Photo/Illutration Lawyers hold a news conference in Takamatsu after the Takamatsu High Court hands down a ruling Feb. 1 on the disparity in the value of a vote in the October 2021 Lower House election. (Doni Tani)

TAKAMATSU--A high court here Feb. 1 ruled the October Lower House election was held in “a state of unconstitutionality” but rejected calls to annul the outcome.

A group of lawyers filed lawsuits in 14 high courts or their branches around Japan, asserting the votes cast in all 289 single-seat electoral districts were unconstitutional due to the inequality in the value of a vote between the least and most populated districts per Lower House member.

The lawyers argued that the disparity “violates the Constitution that provides for equality in the value of a vote.”

It was the first time for a court to hand down a ruling with regard to the election that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party won handily.

The Takamatsu High Court concluded the situation was “noticeably unequal” and one step short of being unconstitutional.

In its ruling, the court first raised the issue of zoning of voting districts, noting that the Diet in 2016 decided on the allocation of seats to prefectures to prevent the maximum disparity among voting districts from becoming more than double.

“It is impossible to overlook in the context of the importance of the value of a vote if the maximum disparity becomes more than double,” the court said.

The court said the number of voters per Diet member was the smallest in Tottori Prefecture’s No. 1 district with about 230,000, which compared with the largest in Tokyo’s No. 13 district at about 480,000.

This resulted in a disparity of 2.08.

The court also cited the fact that there were 29 voting districts where the disparity was more than double, concluding that this was suspected to be unconstitutional.

It took note of a Supreme Court ruling in 2018 concerning the 2017 Lower House election, which was held based on the same zoning as the 2021 election. The top court found it to be “constitutional.” The maximum disparity was 1.98 back then and there was no voting district where the disparity was more than double.

For this reason, it concluded the 2021 election was held in “a state of unconstitutionality” but said that does not conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision.

It also noted that four months or so prior to the 2021 election, there were indications that the maximum disparity in voter population was expected to be more than double.

However, the court said, “It cannot be said that not changing the zoning of voting districts before the election exceeds the discretion of the Diet.” 

Because a reasonable period to correct the disparity had not passed, the court said it was unable to declare the election unconstitutional.

The lawyers are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The other high courts or their branches are expected to hand down rulings before long, leaving it to the Supreme Court to issue an integrated judgement by the end of the year.

(This article was written by Doni Tani and Kantaro Katashima.)

Related News