The Supreme Court has overturned as unconstitutional a new electoral regulation compelling all of the 30 people required to nominate a non-party candidate in general elections to personally attend at local authority offices to authenticate nominations.
The regulation was disproportionate to the objective of authenticating nomination papers, the court ruled.
The Electoral Act 2002, introduced after the High Court found the requirement to pay election deposits was unconstitutional, introduced new regulations under which non-party candidates were required to have 30 assentors before they could contest elections. In Section 46.4b, it also required that all 30 assentors had to attend at the relevant local authority office to produce photographic evidence, such as a passport or driving licence, authenticating that assent.
It was this particular requirement which was found to be unconstitutional by the five judge Supreme Court yesterday.
The challenge to various provisions of the 2002 Act was brought by four aspiring election candidates - Thomas King, William Stack, Benedict Cooney and Denis Riordan - but was dismissed by the High Court. That dismissal was appealed to the Supreme Court which yesterday allowed the appeal only in relation to Section 46.4b. The issue of costs will be addressed later.
Giving the court's judgment, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, noted political party candidates do not have to get 30 assentors but do have to produce a certificate of political affiliation signed by a party officer.
He said various measures had been introduced to protect the electoral system from abuse and to ensure the holding of orderly and democratic elections was not undermined by the unfettered participation of frivolous or an excessive number of candidates. This was not really at issue in the case, he said.
The court was also satisfied the Oireachtas has power to regulate matters with which citizens must comply in order to be nominated, he said. The question was whether the statutory regulation of the nomination of non-party candidates was constitutional.
There was "no rational basis" for considering it to be unduly burdensome to require a candidate to obtain 30 assentors, the judge ruled.
However, he said the court considered there was "a great deal of substance" in the arguments against the requirement for all 30 assentors to personally attend at a constituency office. The travel involved could be up to 70kms.
The court rejected arguments that the measure was discriminatory and held the Oireachtas was entitled to make a distinction between party and non-party candidates. It also ruled that Mr Riordan was not entitled to describe himself on nomination papers as "Independent" rather than "non-party".
