Legality of Election 2002

Victor

Does anyone know how I can get the exact geographical details of the constituencies used in last year's general election?

It would appear that if the Tipperary South constituency was exactly equal to the county and based on the 1996 census, then there was less than 20,000 population per candidate as mandated by the consitution (which says use the last completed census). If the 2002 census were to be used, Meath and Kildare should have an extra 2-3 seats. This could make interesting times in teh near future.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/863854?view=Eircomnet

Ministers exceeded legal spending limit at last election
From:ireland.com
Wednesday, 11th June, 2003

Government ministers will face acute embarrassment later today when it emerges that many of them spent above the legal limit in last year's general election campaign, writes Mark Brennock, Chief Political Correspondent.

The news will come in a report from the Standards in Public Office Commission which will show that, in accordance with the results of a Supreme Court judgment last November, many ministers and some Dáil deputies overspent in the May 2002 campaign.

The court ruled that outgoing TDs and senators must include the value of Oireachtas-provided services, such as secretaries, post and telephones, in their election returns. The ruling upheld an earlier High Court judgment, delivered the day before polling day, in a case taken by unsuccessful Fianna Fáil candidate Mr Des Kelly.

However, sitting Oireachtas members fought the last election on the basis that these facilities did not count as part of election spending.

Several candidates who lost narrowly to sitting members have said they will consider taking legal action to overturn the election result if today's report can be used to show the overspending had a significant impact on the result. These include Independent Ms Kathy Sinnott, who lost by just six votes, and Labour's Mr Nicky Kelly, who lost out by just 19 votes.

According to costings circulated by the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, this will add at least €3,000 to the election spending of outgoing Oireachtas members and substantially more to outgoing ministers and ministers of State. This will push many of them over the spending limits of £25,395 for candidates in three-seat constituencies, £31,743 in four-seaters and £38,092 in five-seaters.

However, although candidates who spend above the limits can be fined €1, 270 on conviction, the commission has already said it will not be referring any such cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as such overspending was inadvertent.

The commission has received 9,000 pages of statements from some 460 candidates who stood for election last May, and from the 10 agents of the registered political parties who fielded candidates. It will publish today's 40-page report on the basis of this documentation, together with 20 pages containing eight appendices.

Sources in several political parties conceded yesterday that "creative accounting" might ensure that many candidates in danger of being seen to have overspent will be seen to come in under the limit. This is because of the mechanism whereby candidates agree to allocate part of their limit to their party nationally to fund election headquarters and national advertising.

If the accounts show a smaller amount allocated to headquarters and a larger amount to the individual candidate, this could ensure that the party, and not an individual candidate, took the blame for any overspending. Such a mechanism would be particularly valuable to any candidate fearful of a challenge from a narrowly defeated rival.

Meanwhile, the Government is expected to consider raising the spending limits in the lifetime of this Dáil. Most parties, who cannot match Fianna Fáil's ability to raise funds from business, would oppose such a move.

Victor

Ministers and Taoiseach broke election spending limit
From:ireland.com
Wednesday, 11th June, 2003

Fifty six general election candidates, including Cabinet members and the Taoiseach, spent above the legal limit in their campaigns, a report published today shows.

The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, was shown to be more than €16,000 over his limit while the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Mr John O'Donoghue, was found to have exceeded his limit by €28,000.

The biggest Cabinet overspend was by the Minister for Social Welfare, Ms Mary Coughlan, who exceeded her limit by €36,000.

The only Cabinet members who did not breach their spending limits were the Minister for Health, Mr Martin and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Mr Dermot Ahern.

On the eve of last year's election the High Court restricted the amount candidates could spending on their campaigns.

The ruling said that outgoing TDs and senators must include the value of Oireachtas-provided services in their election returns.

However, sitting Oireachtas members fought the last election on the basis that these facilities did not count as part of election spending and hence many may have exceeded the limit inadvertently.

On that basis, the Standards in Public Office Commission said it would not be referring the matter to the DPP.


Several candidates who lost narrowly to sitting members have said they will consider taking legal action to overturn the election result if today's report can be used to show the overspending had a significant impact on the result.

These include Independent Ms Kathy Sinnott, who lost by just six votes, and Labour's Mr Nicky Kelly, who lost out by just 19 votes.

It is significant that Mr Martin, who was elected from the constituency in which Ms Sinnott fought her campaign, was one of the only Cabinet members not to overspend.

Today's report shows that election expenses of €9.24 million were incurred on behalf of political parties and candidates at last year's general election.

The highest expenditure was on behalf of Fianna Fáil and its candidates at €3.5 million while Fine Gael spent €2.3 million with Labour spending €1.1 million.

The PDs spent just under €600,000 with Sinn Féin spending just over €510,000 and the Green Party spending €240,000.

Cork

The opposition partys would like to believe that the Irish public were fooled into voting for the return of this government & now government TDs have overspent on their campaigns.

This would omply that the Irish public did not listen to people like Shane Ross, David McWilliams or Matt Cooper before the election.

It would also imply that the Irish make up their minds on who to vote for by the number of posters a canidate puts up.


It is no wonder these oppositions TDs are on the opposition benches.

Spending Limits need to be ahered to. But the supreme court judgement came pretty late.

Victor

Originally posted by Victor
It would appear that if the Tipperary South constituency was exactly equal to the county and based on the 1996 census, then there was less than 20,000 population per candidate as mandated by the consitution (which says use the last completed census). If the 2002 census were to be used, Meath and Kildare should have an extra 2-3 seats.

Parts of TippN (and Waterford) were transferred to TippS for constituency pupposes.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
It would also imply that the Irish make up their minds on who to vote for by the number of posters a canidate puts up.

If posters made no difference no-one would bother putting them up. They're not talking about posters anyway - read the damn judgement.

It is no wonder these oppositions TDs are on the opposition benches.

Irrelevant. But I suppose the opposition TDs are making the same point as you so it's nice that you agree with it (at least from their point of view)

Spending Limits need to be ahered to. But the supreme court judgement came pretty late.

Supreme court judgements take some time. It was in the news about two weeks after the election, as soon as the spending statements were returned.

On-topic, there have been a few cases taken in the past (there was a big one taken in the late 60s but I can't remember the details or even the name). When were the boundary adjustments made?

Victor

Originally posted by sceptre
On-topic, there have been a few cases taken in the past (there was a big one taken in the late 60s but I can't remember the details or even the name).

It was 1959 that they were declared unconstitutional, something about TDs in the west having fewer voters to make up for the large geographic size of their constituencies. Separately DeVelera tried to introduce (it was rejected by referendum) an amendment to allow a 20% differential.

Originally posted by sceptre
When were the boundary adjustments made?

The "current" boundaries were set in 1997/8. How convenient that the Census was delayed by Foot & Mouth (I'm sure the grant cheques got through by post).

Victor

I actually did a bunch of research on this only to have the CSO publish the information a day before I was getting a copy of the report (paid for :bah:))

http://www.eirestat.cso.ie/census/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportId=502 (click on the arrows to sort by category)

Several constituencies (Sligo - Leitrim, Dublin North - Central, Longford - Roscommon) with 4 seats had a lower population that Kildare North with 3 seats. The variance when the report was issued was 19% which rose to 37% in the election.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/920418?view=Eircomnet

Disability campaigner to challenge election result on spending grounds
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 24th June, 2003

Disability campaigner Ms Kathy Sinnott is to challenge last year's cliff-hanger general election result in Cork South Central on a number of grounds, including a claim that the Minister for Health, Mr Martin, did not declare the full extent of his election spending.

The High Court yesterday gave permission to Ms Sinnott, who lost out on a Dáil seat by just six votes, to bring a petition challenging the results of the election in her constituency. She ran as an Independent and is a well-known campaigner for the rights of the disabled.

Had Mr Martin declared his full expenses, Ms Sinnott claims he would have exceeded electoral spending limits.

Ms Sinnott's electoral agent, Mr Pádraig Ó Féinneadha, described yesterday's High Court decision as "very significant" and said it would place politicians' spending under greater scrutiny.

"We don't have a history of holding politicians to account over their election spending. Hopefully this will be a precedent and taxpayers will know what their money is spent on," he said.

The case will be closely observed by Cllr Nicky Kelly of the Labour Party and Cllr Nicky Kehoe of Sinn Féin, who also lost out narrowly on Dáil seats.

Today is the deadline for politicians to seek permission from the High Court to challenge the results in their constituencies.

Ms Sinnott also claims that two other Fianna Fáil deputies in her constituency, Mr Batt O'Keeffe and Mr John Dennehy, would also have exceeded the spending limits had their expenses statements included certain costs, particularly that of running a constituency party office.

Such costs had been deemed by the High Court to give sitting candidates an unfair advantage over non-sitting contenders.

It was also claimed that the mobile phone costs of Mr Martin and Mr Dennehy, and of their staff, were not included in their expenses statements. This alleged omission would have materially affected the election result in Cork South Central, Ms Sinnott claims.

Mr Ó Féinneadha said he had examined election expenses statements of several other Fianna Fáil ministers and these included items listed as expenditure which did not appear on Mr Martin's statement.

For example, expenditure declared by Ministers such as Mr Cowen and Mr Dempsey amounted to €13,393 and €25,662 respectively. The equivalent figure for Mr Martin was €7,402.

Sparks

Good for her, I hope she wins her case.