## Facts

- The federal legislature enacted a major immigration statute that required Bundesrat approval.
- In the Bundesrat session on March 22, 2002, the measure was announced as approved by a bare majority, based on counting Brandenburg’s four votes as “yes.”
- Brandenburg’s government was a coalition whose delegates publicly expressed contradictory positions during the same roll call: the designated block-vote holder voted “yes,” and another Brandenburg delegate immediately objected “no.”
- Despite the contradiction, the presiding officer treated Brandenburg’s vote as uniformly “yes” and included it in the affirmative tally.
- Several Länder governments filed an abstract review petition challenging only the legislative procedure, arguing the statute lacked a valid Bundesrat majority because Brandenburg did not cast a valid unitary vote.

## Issues

1. Whether the constitutional requirement that each Land’s Bundesrat votes be cast “as a unit” is satisfied when Land delegates give contradictory responses during the same ballot.
2. Whether a designated block-vote holder’s vote remains effective when another delegate from the same Land contradicts it during the vote.
3. What authority the presiding officer has to clarify or finalize a Land’s vote when a unitary Land position is visibly absent.
4. Whether the statute is void if it did not receive a valid Bundesrat majority due to an invalid Land vote.

## Decision

- The court held that the Bundesrat is a federal constitutional organ composed of members of Land governments, and Länder participate in federal legislation through those members’ votes.
- The court ruled that each Land’s votes must be cast uniformly; a Land cannot validly split its votes or present contradictory positions in the same ballot.
- The court accepted the practice of casting a Land’s votes through a designated block-vote holder, but held that this practice ceases to apply once another Land delegate contradicts the block vote during the vote.
- The court held the presiding officer may seek clarification only when a unitary Land will can still realistically be formed during the ballot; that authority ends when it is clear no uniform will exists and cannot be expected to emerge in time.
- Applying these rules, the court found Brandenburg’s delegation expressed an immediate, clear contradiction, so Brandenburg cast no valid vote.
- Without Brandenburg’s votes, the statute lacked the required Bundesrat majority and was declared void for formal unconstitutionality.

## Legal Principles

- In Bundesrat voting, each Land’s votes must be cast as a unit; absent a uniform Land position, the Land contributes no valid vote.
- A block vote cast by a designated Land representative is constitutionally permissible only so long as it is not contradicted by another member of the same Land delegation during the ballot.
- The presiding officer may use suitable measures to clarify ambiguous voting results, but cannot treat a visibly divided delegation as having cast a valid unitary vote.
- A federal statute requiring Bundesrat consent is void if that consent was not validly obtained under constitutionally required voting procedures.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the immigration statute because Brandenburg’s delegation publicly contradicted itself during the Bundesrat vote, eliminating any constitutionally required unitary Land vote and depriving the measure of a valid majority.


Immigration Act Case, 106 BVerfGE 310 (Ger. Fed. Const. Ct. 2002)