Seanad candidate had ‘expectation’ of full recount of vote over fine margin

An unsuccessful candidate in the Seanad election told a court there was an “expectation” of a full recount of the agricultural panel vote due to the “fine” margin of votes by which she lost the final seat.

Kildare county councillor Angela Feeney told the High Court in Dublin that there were issues around transparency of counting votes, and that the venue in Leinster House was “cramped and crowded”.

Earlier this year, Ms Feeney was granted permission by the court to present a petition challenging the conduct of the counting of votes for the 11-member panel.

Ms Feeney, who is a member of the Labour Party, claims she was refused a full recount by the returning officer.

She said she lost out on a seat by one-ninth of a ballot.

Ms Feeney claimed that the margin of difference was as close as it has ever been since the 1980s.

Her petition to have a full recount is being opposed by a number of defendants in the case, including the returning office and the Minister for Housing.

Ms Feeney lost to Fine Gael’s Maria Byrne following a margin of difference of one-ninth of a ballot. Ms Byrne was the last candidate on the panel to be elected.

In the Seanad elections, as the electorate is much smaller than other elections, each ballot paper is given a value of 1,000 votes.

There was a total valid poll of 95,667 on the agricultural panel. At the conclusion of the 23rd count, in which Ms Feeney had been eliminated, she had 17,513 votes.

Ms Byrne had, at the end of that count, a total of 17,629 votes. It represented a difference of one ninth of a ballot paper.

Senior counsel Conor Power, for Ms Feeney, said that the petitioner wants to have the results overturned and recounted.

Mr Power said that Ms Byrne was marginally ahead of Ms Feeney, and that it was the tightest of margins at a stage of elimination where the final seat was up for grabs.

He claimed it was the closest margin that they have come across since 1987 on a final determinative count, where one exclusion deemed everyone else elected.

He said that following the conclusion of the 23rd count, Ms Feeney asked the returning officer for a full recount of votes cast on the agriculture panel.

Having considered the request, the returning officer said that only a full recount of the 23rd count would be carried out.

The court heard that Seanad election candidates are legally entitled to call for a recount, but not a full recount.

Candidates can, however, ask the returning officer for a full recount, to which the returning officer has discretion.

Following the returning officer’s refusal to carry out a full recount, Ms Feeney objected in writing.

Mr Power said there are two issues raised by Ms Feeney, the issue of a failure to allow for a full recount and the second being the issue of transparency of how the 23rd recount was carried out.

Mr Power also said he is making a request for the court to order a full recount before its determination of the case, saying it may assist the court, particularly if a mistake or irregularity is established.

Mr Power said that small margins in a system where ballot papers are counted by people must be considered by the returning officer in exercising their discretion of power.

He said that the purpose of the Electoral Act is to ensure an outcome that the public has confidence in the system and that recounts are part of that process.

“We say that all of the rules for counting and recounting is to produce a result that everyone can stand over,” he added.

“But because there are narrow margins and there is a possibility of human errors, notwithstanding planning by the returning office and staff. The evidence shows that recounts do result in different voting outcomes and changes to the number of votes.

“We say the margin of difference is something of particular note for the returning officer to consider as that bears directly on the outcome of the election.”

Giving evidence, Ms Feeney said she has attended election counts for a number of decades, both as a candidate and as part of local Labour Party teams.

She said she has attended count centres for Seanad, Dail and local elections.

She said she would have been well used to the process of counting ballot papers.

Ms Feeney said she was “very surprised” that when the counting process started, it was taking place at such a distance that there was no proper line of sight of the ballot papers.

She said that some staff members had their backs to candidates and that she did not have a proper line of sight to see the ballot papers being counted.

She said there was no opportunity to see the tally of votes as they were being counted around seven feet away.

Ms Feeney told the court that there was an “expectation” that because of the fine margin, a recount would have been called.

She said this also raised issues of transparency, that the venue was very cramped and crowded and was not an appropriate venue which did not allow for transparency.

She also claimed the layout of the room also caused issues, in that those watching the count were restricted from seeing the ballot papers.

Under cross-examination by Catherine Donnelly SC, for the returning officer, Ms Feeney claimed that historically, it was the finest of margins.

Ms Donnelly, however, stated that Ms Feeney was not the only candidate excluded from the count having lost on less than one ballot paper.

The barrister put it to Ms Feeney that around on third of the agricultural panel was excluded by less than one ballot paper and that they were not entitled to a full recount.

Ms Feeney stated that the margin between the other candidates were not as “fine” as her loss.

The court heard that in her affidavit, Ms Feeney had said that the refusal to carry out a full recount was so unusual that it could be a near singular event.

She also questioned what event would have to happen which would provide for a full recount.

Ms Feeney added that she had a “reasonable expectation” that there would have been a full recount as it could potentially have a bearing on being elected or not.

The case continues.