A returning officer who refused a former Seanad election candidate’s request for a full recount during the recent vote has told the High Court he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the count.
Martin Groves, the recently retired clerk of the Seanad, said the narrow margin of votes separating Cllr Angela Feeney and the final candidate elected to the Agricultural Panel was not grounds in and of itself to direct a full recount of votes.
Ms Feeney, a Labour Party councillor in Kildare, was eliminated on the 23rd count by a margin of 0.116, or one-ninth, of a ballot, missing out on the final seat to Fine Gael’s Maria Byrne in January’s election.
Each valid Seanad ballot paper is deemed to have a value of 1,000 votes. The total valid poll for the 11-seat Agricultural Panel was 95,667 votes.
READ MORE
Ms Feeney, a member of Labour’s central council and former head of Technological University Dublin’s school of languages, law and social sciences, has brought a High Court petition challenging the conduct of vote counting for the panel.
She claims there should have been a full recount of the ballots, rather than simply a repeat of the 23rd count. She wants the election result overturned and a recount ordered.
Giving evidence at the hearing of the action, Mr Groves said legislation allows returning officers conducting Seanad election counts discretion to direct full recounts in circumstances where they are not satisfied with the accuracy of the count.
Mr Groves said his discretion to direct a full recount of votes is restrained by those circumstances. He said a narrow margin separating candidates was not a reason in and of itself to order a full recount.
During the count, after considering Ms Feeney’s request for a full recount, Mr Groves said he concluded he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the count, noting that no errors were uncovered following two partial recounts.
He said there were many potential circumstances where he would begin to doubt the accuracy of a count.
On Thursday, Eoin O’Malley, a political scientist and professor at Dublin City University, told the court he was “surprised” that Ms Feeney was not granted a recount.
Mr O’Malley, an expert witness called by the Feeney side, said he did not have expertise or experience with Seanad election counts, but had experience of observing general election counts.
He agreed with Conor Power SC, for Ms Feeney, that recounts in election counts with tight margins can lead to greater satisfaction with the outcome.
Mr O’Malley said he believed part of the reason for the granting of recounts in those circumstances is to satisfy all candidates that the count has been conducted fairly and properly.
In this case, he said it would have been better for democracy and the electoral process had a recount been granted. He noted it would have been quicker and cheaper than pursuing the issue through the courts. He said he believed that granting Ms Feeney the recount could have satisfied the candidate that there were no errors in the count.
The trial, before Mr Justice Míchéal O’Higgins, continues.
