Hearing on voter ratios begins

Court action: The High Court has begun hearing a challenge by two Independent TDs to the "manifestly unconstitutional" manner…

Court action:The High Court has begun hearing a challenge by two Independent TDs to the "manifestly unconstitutional" manner in which certain Dáil constituencies have been revised.

The action is not designed to affect the upcoming election but to ensure "staggering deviations" between constituencies are not repeated in future elections, their counsel stressed yesterday.

Dublin North Central TD Finian McGrath and Kildare North TD Catherine Murphy are challenging the constitutionality of the Electoral Amendment Act, which defines constituency boundaries. The challenge follows an analysis by them of the final census of population figures released earlier this year.

The case opened before Mr Justice Frank Clarke at the High Court yesterday and is expected to run until tomorrow. A related action by Feargal Molloy, a Dublin West constituent who is seeking to have an extra seat added to the constituency before polling day, is also being heard by Mr Justice Clarke.

READ MORE

Opening the case, Gerard Hogan SC, for the TDs, said his clients were not trying to restrict the election. They were seeking a declaration that the Minister for Local Government and the Attorney General have failed in their constitutional obligation to ensure that, in revising the constituencies, due regard was paid to changes in the population distribution as set out in the census.

The TDs claim the defendants failed to ensure the constituencies were drawn so as to ensure a ratio of members to population of no fewer than one member to each 30,000 of population and not more than one member for each 20,0000 of population.

They say the Census 2006 preliminary report established that five constituencies were more than 7.9 per cent above the national average of 25,512 persons per member of Dáil Éireann while five constituencies were more than 7.9 per cent below the national average. The conventionally accepted norm is 7.89 per cent, they said.

Donal O'Donnell SC said the State disagreed that the situation "as of now" was unconstitutional. However, he added, many of the figures put forward by the plaintiffs were not being disputed.