Përparim Gruda, a deputy from the Democratic Party of Kosovo, stated that the Constitutional Court’s decision to limit voting for the same candidate for Speaker of the Assembly to three attempts is grounded in constitutional interpretation principles and comparative law.
Yesterday, Lëvizja Vetëvendosje criticized the Constitutional Court, questioning the basis for restricting the number of votes to three for the same candidate.
In a Facebook post on Saturday, Gruda explained that constitutional interpretation is not simply a literal reading of the text but involves filling gaps not explicitly covered by the document, adapting to social and political changes.
He referenced the doctrine of “living constitutionalism” and quotes from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justices John Marshall and Charles Evans Hughes, arguing that the constitution is an evolving document whose meaning is determined by the courts.
According to Gruda, Kosovo’s Constitutional Court applied analogy by setting the three-vote limit, drawing on the three rounds outlined in Kosovo’s Constitution for presidential elections, as well as similar restrictions in European constitutions.
“The number three was not chosen randomly but is based on logical and comparative grounds recognized in constitutional doctrine,” Gruda wrote.
The Constitutional Court’s decision, published on Friday, states that the Speaker must be elected through an open vote within 30 days, a candidate can be voted on a maximum of three times, and all deputies are obliged to participate in the voting process.
