On 4 March 2018, almost three Valaisans in four (72,81 % in favour) accepted the initiative calling for a total revision of the 1907 cantonal constitution — and chose to entrust the task to a constituent assembly elected for the purpose rather than to the Grand Council.
The flagship argument: a founding text more than a century old no longer matched today’s Valais. The State Council, the Liberals (PLR), the Socialists, the Greens and the Christian-Social Party backed a wholesale overhaul by a constituent assembly.
The reservations came chiefly from the SVP, opposed to a total revision, and from the Christian Democrats, in favour of modernisation but who would have preferred to leave it to the Grand Council. Six years later, that question of method took on its full weight.
▲ The Yes — 72,81 % A broad majority wanted to revise the 1907 constitution in full and hand its rewriting to an assembly elected by the people. | ▼ The No — 27,19 % A minority opposed a total revision or preferred a revision by the Grand Council, judging the constituent-assembly route long, costly and uncertain in outcome. |
The campaign’s actors
▲ Yes camp (revision by a constituent assembly) • The State Council (for the total revision) • The Liberals (PLR) of Valais • The Socialist Party and the Greens • The Christian-Social Party (PCS) | ▼ No camp / cautious • The SVP (against the total revision) • The Christian Democrats (for a revision, but by the Grand Council) • Various conservative circles attached to the 1907 text |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) The 1907 constitution is outdated and must be modernised « A text more than a century old no longer matches today’s Valais. » Verdict: ✗~ The will to modernise was real, but it came to nothing: the new text was rejected in 2024. The stated aim — to replace the 1907 charter — was not achieved. After more than four years of work, the new constitution drafted by the constituent assembly was rejected at the ballot box on 3 March 2024 (over 68 % No), and Valais kept its 1907 text. Source: RTS, 2024 A constituent assembly, more legitimate than parliament Verdict: ✓~ The process demanded did take place, but its final product was disowned. Supporters held that a dedicated assembly would produce a more legitimate text than a parliamentary revision. The assembly, elected in November 2018, did draft a full text — which citizens then rejected, paradoxically vindicating those who preferred the Grand Council. Source: Constituent assembly VS; RTS, 2024 | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) A total revision by a constituent assembly is risky and costly « A multi-year project with an uncertain outcome. » Verdict: ✓ The risk materialised: years of work for a rejected text. The sceptics — the SVP foremost — feared a long, costly, open-ended process. Indeed, after more than four years and a whole assembly, the draft was rejected in 2024, and the canton kept its 1907 constitution. Source: RTS, 2024; Le Nouvelliste The Grand Council could have revised the text itself Verdict: ✓~ The 2024 failure revived the idea of a step-by-step modernisation. The Christian Democrats and part of the right argued for a revision by the Grand Council rather than a constituent assembly. The wholesale rejection of 2024 fed the notion that a targeted modernisation, by partial revisions, would have been less hazardous than an overhaul put to the vote as a block. Source: Le Nouvelliste; RTS |
The factual record
72,81 % yes to the total revision | 2018 assembly elected (November) | 4 years of constitutional work | 2024 new text rejected (>68 % No) |
The 2018 mandate was unambiguous: nearly 73 % of Valaisans wanted a new constitution, written by an elected assembly rather than by parliament. Rarely has an institutional venture begun with such broad support.
What followed was long: assembly elected in late 2018, draft adopted in April 2023, then put to the people on 3 March 2024. And there the reverse twist: the text, like its variant, was rejected by over 68 % No. Valais kept its 1907 charter.
For the Yes camp the paradox is bitter: it got its project, but not its result. The 2018 reservations about cost and risk were borne out, and the failure revived the debate over modernising in small steps — the very course defended by those who favoured a revision by the Grand Council.