Grenada has held two national referendums in its history, both within two years of each other, and both failed. In November 2016 voters rejected all seven bills of a constitutional reform package. In November 2018 they rejected a narrower proposal to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London with the Caribbean Court of Justice as the country's final court of appeal.
The results surprised many observers, because several proposals had support from both main parties at some point. They also showed how hard it is to change Grenada's Constitution. This explainer covers what was proposed, how the rules work, what the numbers were and the main explanations offered for the outcome.
Why changing the Constitution needs a referendum
The 1973 Constitution, which came into force at independence on 7 February 1974, protects itself by making amendment harder than ordinary law-making. Ordinary laws pass with a simple majority. Amending the Constitution requires larger majorities in Parliament, and the most protected, or entrenched, provisions must also be approved by voters in a referendum, with at least two-thirds of the valid votes cast in favour.
The entrenched provisions include fundamental rights, the structure of Parliament, the judiciary and the final court of appeal, among others. That is why moving from the Privy Council to the Caribbean Court of Justice, or changing the official name of the state, could not be done by Parliament alone. A simple majority of voters is not enough: a proposal that wins sixty per cent of the vote still fails.
The two-thirds threshold is deliberately high. Supporters say it protects the constitutional settlement from short-term political majorities. Critics say it makes reform nearly impossible in a polarised two-party system, where the opposition can block change by persuading just over a third of voters to say no.
The seven bills of 2016
The 2016 package grew out of a long constitution reform process, with a Constitution Reform Advisory Committee and public consultations. On 24 November 2016, voters were asked to approve seven separate bills:
- Caribbean Court of Justice: replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ as the final appellate court.
- Elections and Boundaries Commission: creating an independent commission to manage elections and constituency boundaries.
- Fixed date for elections: setting elections on a fixed timetable rather than leaving the date to the Prime Minister.
- Ensuring an opposition: guaranteeing a Leader of the Opposition even if one party wins every seat.
- Term limits: limiting how long a person can serve as Prime Minister.
- Rights and freedoms: expanding the bill of rights in the Constitution.
- Name of the state: formally including Carriacou and Petite Martinique in the country's name.
The 2016 results
All seven bills were rejected, and none came close to the two-thirds threshold. Turnout was low, at roughly a third of registered voters. According to figures compiled by election observers and reported in the regional press, the bills on the Caribbean Court of Justice and the name of the state did best, each with around forty-three to forty-four per cent voting yes. The rights and freedoms bill received under a quarter of the vote, and the term-limit and opposition bills received less than thirty per cent.
Those numbers matter because some proposals did not just fail the two-thirds test; they failed to win a simple majority. That suggests the problem was not only the high threshold, but a lack of public support for the package as presented.
Why the 2016 package failed
Too many questions at once. Seven bills on one day, several of them technical, made it hard for voters to engage with each one. Many voters appear to have treated the package as a single vote.
Partisan breakdown. The process was led by the NNP government. The opposition NDC, which had taken part in earlier stages, ended up urging voters to reject the bills, citing concerns about the process and specific provisions. In a closely divided country, partisan cues carried great weight.
Rumour and misinformation. The rights and freedoms bill became entangled in claims, rejected by its supporters, that it would open the way to same-sex marriage. Church groups and campaigners raised concerns, and the debate shifted away from the text.
Low turnout and low information. With around two-thirds of registered voters staying home, the outcome was decided by a motivated minority. Public education efforts were widely judged to have come late.
Distrust of change itself. When unsure, many voters prefer the familiar. "If you don't know, vote no" is a common pattern in constitutional referendums worldwide.
A crowded political calendar. The 2016 vote came midway through a parliamentary term in which the opposition held no seats in the House, and some voters appear to have used the referendum to express views about the government rather than the bills themselves.
The 2018 vote on the CCJ
The government returned with a single question two years later, on 6 November 2018: whether to replace the Privy Council with the Caribbean Court of Justice. Antigua and Barbuda held a referendum on the same question on the same day. In Grenada, preliminary official figures showed about 9,800 votes in favour and about 12,100 against, with turnout below thirty per cent of registered electors. The proposal again fell well short of two-thirds.
Arguments on the yes side stressed that a Caribbean court is cheaper and closer for litigants, that independent nations should have their own final court, and that the CCJ already serves Barbados, Belize, Guyana and Dominica, and later St Lucia, in its appellate jurisdiction. Arguments on the no side questioned the CCJ's independence from Caribbean governments, preferred the perceived neutrality of the Privy Council, and in some cases reflected distrust of the government proposing the change. Grenada already uses the CCJ for its original jurisdiction on CARICOM treaty disputes; the vote was only about final appeals.
What happens next with constitutional reform
The defeats did not end the discussion. Calls for electoral reform, for guaranteeing an opposition and for joining the CCJ continue to be made by politicians, lawyers and civic groups, and constitutional reform has featured in party platforms. Any future attempt will face the same two-thirds rule, which means cross-party agreement and sustained public education are likely to be decisive.
Practical lessons widely drawn from 2016 and 2018 include asking fewer questions at a time, securing genuine bipartisan support before polling day, and starting public education early. Until a referendum succeeds, the 1973 Constitution, amended only in limited ways since independence, remains in force, and the Privy Council remains Grenada's final court of appeal.
Some reforms rejected in 2016 do not strictly need constitutional change. Electoral administration, campaign finance rules and some aspects of rights protection can be addressed through ordinary legislation, and reform advocates sometimes argue for pursuing those routes first while building consensus for the larger questions.
How the votes are counted
Referendum ballots are counted in much the same way as general election ballots, at polling stations under the supervision of election officials, with agents for the competing sides able to observe. For each bill in 2016, voters marked yes or no on a separate question, so a voter could approve some bills and reject others. The two-thirds requirement applies to valid votes cast on each question, so spoiled and blank ballots do not count towards either side.
Because the threshold is measured against votes cast rather than registered voters, low turnout does not in itself sink a proposal. It does, however, magnify the influence of well-organised groups on either side, which is one reason campaigners now stress that future referendums need a broad public conversation, not just a vote.
Frequently asked questions
How many referendums has Grenada held?
Grenada has held two referendums, both on constitutional change: on 24 November 2016, when seven reform bills were rejected, and on 6 November 2018, when voters rejected replacing the Privy Council with the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Why does a referendum in Grenada need two-thirds?
The Constitution requires that changes to its most protected provisions be approved by at least two-thirds of the valid votes cast in a referendum, in addition to passing Parliament. The rule protects the constitutional settlement but makes reform difficult.
What was the turnout in the 2016 referendum?
Turnout was low, at roughly a third of registered voters. Around 22,000 votes were cast out of more than 70,000 registered electors, according to observer and press figures. Low participation was one of the most discussed features of the result.
Is the Privy Council still Grenada's final court?
Yes. Because the 2016 and 2018 proposals failed, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London remains Grenada's final court of appeal. Below it, appeals go to the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court's Court of Appeal.
Would Grenada need a referendum to become a republic?
Changing the head of state would involve amending entrenched provisions of the Constitution, which would require a referendum with a two-thirds majority. No such referendum has been proposed formally so far.
