[Constitutional Convention][7][28 Sept 2013] Voting Rights for Citizens Abroad

RangeR · 23-07-2013 3:11pm #1

Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

The Convention are meeting on September 28th and 29th 2013 to discuss the seventh issue put to us.

Voting Rights for Citizens Abroad

The Irish Constitution URL="https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf"]PDF[/URL currently states [excluding articles not directly related to this, ie secret ballot, single vote per citizen etc]

Article 16.1.2 wrote:

i All citizens, and
ii such other persons in the State as may be determined by law,

without distinction of sex who have reached the age of eighteen years who are not disqualified by law and comply with the provisions of the law relating to the election of members of Dáil Éireann,shall have the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann.

Article 28A.4 wrote:

Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann and such other persons as may be determined by law shall have the right to vote at an election for members of such of the local authorities referred to in section 2 of this Article asshall be determined by law

Article 47.3 wrote:

Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum

In general terms, a citizen is a native or naturalized member of Ireland. Is that even a good enough definition?

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is anything in the Constitution restricting Citizens Abroad from voting. Unless the courts have interpreted and ruled it as so.

I welcome your comments. Discuss.

Cody Pomeray · 23-07-2013 3:37pm

There is nothing in the constitution which prevents any citizen who is not resident in Ireland from voting in an Irish election.

There is no constitutional barrier to practical arrangements for the exercise of voting rights by Irish voters who were outside Ireland. The constitution (whatever about statute) is silent on these people.

For context, here is the situation as it was in 2009, as stated by the European Court of Human Rights:

Most of the member States which allow voting from abroad lay down administrative procedures for the registration of expatriates on the electoral roll. Thirty-seven member States fall into this category: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

The above-mentioned countries provide either for voting in polling stations abroad or postal voting, or both. The following seventeen countries allow voting in embassies or consulates or in polling stations set up elsewhere: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' and Ukraine.

Eight countries (Austria, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovakia) allow their citizens living abroad to vote by post only, either through an embassy or consulate or by writing directly to the competent national authority. The possibility of voting either at an embassy (or consulate) or by post is provided for in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. A handful of countries – Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – also allow voting by proxy. In Monaco, proxy voting is the sole means by which nationals of that country can vote from abroad.
A few States (the Netherlands and Switzerland) allow Internet voting. This type of voting is already enshrined in law and in operation in Estonia, while it is under consideration in Spain.

In five member States (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Hungary, Liechtenstein and 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'), only persons temporarily resident outside the country have the right to vote from abroad. In the last-mentioned country, the law refers explicitly to persons living and working abroad temporarily. In some countries, expatriates lose the right to vote after a certain period of time (fifteen years in the United Kingdom and twenty-five years in Germany).

Certain countries such as Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Ukraine allow external voting only with the permission of the host country.

In four countries – Croatia, France, Italy and Portugal – expatriates may elect their own representatives to the national parliament in constituencies set up outside the country. In Portugal, each of the two constituencies elects a member of Parliament. French citizens living abroad participate in the election of twelve members of the Senate via the 150‑strong Assembly of French Expatriates. From 2012, they will also be able to elect eleven members to the National Assembly. In Croatia and Italy, the number of parliamentary seats allocated to expatriate constituencies depends on the number of votes cast.

As you can see (although this is just one of the many factors for consideration), Ireland is in the minority as a member state of the Council of Europe in not making any provisions for its citizens to vote whilst abroad.

We don't need a constitutional amendment to do this, although I do believe we should specifically protect the voting rights of the citizen diaspora to this effect.

An Coilean · 23-07-2013 4:42pm

There is one point that needs mentioning, Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland currently cannot vote.
Personally I am against this, these people are as Irish as anyone living south of the border and are citizens of the Republic, they should have voting rights in my opinion.

The right to vote should be given in Presidential elections first. I am not a shinner, but the idea that Martin McGuinneass could be President, but not vote in the election is somewhat farsical to my mind.
Given that Local and Dáil elections are held on a geographical basis accomodating people from NI is somewhat more challenging, personally I would be in favour of defining NI as a constituency and giving NI a representative or two in the Dáil.

As for the Seanad, we have had Senators from NI in the past and should the upcomming seanad referendum be defeated(Hopefully), I would suggest allowing persons from NI vote in Seanad elections along with persons living south of the border.

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 5:07pm

I simply dont see the fairness in allowing people who wont be affected by the results the ability to vote. They may have an interest in seeing the country run the way they want it but in my opinion you give that right up when you leave whether it was by choice or forced to under economic circumstances. The Northern Ireland issue is more complicated but outside of that i completely disagree with the idea

RangeR · 23-07-2013 5:45pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I simply dont see the fairness in allowing people who wont be affected by the results the ability to vote.

Who won't be affected right now. What if a person is planning on coming back in a few months or a year [or insert short term measure here]. It certainly would affect them.

I suppose we could start by defining citizens abroad. Are you considered "diaspora" after a day, month, year, longer away from the country?

Is it if you purchase a property abroad?
Is it, maybe, if you become a naturalised citizen of a foreign state? If so, what about the "undocumented"?

Cody Pomeray · 23-07-2013 7:53pm

Placing a time limit on a constitutional right to vote goes further than the current provisions.

At least at present a voter with a (say, family) address in the south cross the border and vote every election. Take that away and you would have the (I say) absurd situation where the State would seem to be taking a regressive step in defiance of its stated constitutional will to unite the island, by removing the voting rights of Northerners after a period of time.

I can't envisage a situation where it would be practical or legally possible to guarantee the voting rights of citizens resident in one jurisdiction (Northern Ireland), but not another less favoured jurisdiction (England, or Australia).

Therefore I don't believe time-limiting the constitutional right to vote is possible as long as the island is divided.

And i don't think this is a justification for not granting voting rights to emigrants, many of whom have been more terribly effected by maladministration than other citizens, i.e. they have 'lost' their communities and personal and family life has been disrupted. They should get to choose the route to their return.

Iwasfrozen · 23-07-2013 8:28pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Placing a time limit on a constitutional right to vote goes further than the current provisions.

At least at present a voter with a (say, family) address in the south cross the border and vote every election. Take that away and you would have the (I say) absurd situation where the State would seem to be taking a regressive step in defiance of its stated constitutional will to unite the island, by removing the voting rights of Northerners after a period of time.

I can't envisage a situation where it would be practical or legally possible to guarantee the voting rights of citizens resident in one jurisdiction (Northern Ireland), but not another less favoured jurisdiction (England, or Australia).

Therefore I don't believe time-limiting the constitutional right to vote is possible as long as the island is divided.

And i don't think this is a justification for not granting voting rights to emigrants, many of whom have been more terribly effected by maladministration than other citizens, i.e. they have 'lost' their communities and personal and family life has been disrupted. They should get to choose the route to their return.

We simply cannot give a vote to each of the 600,000 of so Irish citizens in the UK who would avail of it. This is a statistically significant number of people and won't be effected by the results of the election.

If you don't live in this country and pay your taxes to this country you shouldn't be allowed to choose who runs this country. Sin é.

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 8:34pm

RangeR wrote: »

Who won't be affected right now. What if a person is planning on coming back in a few months or a year [or insert short term measure here]. It certainly would affect them.

I suppose we could start by defining citizens abroad. Are you considered "diaspora" after a day, month, year, longer away from the country?

Is it if you purchase a property abroad?
Is it, maybe, if you become a naturalised citizen of a foreign state? If so, what about the "undocumented"?

I dont honestly see that the reason they might be planning to come back as a valid reason to give them the vote, if we define a certain time frame of less than a year i suppose would be okay but any longer i would have an issue with.
I think if you purchase property that is a indication of an investement in a new life outside the state and i disagree with anyone in that case having a vote however it would be quite hard to police such policy

Cody Pomeray · 23-07-2013 8:39pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We simply cannot give a vote to each of the 600,000 of so Irish citizens in the UK who would avail of it.

Who "would avail of it"?

I'm sure you can't actually believe they would all vote.

Other countries with established experiences of emigration to match our own, e.g. Italy, Moldova, and Romania... oh, and the UK of course, with all of its citizens living here, already allow citizens to vote abroad.

This is a statistically significant number of people and won't be effected by the results of the election.

Many of them will. For many, it affects whether they can eve reasonably expect to re-join their community, and restore their family relationships to the same extent as ought have been enjoyed.

If you don't live in this country and pay your taxes to this country you shouldn't be allowed to choose who runs this country. Sin é.

Except that's not the law as it stands.

Iwasfrozen · 23-07-2013 9:22pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm sure you can't actually believe they would all vote.

I would say the majority of them would.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Other countries with established experiences of emigration to match our own, e.g. Italy, Moldova, and Romania... oh, and the UK of course, with all of its citizens living here, already allow citizens to vote abroad.

Other countries don't have such a high emigration to native population ratio. There is also the Northern Ireland question which doesn't exist in the case of other countries.

The Northern Ireland problem could be solved by making a condition on voting overseas that the applicant must have been resident in the state for ten years prior to emigrating and I would support such a measure.

Many of them will. For many, it affects whether they can eve reasonably expect to re-join their community, and restore their family relationships to the same extent as ought have been enjoyed.

That's nice and when they start paying tax to us they can have a say in the make up of our parliament.

No representation without taxation.

Except that's not the law as it stands.

Except it is the law as it stands. If you think the law is invalidated by some vague statement in the constitution start a campaign to have it changed.

expectationlost · 24-07-2013 8:32am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We simply cannot give a vote to each of the 600,000 of so Irish citizens in the UK who would avail of it. This is a statistically significant number of people and won't be effected by the results of the election.

If you don't live in this country and pay your taxes to this country you shouldn't be allowed to choose who runs this country. Sin é.

couldn't people be up to year away and still have paid taxes in ireland that year, all they need is place to vote, an irish embassy/consul

Iwasfrozen · 24-07-2013 9:28am

expectationlost wrote: »

couldn't people be up to year away and still have paid taxes in ireland that year, all they need is place to vote, an irish embassy/consul

They could indeed. That's why I'd be in favour of making it so that you had to be a full time resident in Ireland for ten years before you emigrate.

Cody Pomeray · 24-07-2013 10:28am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Other countries don't have such a high emigration to native population ratio.

An obvious example is Lithuania. Both our countries have current emigration rates of 1.7 - 1.8%, both have a long history of regional and intercontinental emigration, and Lithuania facilitates voting abroad-even for those living permanently abroad.

Up until very recently, Lithuania had a citizenship law that mirrors our own citizenship law (The Granny Rule), meaning that this voting right extends to people who have never even set foot in Lithuania.

And the sky may have fallen in on Lithuania in economic terms, but this has nothing to do with emigrants' voting rights, it seems. No catastrophe has emerged.

In fact, I think the fact that our two countries have such a disproportionate history of emigration is precisely the reason why we must give a voice to these people. They had a fair expectation of not having their personal and family lives disrupted by economic mismanagement, and many of them left primarily because of that mismanagement.

The Northern Ireland problem could be solved by making a condition on voting overseas that the applicant must have been resident in the state for ten years prior to emigrating and I would support such a measure.

Again, this excludes Northern residents who have never lived on the southern part of the Ireland, but who are citizens of a country that seeks unity, and I suggest that this would be unacceptable at a political level.

clairefontaine · 24-07-2013 2:58pm

Ireland has been slow to change because of its emmigration cycles. Do you think if over the years emigrants could vote, divorce would have come in sooner, abortion would be legalised, various referenda would have had different outcomes?

Iwasfrozen · 24-07-2013 9:25pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

An obvious example is Lithuania. Both our countries have current emigration rates of 1.7 - 1.8%, both have a long history of regional and intercontinental emigration, and Lithuania facilitates voting abroad-even for those living permanently abroad.

Up until very recently, Lithuania had a citizenship law that mirrors our own citizenship law (The Granny Rule), meaning that this voting right extends to people who have never even set foot in Lithuania.

And the sky may have fallen in on Lithuania in economic terms, but this has nothing to do with emigrants' voting rights, it seems. No catastrophe has emerged.

In fact, I think the fact that our two countries have such a disproportionate history of emigration is precisely the reason why we must give a voice to these people. They had a fair expectation of not having their personal and family lives disrupted by economic mismanagement, and many of them left primarily because of that mismanagement.

I wish Lithuania well in any endeavours they may choose to undertake but I disagree fundamentally with their (and your) stance on this issue.

The purpose of tax is to be collected by the government and redistributed as resources in ways the government sees fit for the benefit of the whole country. Now understandably this is subjective and the government may not have the best interests of the Irish people at heart. This is why we elect our representatives. To ensure the government acts in a socially and morally acceptable manner. (in theory at least)

Those who live in a foreign country do not pay tax to the Irish government and do not benefit from the redistribution of income. Morally unless you pay into the kitty you have no right to vote how it is shared and this is the status quo. No representation without taxation.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Again, this excludes Northern residents who have never lived on the southern part of the Ireland, but who are citizens of a country that seeks unity, and I suggest that this would be unacceptable at a political level.

The status of Northern Ireland has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and quite frankly I don't know why you brought it up, The people of Northern Ireland have no right to vote in our parliament while paying their taxes to her Majesty's treasury.

If on the other hand you feel the current status quo that the Northern Irish cannot vote in our elections is unconstitutional then by all means contact your local TD. Telling me won't do much good.

Mucco · 24-07-2013 9:30pm

I am quite against voting for non-residents, despite living abroad for many years.

I haven't lived in Ireland since 2006, but, because most of the time has been spent in the UK, I could vote in local, mayoral and Westminster elections. I haven't felt disenfranchised. I now live in a different EU country, with no say in the national parliament, so my attitude may change, but this is an argument for allowing EU citizens vote in their country of residence, rather than their country of citizenship.

I can't see beyond the moral hazard question. Why should I get a say in the running of the country, when I do not have to live with the consequences of my vote. If someone can provide a good reasoning why this is not important, I may change my mind, so I welcome the debate.

expectationlost · 24-07-2013 9:50pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

An obvious example is Lithuania. Both our countries have current emigration rates of 1.7 - 1.8%, both have a long history of regional and intercontinental emigration, and Lithuania facilitates voting abroad-even for those living permanently abroad.

Up until very recently, Lithuania had a citizenship law that mirrors our own citizenship law (The Granny Rule), meaning that this voting right extends to people who have never even set foot in Lithuania.

And the sky may have fallen in on Lithuania in economic terms, but this has nothing to do with emigrants' voting rights, it seems. No catastrophe has emerged.

what percentage of lithuania who never set foot in the country voted in a lithuanian election?

Cannibal Ox · 25-07-2013 12:06am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Those who live in a foreign country do not pay tax to the Irish government and do not benefit from the redistribution of income. Morally unless you pay into the kitty you have no right to vote how it is shared and this is the status quo.

If representation in Ireland was based on who gave the money for state spending, Christine Lagarde would be entitled to a vote.

And if she's entitled to a vote, then I'm entitled to a vote, because some tiny, teeny, weeny % of my tax goes to fund international bodies like the IMF, the EU, not to mention a significantly larger % of my tax that goes to fund the UK government.

I would like a vote - what happens in Ireland does effect me, not least because I have family and friends there, it's the country I grew up in and I'm a citizen of the country. If it didn't effect me I probably wouldn't bother voting if I had that right.

VinLieger · 25-07-2013 12:14am

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

If representation in Ireland was based on who gave the money for state spending, Christine Lagarde would be entitled to a vote.

And if she's entitled to a vote, then I'm entitled to a vote, because some tiny, teeny, weeny % of my tax goes to fund international bodies like the IMF, the EU, not to mention a significantly larger % of my tax that goes to fund the UK government.

I would like a vote - what happens in Ireland does effect me, not least because I have family and friends there, it's the country I grew up in and I'm a citizen of the country. If it didn't effect me I probably wouldn't bother voting if I had that right.

IMF and EU bailouts are not taxes they will be paid back eventually. Also the argument of i have family and friends there is ridiculous, ive family and friends in america, england and australia doenst mean im entitled to vote there

Iwasfrozen · 25-07-2013 10:42am

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

If representation in Ireland was based on who gave the money for state spending, Christine Lagarde would be entitled to a vote.

And if she's entitled to a vote, then I'm entitled to a vote, because some tiny, teeny, weeny % of my tax goes to fund international bodies like the IMF, the EU, not to mention a significantly larger % of my tax that goes to fund the UK government.

Bailouts are not taxes. Neither of you are entitled to vote.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I would like a vote - what happens in Ireland does effect me, not least because I have family and friends there, it's the country I grew up in and I'm a citizen of the country. If it didn't effect me I probably wouldn't bother voting if I had that right.

It doesn't affect you. It affects your friends and family and that's why they have a vote. If you want to have a say in the running of this country then move back.

Cody Pomeray · 25-07-2013 11:37am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wish Lithuania well in any endeavours they may choose to undertake but I disagree fundamentally with their (and your) stance on this issue.

Yes I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm responding to the following points:

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Other countries don't have such a high emigration to native population ratio.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

We simply cannot give a vote to each of the 600,000 of so Irish citizens in the UK who would avail of it.

Now whatever about any personal reasons you feel emigrant's shouldn't be entitled to vote in Irish elections, the case of Lithuania undermines the case that extending the vote to emigrants (or the citizen diaspora, generally) would cause major problems.

Those who live in a foreign country do not pay tax to the Irish government and do not benefit from the redistribution of income.

Those who live abroad very often have paid plenty of tax to the Irish government; not only that, but very many of them have been the subjects of heavy investment by the irish Government in terms of education; the amount of medical, nursing, engineering and technical graduates who leave college and immediately leave is beyond a joke. Like the overwhelming majority of the European nations, it is about time we recognized their ongoing citizenship in this practical way.

Morally unless you pay into the kitty you have no right to vote how it is shared and this is the status quo.

That's daft, we don't extend voting rights in accordance with tax contributions in this country. You have just made that moral position up.

What about stay at home wives who are not entitled to any income, and don't earn a personal income. Are you suggesting they should be removed of their right to vote?

Also, please stop repeating that ridiculous 18th century slogan. It has no application in this country, and is devoid of legal or any real relevance.

The status of Northern Ireland has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and quite frankly I don't know why you brought it up, The people of Northern Ireland have no right to vote in our parliament while paying their taxes to her Majesty's treasury.

Then read the (very short) thread. It was brought up because it would make the time-limiting of the right to vote politically difficult, in fact probably impossible.

Nobody said the current situation is un-constitutional. I have no idea where you got that from.

expectationlost wrote: »

what percentage of lithuania who never set foot in the country voted in a lithuanian election?

I don't believe Lithuania collects the data in that level of detail.

What we do know is that only 5% of Lithuanians abroad are registered to vote in elections.

And 60% of that 5% vote in Lithuanian elections.

Therefore, 3% of Lithuanians abroad vote in Lithuanian elections.

http://rc10.ipsa.org/public/i-voting_in_Lithuania.pdf

jank · 25-07-2013 2:06pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No representation without taxation.

.

You do know you have this back to front? It was actually "No taxation without representation". It is a pretty big difference with a whole new meaning. Your statement implies fundamentally that only taxpayers should have a vote. A hark back to the bygone days where only men of wealth and property could cast a ballot. Should people on the dole have a vote? What is the taxation threshold?

The Irony is is that I pay tax in Ireland yet don't have a vote, should I get one?

Countries with very large emigrant populations have this already in place. We are supposed to be trying to reform our politics and our democracy but many are still in the 19th century way of thinking. I think I am right that Ireland is the only EU country NOT to have this in place. Then people are surprised irish politics is so stale!

This is all old hat. Ireland slow to change as always. A proposal that is outlined is given negative feedback cause we cant rock the boat. There was times in history where the emigrant working in London or Boston kept food on the table and clothes on your back in many and Irish home. What did they get for it in return? Nothing. Pay up and shut up! Ireland has a disgraceful record in its treatment of emigrants, especially those that went to the UK in the 50's. Gabriel Byrne was right when he spoke of this "Irish Scam".

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 2:13pm

You are a citizen or you are not. Usually voting is the right of citizens, not residents. You think it's ok to start messing around with citizens rights?

jank · 25-07-2013 3:37pm

Apparently voting rights are only the privilege the Irish tax payer.

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 3:51pm

jank wrote: »

Apparently voting rights are only the privilege the Irish tax payer.

And resident foreign nationals paying tax? Don't think they can vote.

Mucco · 25-07-2013 6:56pm

Can anyone provide counter arguments to the moral hazard issue?

I think the tax issue is a red herring, as this could suggest that those who pay more tax get a higher weighting on their vote. However, VAT is a tax which more or less everyone pays.

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 6:58pm

Also there are plenty f Irish abroad still paying taxes on their homes I ireland.

Feathers · 25-07-2013 7:30pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We simply cannot give a vote to each of the 600,000 of so Irish citizens in the UK who would avail of it. This is a statistically significant number of people and won't be effected by the results of the election.

If you don't live in this country and pay your taxes to this country you shouldn't be allowed to choose who runs this country. Sin é.

There's a big assumption in play there, that the number of voters will be directly proportional to the affect on the elections — if you're talking about Dáil or Seanad elections, the affect is instead driven by the constituency boundaries. If you have one Dáil seat for all Irish emmigrants that's the extent to which they can affect government. It doesn't matter after that if one person votes or if 2 million voted.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If on the other hand you feel the current status quo that the Northern Irish cannot vote in our elections is unconstitutional then by all means contact your local TD. Telling me won't do much good.

So you're saying that we shouldn't discuss it because it won't do much good, on a thread started specifically to get input by someone who will be involved in the constitutional convention :pac:

Mucco wrote: »

Why should I get a say in the running of the country, when I do not have to live with the consequences of my vote. If someone can provide a good reasoning why this is not important, I may change my mind, so I welcome the debate.

I would say because the running of the country does have consequences for you. Not to the same extent as someone living in Ireland, agreed; but that is why it would be reasonable to get lesser representation, rather than no representation.

As a simple example, if there was a referendum in the morning for Ireland to leave the EU, you would very much have to live with the consequences.

I think a lot of the discussion boils down to what you consider citizenship. To the people here who are against Irish citizens abroad voting: do you think citizenship should lapse after a certain length of time away from the country?

Cody Pomeray · 25-07-2013 7:55pm

That's an interesting idea about a constituency for emigrants.

The problem there is that the amount of eligible voters would require a constitutional amendment to limit the number of representatives per 30,000 population or whatever.
It also raises questions about equality under Article 40.1. We should be careful about differentiating the equality of the vote in any arbitrary manner.

If the above is not practical, then the very least we could do - and this could be done by an Act of the Oireachtas - is enact legislation for the representation of emigrants in the Seanad, similarly to how we currently elect University Senators.

Whilst that is not a hugely desirable outcome at the moment, I think it might be acceptable as a compromise in a future, reformed Seanad.

Feathers · 25-07-2013 8:14pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The problem there is that the amount of eligible voters would require a constitutional amendment to limit the number of representatives per 30,000 population or whatever.
It also raises questions about equality under Article 40.1. We should be careful about differentiating the equality of the vote in any arbitrary manner.

Regarding constituency sizes:

Article 16 wrote:

2. 1° Dáil Éireann shall be composed of members who represent constituencies determined by law.

2° The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

3° The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

You could argue that it's #1 not practicable and #2 not throughout the country.

In terms of Article 40:

Article 40 wrote:

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

I think that if you argue that would be contravened, you could also argue that 16.1 is currently being contravened:

Article 16.1 wrote:

2° i All citizens, and

ii such other persons in the State as may be determined by law,

without distinction of sex who have reached the age of eighteen years who are not disqualified by law and comply with the provisions of the law relating to the election of members of Dáil Éireann, shall have the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann.

Though I think at present, the argument is that you're not being disqualified from voting because you live outside the state, but "the provisions relating to Dáil elections" mean that we don't have constituencies outside the state.

I think if we can get away with that interpretation presently, the same could be said for #40.1 — you are being treated equally as a citizen, in that any citizen that resides outside the state would be treated the same way.

I think it would be best to put any changes of this scale to a referendum anyway though, and at that point it would make sense to clarify things like this at a constitutional level. Also agree that reprensentation in a reformed Seanad could be a good approach.

Cody Pomeray · 25-07-2013 9:16pm

Feathers wrote: »

You could argue that it's #1 not practicable and #2 not throughout the country.

In 1961 the Supreme Court envisaged "impracticability" as involving some minor divergence from the mathematical ideal, which may arise when the Oireachtas is taking local considerations into account (such as not splitting up small counties, or taking account of natural boundaries made by rivers, lakes and mountains). The Supreme Court also seemed to envisage a "serious divergence" from uniformity as being unconstitutional.

"Throughout the country" is also interesting, but a lack of meaningful authorities means that it is difficult to speculate on how that would be interpreted. Does "the country" mean the sovereign territory, or does it in this case imply constituencies instead?

These are interesting questions you raise, I don't know what the answer is. But I think for the avoidance of doubt, and since this is all being discussed at a Constitutional convention anyway, a constitutional amendment would be the ideal outcome.

the argument is that you're not being disqualified from voting because you live outside the state, but "the provisions relating to Dáil elections" mean that we don't have constituencies outside the state.

Interestingly enough, it doesn't seem as though it would be unconstitutional to limit the right to vote (except on grounds of sex), either in terms of Art.40 or Art.16.1.

However, it is unconstitutional to do so in an "arbitrary" manner. It is the latter we should avoid; it is doubtful that enacting a constitutional amendment to provide for the emigrant constituencies would in itself clash with Articles 40 or 16.1 in a meaningful way, since it is well established that "equality" is not equivalent to "uniformity"... although I suppose that a minority of emigrants and others would say that such an amendment would "dilutes" the equality provided for.

[Constitutional Convention][7][28 Sept 2013] Voting Rights for Citizens Abroad

Comments