Ecuador Votes on Constitutional Reforms and Popular Consultation

In the ballot presented to Ecuadorian voters on Sunday, 16 November 2025, there were four principal questions. Three concerned constitutional reform and amendments, labelled A, B, and C, while the fourth was a popular consultation regarding the convening of a Constituent Assembly.

Question A proposed lifting the ban on foreign military bases on Ecuadorian soil.
Question B suggested ending the state’s obligation to fund national political parties.
Question C aimed to reduce the number of members in the National Assembly.
Popular Consultation: The fourth question asked voters whether they supported creating an elected Constituent Assembly to draft a new Constitution, replacing the one enacted in 2008.

All four questions were initiated by President Daniel Noboa, though they followed different legal routes before reaching the public vote.

Legal process of the questions

Questions A and B were initially reviewed by the Constitutional Court (CC), which approved them as partial constitutional reforms. These require approval in two debates in the National Assembly before proceeding to a national referendum. Question A was approved by the Assembly in June 2025. Question B passed in September 2025, although the Court required adjustments. Originally, it sought to remove not only state funding for parties but also funding for the electoral promotion fund, which supports campaign advertising. The CC revised this and approved its inclusion on the ballot.

Question C, proposing to cut the number of Assembly members, was submitted directly to the Constitutional Court in August 2025. The Court initially rejected it, citing a lack of clarity regarding implementation. President Noboa promptly revised the proposal in line with the Court’s feedback, and the revised version was approved in October, allowing it to appear as the third constitutional question.

The fourth question—regarding a Constituent Assembly—followed a slightly different process. Presented as a “popular consultation” rather than a constitutional reform, it was subject to legal review and adjustments by the Constitutional Court before being included on the ballot. Voters were asked whether they supported creating an elected Constituent Assembly to draft a new Constitution, with this question appearing separately from the other three.

Other proposals

President Noboa had proposed additional reforms that did not make it onto the ballot, due to objections from the Constitutional Court, pending review, or his own decision not to include them at this time.

Referendum results

President Noboa was unsuccessful in all four questions. According to the CNE (Consejo Nacional Electoral, Ecuador’s National Electoral Council), with more than 95% of the ballots validated:

·         60.75% said “No” to lifting the ban on foreign military bases (Question A).

·         58.20% voted against ending public funding for political parties (Question B).

·         53.59% rejected reducing the number of Assembly members (Question C)

·         61.71% of voters rejected the proposal for a new Constitution (popular consultation).

Question A

US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem visited Ecuador twice in 2025—first in July and again on 5–6 November, shortly before the referendum. During her visits, she toured military sites in Manta and Salinas with President Noboa, reportedly to evaluate potential locations for future US bases if the ban were lifted. Earlier in the year, President Noboa had even suggested that a base could be established in the Galapagos Islands, a remark that generated considerable public concern, particularly for environmental reasons. Her presence so close to the referendum heightened perceptions of foreign influence and decision-making without full public consultation, contributing to over 60% of voters rejecting the proposal to lift the ban.

Question B

The defeat of question B, ending state funding for political parties, was widely interpreted as a rebuke of President Noboa’s government. Many feared that eliminating public financing would weaken opposition parties, consolidate power around the president and his allies, and reduce political diversity. By voting “No,” the public appeared to expressed distrust in Noboa’s intentions and concern over potential centralisation of authority.

Question C

Question C, which sought to reduce the number of Assembly members, was rejected amid concerns over representation. Many voters feared that fewer legislators would leave less-populated provinces underrepresented, diminishing democratic equality and centralising parliamentary influence. Critics argued this could allow the president and dominant parties to exert greater control, making it harder for smaller parties and diverse voices to be heard.

Question D

The proposal to convene a Constituent Assembly was decisively rejected. Ecuadorians remain wary of reopening the constitution-making process; the country has had over 20 constitutions since independence, many used by ruling governments to consolidate power, reduce checks and balances, and advance political agendas. While the 2008 Constitution is praised for human rights protections, President Noboa and his supporters regard it as restrictive on security and economic reforms. Voters feared that another Constituent Assembly could further concentrate power and destabilise institutions, rather than deliver meaningful improvements. This deep-rooted scepticism was a key factor in the decisive “No” vote.

Conclusion

President Noboa remains widely popular within Ecuador, having secured the presidency in April with 55% of the vote. The results of the 16 November referendum, however, reflect the electorate’s cautious approach regarding the concentration of power, foreign influence, and the importance of broad democratic representation. While President Noboa proposed reforms across multiple areas—from defence and party funding to parliamentary structure and constitutional change—voters appear to have prioritised stability and institutional continuity at this moment, rather than rejecting his leadership or vision for reform.