High Court Dismisses Dr Cora Stack’s Unfounded Challenge to Presidential Election Nomination Rules
In a significant decision ahead of presidential polling day, the High Court dismissed Dr. Cora Stack’s challenge to the nomination process. The court ruled that her claims regarding the legality of the nomination rules for independent candidates were “entirely baseless” and “unstateable.”
High Court Ruling on Nomination Challenge
Dr. Stack, a mathematics lecturer, sought judicial review to contest what she described as unlawful barriers erected by political parties against independent candidates like herself. Her case targeted several state officials, including the Attorney General and Tánaiste Simon Harris.
Key Claims and Arguments
- Dr. Stack argued that political parties unlawfully blocked her from nomination.
- She sought a declaration that a directive from Simon Harris to Fine Gael councillors was unconstitutional.
- She requested an injunction to ensure a fair and lawful nomination process.
The nomination requirements stipulate that candidates must secure either 20 nominations from members of the Oireachtas or support from four local authorities. Justice Mark Heslin highlighted that Dr. Stack failed to present evidence of her attempts to gather the required Oireachtas nominations, despite there being more than 20 independent TDs who could have supported her.
Judgment Details
During the ruling on Thursday, Justice Heslin stated that Dr. Stack’s inability to attend all council meetings, including those held on September 15, 2025, did not violate her rights. He remarked that the organization of council meetings falls under the discretion of individual councils, which could schedule them as they see fit.
- Dr. Stack’s claim concerning the limitation of presentations to five minutes at council meetings was dismissed.
- Justice Heslin described her allegations of “orchestration by central authorities” regarding council meeting scheduling as unfounded.
Furthermore, Justice Heslin asserted that Dr. Stack’s request for reform to the nomination process indicated a desire to make it easier for her personally, which is outside the judicial domain. He emphasized that any changes to the process should be determined politically and through public referendums, not by the court.
Conclusion
The court ultimately rejected Dr. Stack’s application for a review of the nomination rules and ordered her to cover the costs of the state’s legal representation. This ruling highlights the complexities of the nomination process for independent candidates and the limitations of judicial intervention in political matters.
