The High Court has found that new electoral regulations requiring non-party candidates contesting general elections to each have 30 "assentors" before they may stand are fully justified and constitutional.
Mr Justice Kearns dismissed on all grounds a challenge brought by three non-party candidates in the 2002 general election, to the regulations introduced in the Electoral Act 2002.
The three claimed that the measures, introduced after the High Court found a requirement to pay election deposits was unconstitutional, discriminated unfairly between party and non-party candidates in that they imposed a burden on non-party candidates which was not imposed on party candidates, who only required a certificate from their party before standing.
The challenge was brought by Mr Thomas King, The Curragh, Castlebar, who stood as an independent candidate in the Mayo constituency last year; Mr Benedict (Benny) Cooney, McCormack's Complex, Dublin Road, Athlone, who had intended to stand as an independent in Westmeath but was unable to secure 30 assentors in time; and Mr William Stack, Brookfield Terrace, Blackrock, Co Dublin, who had wanted to stand in Dún Laoghaire but could not.
Under the regulations, assentors must sign nomination papers for a non-party candidate and must also present themselves at the relevant local authority offices.
In his 57-page reserved judgment, Mr Justice Kearns said it must be open to the Oireachtas "to take the view that a prospective candidate should demonstrate some minimal electoral support as a condition of getting on to the ballot paper and to legislate accordingly".
He found the restrictions on eligibility were well-founded, objectively reasonable and proportionate, having regard to "the mischief" that they were designed to prevent the standing of frivolous candidates and to reduce the potential for confusion arising from a situation where a huge number of candidates stood in one constituency.
He also rejected the argument that they were unconstitutional. There were sound reasons for having those restrictions which did not bar access to the ballot paper but "simply make it slightly more difficult".
He disagreed with a decision by another High Court judge that the Oireachtas could not legislate for electoral restrictions other than for reasons relating to safeguarding the security of the State or to maintaining the tripartite division of the powers of government.
It seemed to him that the Constitution required the Oireachtas to ensure, through appropriate legislation, that every citizen's vote was effective and had predictable consequences.
On the argument that the regulations unfairly discriminated between party and non-party candidates, he said political parties had existed since the foundation of the State and were subject to significant statutory regulation.
A person who espoused the party route must pass a party test of "seriousness" and likely capacity to attract electoral support.
A political party was not going to put forward a frivolous candidate nor was it going to flood the ballot paper with candidates with the object or effect of confusing or subverting the electoral process.
At the conclusion of the judgment, Mr Brian Murray SC, for the State, said he would be seeking his costs.
The judge adjourned the matter to January 16th to allow time for consideration of an appeal to the Supreme Court. The costs issue will also be addressed on that date.
