In a judgment with major implications for elections, the High Court has ruled that the requirement for all candidates to pay deposits before they may contest Dail and European elections is unconstitutional.
The legal challenge to the deposits requirement was taken by a retired and formerly unemployed builder, Mr Thomas Redmond, of Coolree, Wexford. He submitted nomination papers in the 1992 general election and 1994 European Parliament elections, but his name was omitted from the ballot papers after he refused to pay the deposits. He said he was unemployed at the time of both polls and could not pay without suffering undue hardship.
In a lengthy reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Herbert found the requirement for candidates to pay £300 deposits in Dail elections and £1,000 in European Parliament elections was "unjust and unfair" in the way such deposits discriminated between citizens.
None of the State's arguments seeking to justify the deposits excused such discrimination, he said.
He held that Section 47 of the Electoral Act 1992 and Section 13 of the European Parliament Elections Act - which respectively require the payments of deposits for Dail and European elections - were unconstitutional.
The judge said there was no evidence to support the State's argument that, were it not for the requirement to pay deposits, elections would be overrun by spurious candidates and democracy would be undermined. It seemed trite, he said, to suggest abusers of the system had to be people of limited means.
He also found there was no evidence to support the claim that voters would be confused or confounded by any increase in the number of candidates. The State had accepted the Irish electorate was sophisticated. The judge said he could not accept such an electorate would lose its capacity for discernment if there were more candidates.
He also found there was no evidence that insoluble problems would be caused for the management of elections if the deposits requirement was not there.
In any event, it behoved the Oireachtas to regulate elections and to accommodate any supposed increase in candidates and not to seek to restrict the numbers, the judge said. The electoral system was the servant of democracy, not its master.
There was evidence that people of means who were undeterred by deposits and who were unsuccessful in their first attempt to get elected had persisted until they were elected to the Dail. Some had even become ministers.
The Government is considering an appeal, writes Mark Brennock, Political Correspondent.
A spokesman for the Department of the Environment said last night it would be studying the judgment before making any comment or decision on whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.
While the deposits requirement is generally seen by politicians as deterring some single issue or frivolous candidates, Fine Gael's director of elections, Mr Finbarr Fitzpatrick, said last night he did not believe the decision would significantly increase the number of candidates. He said his party had no plans to appeal the judgment and would await the Government's decision.
A Labour Party spokesman welcomed the judgment in principle. "It will make it easier for people to participate in the political process at a time when more measures to encourage people to vote and participate in politics are badly needed."
