Curiate assembly
In the Roman system of direct democracy, primary types of gatherings were used to vote on legislative, electoral, and judicial matters.
Conventions were simply forums where Romans met for specific unofficial purposes, such as, for example, to hear a political speech.
[10] During criminal trials, the assembly's presiding magistrate had to give a notice (diem dicere) to the accused person on the first day of the investigation (anquisito).
At the end of each day, the magistrate had to give another notice to the accused person (diem prodicere), which informed him of the status of the investigation.
[11] Only one assembly could operate at any given point in time, and any session already underway could be dissolved if a magistrate "called away" (avocare) the electors.
[13] On several known occasions, presiding magistrates used the claim of unfavorable omens as an excuse to suspend a session that was not going the way they wanted.
[14] If the purpose of the ultimate vote was for an election, no speeches from private citizens were heard, and instead, the candidates for office used the Convention to campaign.
[17] The baskets (cistae) that held the votes were watched by specific officers (the custodes), who then counted the ballots, and reported the results to the presiding magistrate.
[19] While it then fell into disuse, it did retain some theoretical powers, most importantly, the power to ratify elections of the top-ranking Roman Magistrates (consuls and praetors) by passing a law (lex curiata de imperio or "Curiate law on imperium") that gave them their legal command (imperium) authority.
In practice, however, they received this authority from the Centuriate assembly (which formally elected them), and as such, this functioned as nothing more than a reminder of Rome's regal heritage.
[3] By the time of the middle and late Republic, there was considerable debate about the need for confirmation in imperium by the Curiate assembly.
For example, praetors were not permitted to undertake judicial business without confirmation in the imperium nor could consuls command troops or call the comitia centuriata to hold the election of his successor.
[20] Cicero's contemporaries argued that without confirmation in the imperium, a magistrate could not act as a promagistrate, or without it, govern the province at his own expense and be ineligible for a triumph after a military victory.
[20] By 212 BC, the lack of such a law granting imperium to the propraetor of Spain, Lucius Marcius, was no issue for the senate, which refrained from declaring the election illegal.
