In the mid-2000s, the canton of Vaud thoroughly reorganised the division of tasks and funding between the state and its municipalities, notably through the EtaCom project and early harmonisation. Several municipalities felt presented with a fait accompli by the Grand Council.
In this climate, the Ligue vaudoise, led by Olivier Delacrétaz, launched the « La parole aux communes ! » initiative. The text proposed a municipal referendum: one tenth of municipalities (38 of 378) could demand a popular vote on any decree or law passed by the Grand Council.
On 17 June 2007, Vaud voters had to choose between two visions of municipal autonomy. For the initiators, it was about rebalancing power with the canton; for the State Council and the Grand Council majority, the tool would block cantonal action and grant a handful of municipalities a disproportionate veto.
Overall result Yes 35.2 % — No 64.8 % Turnout : 44.61 % | Scope Cantonal initiative rejected. No municipal referendum right over cantonal laws was introduced; the institutional status quo was maintained. |
Actors and figures
▲ Yes camp • Ligue vaudoise (Olivier Delacrétaz), author of the text • Liberal Party of Vaud, main party backer • Municipal officials favouring a counterweight to the canton | ▼ No camp • Vaud State Council — risk of blocking cantonal action • Grand Council majority • SP and the Greens • Association of Vaud Municipalities (UCV) — declared neutrality |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) A counterweight for municipalities « Municipalities must be able to oppose cantonal decisions that directly affect them, not merely endure them. » Verdict : ✓~ Partly founded The rejection left municipalities without a referendum right over cantonal laws. Tensions over cost-sharing and intermunicipal equalisation did indeed remain recurrent in the following years — the discomfort flagged was not imaginary. Source : Le Temps, Ligue vaudoise A high threshold, not an automatic veto « Requiring one tenth of municipalities to agree is not a blockage but a rarely used democratic safeguard. » Verdict : ✗ Unverifiable As the tool was never introduced, its real use cannot be measured. The argument remains projection. Source : Cantonal ballot brochure, 17 June 2007 | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) A veto that would paralyse the canton « Giving 38 municipalities the power to send any law to a vote risks blocking the state’s action. » Verdict : ✓~ Plausible but untested The status quo let the canton carry out its reforms (EtaCom, equalisation) without a municipal referendum blockage. The paralysis scenario, however, could never be tested. Source : State Council, 24 heures Municipalities already have channels « Umbrella associations, consultations, members in the Grand Council: municipalities are not voiceless. » Verdict : ✓ Confirmed Canton-municipality coordination continued through the UCV and consultation mechanisms, without the legislature deeming a new referendum instrument indispensable. Source : Canton of Vaud, UCV |
Factual assessment
64.8% No — clear rejection | 0 Municipal referendum gained | EtaCom Reforms continued | 2007 Status quo maintained |
The clear rejection (64.8%) maintained the status quo: Vaud municipalities gained no referendum right over cantonal laws. The canton continued its reforms without blockage. Yet the initiators’ underlying concern — a sense of canton-municipality imbalance — kept fuelling later debates on equalisation and municipal autonomy.
The rejection of « La parole aux communes ! » illustrates Vaud voters’ caution toward tools liable to jam the cantonal machine. By saying no to a municipal veto, citizens preferred the state’s capacity to act over a novel institutional counterweight.
The verdict did not, however, close the underlying debate. Municipal autonomy and the fair sharing of costs between canton and municipalities remained live issues, regularly fuelling discussions on intermunicipal equalisation.
Never adopted, the proposed instrument remains an untested hypothesis: neither its backers’ promises nor its opponents’ fears could be measured against practice. The only established fact is institutional continuity.