[5] Fine Gael TD Alan Shatter, then in opposition, introduced a private member's bill in 2009 to amend the constitution to allow pay cuts for judges.

[6] Some legal experts disagreed with Paul Gallagher's 2008 view that the Constitution precluded the pension levy from applying to judges.

Columnist Vincent Browne claimed that the 2011 amendment was unnecessary, on the basis of a 1950s court ruling that the government is entitled to levy income tax rates on judge's pay, thereby reducing their disposable income;[8] Browne argued that a general cut in public pay is similar to a general rise in tax rates, and judges therefore have no exemption.

[9] The Irish Council for Civil Liberties concurred,[10] as did Patrick O'Brien, who described the amendment as "a classic example of hard cases making bad law.

"[11] The agreed programme of the government elected in March 2011 committed to holding referendums "on a priority basis" on five subjects, including judges' pay.

[15] In June 2011, a retiring district court judge said the plan did not "make economic sense" because the cost of holding the referendum would exceed the money saved by the ensuing pay cuts.

[21] It passed all stages in Seanad Éireann on 21 September, with one amendment; its final passage was opposed by senators David Norris and Rónán Mullen.

[22] On 22 September, the Dáil accepted the amendment from the Seanad, which consisted of the deletion of the words "into law" after the clause "before or after the enactment of this section" in the proposed subsection 3°.

[30] In a letter published on 24 October, eight former Attorneys General opposed the amendment arguing that, "The proposal to allow proportionate reductions in judicial renumeration (which we support in principle) provides insufficient protection for the independence of the judiciary.

"[31] In October, The Irish Times commented that coverage of the presidential election limited public debate on the two referendums being held the same day.