The High Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to the law linking State funding for political parties to gender quotas, ruling that Brian Mohan had not established standing to bring the case. The court did not decide whether the law was constitutional.
Mohan, a member of Fianna Fáil and chair of its Dublin Central constituency council, had been nominated to contest the party’s candidate selection convention for the constituency. The party’s National Constituencies Committee directed that one candidate be selected and that the candidate must be a woman. The convention took place on 7 October 2015, and Mohan was excluded from the contest. He did not challenge the party’s direction, and Fianna Fáil was not a party to the court proceedings.
Mohan argued that the direction was made to help the party meet the candidate quota in section 17(4B) of the Electoral Act 1997. The provision reduces a qualified party’s State funding by 50% unless a minimum proportion of its candidates are women and a minimum proportion are men. The threshold was 30% at the time relevant to the case, with a 40% threshold due to apply later.
The court found that Mohan had not shown the party could not function, or would face significant difficulty, if its section 17 funding were reduced. There was no evidence of the party’s minimum funding needs or its ability to raise other funds. The court also found that parties had several options for meeting the quota, and that the choice to direct the Dublin Central convention to select a woman was Fianna Fáil’s decision, not a requirement imposed by the law.
The court further found that Mohan had not established that Fianna Fáil would have abandoned its own quota policy without the statutory funding condition. Evidence cited in the judgment included the party’s earlier public support for gender quotas and its internal report recommending measures to increase the number of women candidates.
Applying the standing principles in *Cahill v Sutton*, the court concluded that Mohan had not shown his interests were adversely affected, or in real or imminent danger of being affected, by the operation of the law. It also rejected the argument that exceptional circumstances justified allowing him to bring the challenge on behalf of the party or other parties.
The judge said it would be wrong to offer even a provisional view on the constitutional question, applying the rule that courts should avoid deciding issues unnecessary to the outcome. The claim was dismissed in limine.