The residents of Stoneybatter in north Dublin braved the chilly yet sunny morning to offer their vote in the family and care referendums at the Stanhope Street National School polling station. The turnout remained quite sluggish during the early hours of Friday, accounting for merely 4% of eligible voters by 10am. However, a stable stream of voters, both old and young, was observed in the following hour, all showing up to participate in the referendum.
Lee Stott, a doting single father who has been a homemaker for a significant time, expressed his decision to vote Yes-Yes, spurred by a need for transformation. “It’s time we changed things,” he said. The decision was also backed by his daughter, a Leaving Cert student, who planned to mirror her father’s vote. Despite the slow commencement, Mr Stott was firm in his belief that a substantial turnout was imminent. He added, “I’ve been observing this for 30 years, the Irish have a fascination with referendums.”
Elizabeth Pierce exercised her right to vote with a Yes-Yes, driven by the desire to enhance “inclusion” in the Irish Constitution for women and carers by widening its scope. She voiced her concern about the confusion caused due to the language deployed by some No campaigns, indicating a veiled motive behind the No vote.
Jim Kenny was amongst those who cast a No-No vote, citing a lack of sufficient information as the reason. “They nonchalantly put up the date of the referendum, expecting us to keep track of the TV and radio for information, which I failed to do,” he shared.
Noel Kinsella, another voter in favour of No-No, echoed Kenny’s sentiments regarding the complexity of the presented arguments. He added that the revised language proposed was ambiguous and lacked clarity.
Mr Kinsella expresses agreement with the women and care subjects, yet maintains that they’re quite ambiguous and need further specific details. He cites this as being launched without fair analysis, especially on International Women’s Day where it’s publicised all over the radio.
A conclusion has been drawn on a referendum campaign that many believe to be underwhelming. Questions have been raised about the care referendum’s progressive nature and the poor process leading up to it.
It was reported that John Dunne supported the family and care referendum as they indicated society’s direction and held significance, respectively. Nonetheless, he acknowledged a great deal of confusion due to a wealth of misinformation and added that it’s not a simple task to predict how the Supreme Court will interpret the Constitution’s phrasing, consequently leaving certain questions unanswered.
In contrast, Helen Whelan rejected the amendments as she witnessed a robust voter turnout and felt the proposed modifications were not adequately articulated.
Juliana Santos, an Irish voter for 14 years, advocated for changes to the legislation. She voted in support of a fair society stating the present document blatantly contradicts women’s rights and her fight for equality. Asserting further on the matter Santos said, “There are many women in the workforce, not just mothers, and it’s perfectly acceptable for some women to not aspire to motherhood.”
The complexity of the voting process has led to bewilderment and apathy among voters, posing a significant challenge for campaigners.
Nick Costello admitted to supporting the yes proposition, but he agreed that the phrasing suggested by the authorities as a replacement for the current sections was complex. “It’s overly simple to find flaws,” he remarked. Consequently, in the end, he decided to follow the advice of organisations who voice the concerns of women and individuals who provide domestic care.
For the freshest discussions and understanding, tune into our Inside Politics Podcast.
Register for instant notifications and receive top news, opinions, and commentary right on your mobile device.
Keep current with The Irish Times on WhatsApp.