The Supreme Court effectively abdicated its core role of standing by the people and monitoring the Diet when it handed down a patently wrong ruling on the burning problem of vote value disparities at election time.

On Oct. 18, the court gave its verdict in a legal battle over the outcome of the 2022 Upper House election, where the “vote disparity” was as high as 3.03 times in some districts. It ruled the election was “constitutional" even though the Constitution calls for equal voting value.

The majority opinion supported by 11 of the 15 justices acknowledged that “it is difficult to say that tangible considerations, let alone efforts to revise the law, are under way.” But they nevertheless expressed empathy with the Diet’s inaction, admitting that redressing the problem “will likely require some more time.” This decision is undeniably out of touch with public sentiment.

The disparity in the value of votes for the Upper House at one time was as high as around five times. But it has shrunk due to the introduction of combined constituencies. Yet, the gap has consistently hovered at around three times in the three elections held every three years since 2016.

Notably, the election in 2022 was held without any advance revision to the law to address this problem, increasing the gap by 0.03 point from the figure in the previous election. The Diet’s negligence deserved more intense scrutiny.

The weight of votes tends to be smaller in urban electoral districts. In the 2022 Upper House poll, the values of votes in the Kanagawa, Miyagi and Tokyo districts were about one-third of that in the Fukui district. Given that these three urban districts are home to 20 percent of all eligible voters, this inequality in the value of ballots clearly represents a serious flaw in the system that undermines the nation’s representative democracy.

Since 2000, the only Upper House elections the Supreme Court has declared to have been held in a state of unconstitutionality due to a vote value disparity were those in 2010 and 2013, where the maximum value discrepancies were around one to five.

The latest verdict indicates the top court subscribes to the view that as long as the disparity ratio is around three to one, it is acceptable.

The Supreme Court’s message to the Diet has been basically a vague call for correction. The Diet has taken advantage of the vagueness of the verdict to avoid taking steps to tackle the problem. The judicial and legislative branches have been engaged in such exchanges based on derelict behavior in the absence of the voters’ interest.

Three dissenting justices, however, raised questions and expressed concern about the majority opinion. “Even if system reform is difficult, (the judiciary) should not be overly tolerant of the Diet’s inaction,” one argued. “The ruling that declares the election to be constitutional might solidify the status quo,” stated another. The Supreme Court must take these voices of apprehension seriously.

Even though the Diet has discretion over seat apportionment, lawsuits concerning this matter fundamentally question the fairness of the process of electing representatives of the people.

There is a clear conflict of interest between the Diet members, who generally do not want to drastically change the system that allowed them to be elected, and the general populace. To solve this problem, the judiciary must take a step forward and take strict action.

The legitimacy of the Upper House that has been elected with such a significant vote disparity should inevitably be questioned.

A bipartisan Upper House reform council formed by both ruling and opposition parties began discussions on the electoral system last November. To implement changes by the next election, slated for 2025, legislative measures need to be undertaken in next year’s Diet session.

As long as the election system is built on prefecture-based constituencies, there is little hope for real improvement. The Diet should urgently consider steps that go beyond the status quo, like the introduction of block constituencies straddling prefectures.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 19