Referendum result challenged
The petition is also supported by an affidavit by journalist John Waters, who advocated a No vote in the referendum.
In her affidavit, Ms Jordan said she felt very strongly it would be appropriate to vote No because she was unhappy the State would be given power to step into shoes of parents in making critical decisions affecting children. She was extremely concerned about the Government's information material and believed it was one-sided and not impartial or balanced.
While campaigning for a No vote, it became apparent voters had a mistake understanding of the impact of the referendum and believed, for example, in certain extreme cases, children could not be taken into care unless the amendment was passed she said. It was obvious the Government information influenced people into voting yes, she said.
While she was not at all surprised at the Supreme Court decision on the McCrystal case, she believed that came far too late to make a difference and she was surprised and disappointed the Government did not postpone the poll given the ruling.
While she believed the breaches of the Constitution in this case materially affected the outcome of the referendum, and relied on the threshold of "material" effect was very onerous. It meant there was no effective remedy for such breaches of the Constitution and she believed a lower evidentiary threshold was required under the Constitution.
In her affidavit, Ms Kennelly said she is a retired lady residing in the Abbot Close nursing home. In voting by post in the referendum, she said she particularly relied on the information provided by the Government which appeared to her to be exclusively in favour of a yes vote. She placed particular emphasis on that information and trusted the Government to provide her with fair and impartial information.
She decided to vote yes and voted by post almost two weeks before the November 10th vote. She later learned of the Supreme Court ruling when it was too late to change her vote and was "shocked and angered" at the outcome of the poll. She believed she and others were hugely influenced by the Government's material and, had she had impartial information, may well have voted against the amendment, she said.
In a detailed affidavit, Mr Waters said the Government's information cannot but have influenced voters to vote yes and he expressed disappointment with the Government's response, particularly that of the Minister for Justice, to the Supreme Court ruling.
He believed the No campaign may well have been successful had the Government not breached the Constitution in its conduct, he said.
Mr Waters, having analysed the information provided by the Government in detail, said it amounted to sn unbalanced and unfair presentation of the issues. The Government's booklet and website were "manifestly written" from the point of view of favouring the yes side, he said.