsthaus Zürich, Switzerland's largest art museum, is carried by two bodies: the Zürcher Kunstgesellschaft operates the museum, and the Stiftung Zürcher Kunsthaus owns and maintains the buildings. Since the 2021 Chipperfield extension doubled the exhibition area, operating and maintenance costs have risen, and both bodies are running deficits. The city currently supports the Kunstgesellschaft with around CHF 13.6 million and the Stiftung with around CHF 4.9 million a year. The supplementary credit raises these recurring contributions by CHF 7.3 million a year to around CHF 25.8 million: CHF 4 million more for the Kunstgesellschaft and CHF 3.3 million more for the Stiftung.
The City Council and the Municipal Parliament recommend a "yes". They argue that the higher contributions are needed to keep the buildings properly maintained and safely operated, to fund better working conditions and to cover depreciation. If the credit is rejected, the Kunstgesellschaft would have to substantially reduce its programme and staff, and from 2028 the Stiftung's reserves would no longer suffice for maintenance and the necessary renovations.
The minority (the SVP) argues against: the Kunsthaus already receives more than CHF 18 million of public money a year and still runs deficits despite record visitor numbers, so further subsidies are not justified.
New legal basis for the Asylum Organisation Zürich (AOZ)
Ballot question
Do you accept the new legal basis for the Asylum Organisation Zürich (AOZ), comprising a partial revision of the Municipal Code and a total revision of the AOZ regulation?
Translation of the official ballot booklet (Link)
The Asylum Organisation Zürich (AOZ) cares for refugees: it organises accommodation, supports people settling in Switzerland and looks after them in daily life, on behalf of the City of Zürich and other public bodies. Its legal basis dates from 2006, and the asylum field has changed considerably since: many services are now publicly tendered, the demands of care and support have grown, and better coordination between the Confederation, the cantons and the municipalities is needed. The proposal therefore revises the relevant provisions of the Municipal Code and fully revises the ordinance on the AOZ, and raises the AOZ's endowment capital from CHF 2 million to CHF 42.5 million.
The City Council and the Municipal Parliament recommend a "yes". They argue that the revision clarifies the AOZ's tasks, responsibilities, supervision and financing, separates roles more clearly and allows faster decisions, so the AOZ can respond quickly to strongly fluctuating refugee numbers.
The minority (the SVP) argues against: the AOZ should not receive more money and latitude while the voters' say is restricted — spending powers are delegated to the Municipal Parliament and the City Council, and several spending decisions would no longer be put to a popular vote.