[3] It is expected that the strong result, while failing to directly change the constitution, might press politicians to adopt a similar measure nonetheless.

[4] If passed, the amendment would have represented the first time in an EU country that voters would have been able to dissolve their national parliament – a right traditionally reserved for the head of state.

[5] The moves to initiate the referendum began in Autumn 2007 at a time of public discontent with the government which had led to the largest street protests to date in the post-Soviet era.

[7] As the total number of valid signatures represented 14.6% of the electorate,[7] the amendments were duly presented by the president to parliament, which rejected them on 5 June 2008.

[9] Opposing the referendum, Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis pointed out that political instability had also been a feature of pre-Soviet Latvia.

The Russians will come.” [12] Former Prime Minister Einars Repše, a member of the opposition New Era party, argued that a yes vote of the majority of the electorate would be in accordance with basic democratic principles and that many contemporary Latvian politicians were working not for the state interest but for the interest of “Godfathers.” [10] Civic Union party leader Sandra Kalniete also called for a yes vote on the grounds that the amendments could force MPs “to finally listen to the will of their voters.” [10] For Human Rights in United Latvia MP Juris Sokolovskis supported a yes vote on the basis of perceived alienation of the electorate from their MPs and on the grounds that, even if the 50% quorum was not reached, a large yes majority would still be difficult for politicians to ignore.

[10] Following the anticipated large yes vote, President Valdis Zatlers said the support shown was strong enough to prompt Parliament to adopt similar amendments on its own.