The High Court has rejected a second challenge to the process for nominating candidates for the Presidential Election.
Earlier this week, a case taken by businessman Niall Byrne to Fine Gael's direction to councillors to block the nomination of Independent candidates was dismissed by Mr Justice Brian Cregan.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin rejected another challenge by mathematics lecturer, Dr Cora Stack, who said that she was a prospective Independent candidate for the election.
She had sought declarations that the presidential nomination process had been conducted unlawfully, was in breach of the Constitution, and the direction of Tánaiste Simon Harris to Fine Gael councillors was also unlawful and unconstitutional.
Dr Stack sought an order restraining the State from proceeding with the process and an injunction requiring the nomination process to be conducted lawfully, fairly and constitutionally.
Mr Justice Heslin ruled that she had no arguable basis for her application and was seeking to persuade the court to make law, a power the courts did not have.
He said that any change in the Constitution regarding the nomination process for Presidential Election candidates was a matter for the people and any new legislation was a matter for elected representatives.
He said the role of the courts was to serve the people by interpreting and administering the law.
In his ruling, the judge said that Dr Stack had not provided any evidence of "even the most basic matters" such as which councils required a proposer and seconder, whether any councillor had proposed or seconded her, and what efforts she had made to secure a proposer or seconder.
She was seeking, he said, to rely on the position of other would-be presidential candidates.
If it was the will of the people, the judge said, that there should be no political party or "whip" direction to councillors in relating to nominating a candidate then it was open to the people to specify that in Article 12 of the Constitution. However, he found that "the people made no such choice".
He said that no law imposed the restrictions on councillors contended for by Dr Stack and she was seeking to have the High Court write laws that did not reflect the will of the Irish people as expressed in the Constitution and in legislation enacted by the Oireachtas and the court had no jurisdiction to do what she urged.
The judge also said the decision by the leader of a political party that only its nominee would be supported as well as an individual decision by a local politician to support a would-be candidate were decisions of political significance only and did not involve matters of law.
Mr Justice Heslin also ruled that the timing, content and conduct of council meetings were matters for each local authority, in the manner provided for in legislation.
He said that Dr Stack had provided no evidence that even a single councillor in the State had voted to nominate her or second her nomination and it was impossible to understand how her complaint that there was limited time given at council meetings for presentations could have had any bearing on her prospects of securing support from at least four local authorities.
He said that her proposals on how such meetings should be conducted amounted to her efforts to substitute her views for the will of the Irish people.
Mr Justice Heslin said that Dr Stack had put forward no evidence that she had made efforts to get the support of 20 Oireachtas members, which was another route to nomination open to her.
The judge awarded the State parties their costs against Dr Stack, who took her action against the Attorney General, Ireland, the Minister for Housing, the Presidential Returning Officer and the Tánaiste.
