Brian Mohan of Fianna Fáil has lost his challenge to the provisions of the Electoral (Political Funding) Act 2012. The Act links State funding of political parties to their meeting of specified gender quota targets. Parties who fail to ensure these quotas are met will have State funding halved. Currently it requires at least 30% of general election candidates to be women and 30% to be men. It is intended to increase to 40% after seven years.
Mr. Mohan brought the case against the State after Fianna Fáil directed its sole general election candidate in the Dublin Central constituency, where Mr. Mohan wished to go forward for selection, must be a woman.
Mr. Mohan argued the Constitution does not entitle the legislature to sanction parties over failure to select particular types of people to contest general elections. He also said Fianna Fáil policy is decided by its ardfheis, which never approved gender quotas. He contended his party cannot be coerced, by law, into imposing gender quotas which prevented him going forward as a candidate by virtue of his gender.
Mr. Justice Keane dismissed the challenge stating Mr. Mohan failed to demonstrate that he was excluded from being considered for selection, at the Dublin Central election convention, on the basis of the Act, rather than a voluntary decision of Fianna Fáil
The Court determined Mr. Mohan did not have the necessary standing to bring the case finding him unable to adduce evidence to show the 2012 Act had mandated the directive to the Dublin Central selection convention.
Mr. Mohan further reasoned the gender quota law could lead to a party comprising only women. However, the Court found it inappropriate to allow Mr Mohan to pursue such hypothetical arguments.
The Court further rejected the claim that a 50% cut in funding for Fianna Fáil, if it did not meet the gender quota targets, would make it impossible for the party to function. It instead found all the issues raised by Mr. Mohan were ones that Fianna Fáil, rather than Mr. Mohan, was best placed to address.
Mr. Justice Keane found there was no counteracting consideration to justify departure from the normal rules governing legal standing to advance claims.