On March 8, 2024, the Irish voted "no" to both constitutional reforms aimed at modernizing their constitution. The result was unexpected, given that the "yes" camp had the support of virtually the entire political spectrum, including the center-right coalition government, Sinn Féin (the main party advocating for Irish reunification) and much of the opposition, despite some differences in their positions.

Yet, although the Irish government seemed stunned by the results – almost 68% voted "no" in the first referendum, and almost 74% in the second, with a nationwide turnout of 44.36% – two main reasons can be identified for this defeat. One has to do with the way the reform was drafted and the other with the way it was carried out.

The two referendums were about the concept of the family (the "family referendum") and family carers (the "care referendum"). Unlike the French Constitution, which is concerned with institutions, the Irish Constitution contains provisions relating to the lives of citizens and the values that guide them, particularly in the series of articles on fundamental rights. Adopted almost 90 years ago, it has undergone numerous revisions, notably to incorporate changes required by EU treaties or to carry out major societal reforms.

Since 2012, the Irish government has installed a novel democratic mechanism to accompany this evolution. Assemblies of randomly chosen citizens are responsible for deliberating, ahead of the vote, on the amendments to be made to the constitutional text. These citizens' assemblies have contributed to reforms such as the authorization of same-sex marriage in 2015 and the legalization of abortion in 2018. It might, therefore, come as a surprise that what seem to be less controversial initiatives have now been rejected by voters.

Poorly drafted texts

Indeed, the double referendum held on March 8 seemed more like spring cleaning aimed at removing measures that no longer had any place in a modern constitution. Specifically, Article 41, on the family, was to be rewritten in two places. The definition of the family, currently based on marriage (understood to include same-sex marriage), would extend to also include "durable relationships." The purpose of this was to give an extended family the same constitutional protection as that accorded to the more traditional family while maintaining recognition of the special protection given by the state to the institution of marriage.

Secondly, the controversial references to a woman's "life within the home" as a fundamental "support without which the common good cannot be achieved" were to be removed. This had been proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality back in 2021. The new article was to replace them with a broader formulation recognizing the importance of the contribution of care "by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them" to that same "common good." Furthermore, the "State [would] strive to support such provision."

You have 51.26% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.