Bern moves towards letting communes decide on voting rights for foreign residents

Communes in the canton of Bern could gain the power to decide whether foreign residents may vote on local matters, under a proposal backed by a majority of the cantonal parliament’s Committee for State Policy and External Relations. Parliament will consider the plan in November, following repeated failed attempts over the past two decades. A cantonal referendum is unlikely before the end of 2027.

The proposal changes the approach to a long-running debate. Rather than introducing voting rights for foreign residents throughout Bern, the canton would allow each commune — Switzerland’s municipal tier of government — to choose for itself. For long-established residents without a Swiss passport, their address could eventually determine whether they have a say in local decisions.

A local choice, with strict eligibility rules

Even in communes that opted in, voting rights would not automatically extend to everyone without Swiss citizenship. Residents would need to have lived continuously in Switzerland for ten years, including five years in the canton of Bern. They would also need a C permit, which grants permanent residence.

Samantha Dunning, the Social Democratic politician who speaks for the committee and initiated the underlying parliamentary motion, regards these requirements as evidence of integration. The proposed reform is therefore aimed at people whose lives have been firmly rooted in Switzerland for many years. Neither a short stay nor simply holding a residence permit would be enough.

There would be two distinct steps. A commune would first have to decide whether to extend local voting rights. Only then could foreign residents who met the legal criteria become eligible. Passing the cantonal reform would not, by itself, immediately give anyone a vote in their home commune.

The scope is also limited. The proposal concerns municipal matters, not voting rights at cantonal or federal level. For foreign residents following the debate, that distinction is essential: this is about participation in their immediate local community, rather than a general overhaul of political rights across Switzerland.

Another attempt after two decades of setbacks

Bern’s cantonal government drafted the legal provisions following a motion approved two years ago. Several earlier attempts had failed in parliament since 2005. The canton’s electorate also rejected a proposal on foreign residents’ voting rights in 2010.

That history helps explain why municipal choice is now central to the plan. Instead of requiring every commune to make the same change, the canton would establish a legal framework allowing different local decisions. The new approach offers flexibility without settling the underlying disagreement over who should be entitled to vote.

Dunning argues that reforms of this kind take time. She draws a comparison with women’s suffrage, saying political changes may have to be proposed repeatedly before they succeed. Her point is that earlier defeats need not mark the end of efforts to broaden participation.

The committee majority supports giving communes the freedom to decide. A minority maintains that voting rights should remain reserved for Swiss citizens. The dividing line therefore remains clear: one side favours opening local participation to long-term foreign residents, while the other sees Swiss nationality as the basis for political rights. Allowing communes to choose changes how the reform would work, but does not remove that fundamental difference.

A familiar model in French-speaking Switzerland

Bern would not be breaking entirely new ground within Switzerland. Foreign residents already have municipal voting rights in French-speaking Switzerland, with the exception of Valais. Some German-speaking cantons also provide for such participation. The rules governing political rights consequently differ from canton to canton.

That federal context matters for Bern’s debate. Local voting rights for foreign residents are not an unfamiliar concept in Switzerland. Yet their existence elsewhere does not establish how Bern’s communes, or its cantonal electorate, would respond. Previous rejections underline the importance of the canton’s own political circumstances.

If the proposal passed, Bern could develop a patchwork of communes: some allowing eligible foreign residents to vote, others retaining the existing restriction. That variation would not be an unintended consequence. It is built into the proposed model of municipal autonomy.

For international residents, the practical implication is straightforward. Two people with the same permit status and comparable lengths of residence could have different opportunities to participate in local decisions simply because they lived in different communes. Meeting the cantonal eligibility requirements would be necessary, but would not be sufficient unless their commune also chose to extend voting rights.

Parliament first, then Bern’s electorate

Implementing the proposal would require changes to both the cantonal constitution and the law governing communes. The next step is scheduled for the November session of the Grand Council, Bern’s cantonal parliament. The committee majority’s support is therefore an advance for supporters, rather than a decision to introduce the reform.

Bern’s electorate would have the final word. Even on the earliest timetable, a referendum could take place only at the end of 2027 or in early 2028. The question would be whether communes should be allowed to decide, not whether foreign residents should receive local voting rights throughout the canton. Until then, the central issue remains unresolved: whether Bern will give its municipalities the freedom to open political participation to their long-established foreign population.