The High Court dismissed two challenges to Ireland’s Dáil constituencies after the 2006 census revealed significant differences in population per seat. The court said the Oireachtas had an urgent constitutional obligation to address the disparity, but had not failed to meet it by the time of the hearing.
The cases were brought by Catherine Murphy and Finian McGrath, then members of the 29th Dáil, and Fergal Molloy, a constituent of Dublin West. They argued that the constituencies set out in the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2005 had become inconsistent with the Constitution because population-to-seat ratios were no longer, so far as practicable, the same throughout the country. The State did not seriously contest that the disparities were outside constitutional bounds.
Mr Justice Clarke found the scale of the disparity was at least as great as that which had led constituencies to be struck down in the 1961 O’Donovan case. He rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the 2005 Act became unconstitutional immediately when new census figures showed the imbalance. In his interpretation, publication of relevant census figures instead triggered an immediate and pressing duty on the Oireachtas to take remedial action, while allowing a reasonable period for the process of revising boundaries.
The court held that the final 2006 census figures became the constitutional benchmark on 29 March 2007, when the Central Statistics Office published its Principal Demographic Results. The preliminary report published in July 2006 was a close estimate, but did not qualify as the definitive census figures required by the Constitution.
The court found it was not practicable to complete a constituency revision between the March publication and dissolution of the Dáil. It therefore made no declaration that the Oireachtas had breached its obligations. The judge urged the Oireachtas to consider whether boundary-review work could begin using preliminary figures, with final decisions based on the final census data, to reduce delays in future.
Mr Molloy separately argued that the Minister could use emergency powers under the Electoral Act 1992 to add a seat to Dublin West, which he said was the most underrepresented constituency. The court rejected that interpretation: the power to determine constituencies and their seat numbers belonged to the Oireachtas. It also found no factual basis for the suggested one-seat fix and noted that the Minister had not been asked to exercise the power before the proceedings.
Both sets of proceedings were dismissed. The judgment did not halt or overturn the general election already held, a remedy neither set of plaintiffs had sought.