On 29 November 2009, Valais voters rejected the new cantonal tourism law by more than 75 % (24,78 % in favour), a year after the Grand Council had passed it. A stinging rebuke in a canton whose economy leans heavily on tourism.
Championed by State Councillor Jean-Michel Cina (Christian Democrats), head of the economy department, the law sought to reorganise tourism promotion around large regional destinations and to fund it through new levies — including an accommodation tax and charges reaching second homes.
Seen as too dirigiste and too tax-heavy, it was challenged by a referendum from the Socialist Party, joined by the SVP, part of the hoteliers and second-home owners. The paradox: nearly everyone shared the diagnosis of an over-fragmented Valais tourism sector, but not the cure.
▲ The Yes — 24,78 % A minority (24,78 %) backed the law, mainly the Christian Democrats and the State Council, convinced that a fragmented sector could no longer compete without a coordinated structure and funding. | ▼ The No — 75,22 % Three Valaisans in four rejected the text. The motley No coalition — Socialists, SVP, hoteliers, second-home owners — sank the new levies, deemed excessive and centralising. |
The campaign’s actors
▲ Yes camp (the law) • Jean-Michel Cina (State Councillor, Christian Democrats, economy director), architect of the law • The Valais State Council (backed the text) • The Christian Democrats (Grand Council majority) • Part of the tourism-promotion sector | ▼ No camp (referendum) • The Socialist Party (author of the referendum) • The Valais SVP • Second-home owners • Part of the hoteliers and cable-car operators |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Structuring and funding a fragmented sector « Valais tourism can no longer afford to mark time. » Verdict: ✓~ The diagnosis was sound, but the binding solution was rejected and never realised. The canton counted dozens of scattered tourism boards; the need for coordination was consensual. Yet the 2014 replacement law, voluntary and « in no way binding », left each destination to organise itself. Source: Le Temps, 2014; RTS Stable funding through an accommodation tax Verdict: ✗~ The principle survived, but pared to the bone. The 2014 law did introduce an accommodation tax — but capped at 1 franc per night, without the ambitious 2008 fiscal package. The promised « strong » funding never materialised. Source: 24 heures / Le Matin, 2014 | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) Too many taxes, especially on second homes « Taxes that end up driving guests away. » Verdict: ✓ The rejection buried these taxes: none was introduced. The charge on second homes crystallised the opposition. Rejected by 75 %, it never came to be, and the 2014 law carefully avoided reviving it. Source: RTS, 2009; Le Temps A law too dirigiste that shackles the municipalities Verdict: ✓ The 2014 law did the opposite: freedom of organisation left to municipalities. Opponents attacked the text’s centralising character. The 2014 statute leaves municipalities and destinations free to choose their own organisation — the exact reverse logic. Source: Le Temps, 2014 |
The factual record
24,78 % yes to the law | 2014 new, far lighter law | 1 fr. accommodation-tax cap | 0 tax on second homes |
On substance, almost no one disputed the diagnosis: Valais tourism, splintered into countless local bodies, suffered from poor coordination and thin means. What was swept away was the cure — new taxes and cantonal steering.
The No camp got everything it wanted: the contested levies, notably on second homes, never came, and the 2014 replacement law reversed the logic by leaving municipalities free to organise themselves.
The open question the vote did not settle: has an « à la carte » tourism, without a strong structure or ambitious funding, let Valais close its promotional gap? The debate over financing cantonal tourism has resurfaced several times since — a sign the underlying problem was not rejected at the ballot box.