Is There a Blind Spot in Ireland's Presidential Election?

Описание: This video examines a structural issue in Irish presidential elections arising from the interaction of constitutional provisions, statutory election law, political practice, and institutional timing.

Article 12 of Bunreacht na hÉireann establishes a tightly sequenced framework for presidential elections, including exclusive nomination routes, fixed statutory timelines, and a constitutional guarantee of continuity of office once a President has entered office. The Presidential Elections Acts give statutory effect to this framework through procedures designed to proceed from nomination to inauguration without interruption.

This video explains how, in practice, that sequencing can result in certain constitutional and statutory questions being incapable of determination at any stage of the electoral process. Issues raised before an election may be regarded as premature. Issues arising once the electoral process is underway may be institutionally difficult to address within compressed statutory timelines. After polling and the assumption of office, constitutional continuity forecloses post-election review. The result is that legality may remain unresolved, not because it has been examined and rejected, but because no effective procedural window exists in which it can be addressed.

The video addresses:

The constitutional design of presidential nominations under Article 12

The role of county and city councillors as constitutionally designated nominators

The absence of any constitutional role for political parties in the presidential nomination process

The practical effect of political party influence operating outside the constitutional text

The rigidity of statutory sequencing under the Presidential Elections Acts

The absence of any mechanism for suspending, isolating, or resolving legal issues once an election order has issued

The implications of late-stage legality concerns, including in relation to ballot paper content

The analysis focuses on institutional structure rather than individual conduct. It identifies how constitutional design, statutory timelines, political practice, and finality can combine to create situations in which legality is neither affirmed nor rejected on its merits, but remains procedurally unreachable.

It is a reasonable and necessary question whether, in any appellate or review framework, constitutional and statutory questions arising in presidential elections should be capable of being heard and determined on their merits. Addressing existing constitutional blind spots and procedural discontinuities is essential to ensuring effective access to justice, constitutional coherence, accountability, transparency, democratic legitimacy, and a properly functioning separation of powers.