Laws requiring all Dail and European election candidates to pay £300 and £1,000 deposits respectively could be unfair to candidates from a poor background and offered no guarantee against candidates of a frivolous nature putting themselves forward at election time, a political analyst told the High Court yesterday.
Dr Richard Sinnott, associate professor of politics at University College Dublin, suggested an alternative. Germany permits candidates who secured a certain number of signatures to put themselves forward for election.
He was giving evidence on the third day of proceedings taken by a retired, formerly unemployed builder, Mr Thomas Redmond, of Coolree, Wexford. He is seeking declarations that Section 47 of the 1992 Electoral Act and Section 13 of the 1979 European Parliament Elections Act are invalid and unconstitutional.
Dr Sinnott said among prominent politicians who lost their deposits on their first time at the polls was the latest member of the Dail, the Independent deputy for Tipperary South, Mr Seamus Healy, who, in 1987, lost his deposit by a wide margin. Others to lose their deposits on their first electoral outing included Ms Patricia McKenna, now a Green Party MEP, and Mr Joe Higgins, a TD with the Socialist Workers' Party.
He agreed the legislation assumed payment of a deposit was some assurance or guarantee against frivolity but said this contention did not always stand up.
Other countries adopted different systems, he noted. In Germany, there was a signature system requiring the support of 200 electors.
He thought a combination of both the deposit and signature systems could be more effective in this State. It was essential to have both systems because if all candidates were to opt for the signature system all the names on those lists would have to be checked out and verified within the 30-day period after the dissolution of the Dail and before the holding of an election.
There could be a debate about the number of signatures required, he said. Some might think 10 was too few and others might consider 500 too many. Giving people a choice between the two methods of nomination would still not deter frivolous candidates, just as the deposit provision did not guarantee against such a possibility.
He agreed with Mr Frank Callanan SC, for the State, that some restrictions should be in place in regard to nomination. Having a signature system in addition to a deposit might add more expense but there were some costs worth expending in order to make the electoral process more rather than less inclusive.
The hearing before Mr Justice Herbert continues today.