Photo/Illutration Plaintiffs enter the Tokyo District Court ahead of the ruling on their lawsuit seeking to lower the minimum candidacy age on Oct. 24. (Saori Kuroda)

The Tokyo District Court on Oct. 24 dismissed a lawsuit filed by six plaintiffs in their 20s who argued that Japan’s age requirements for election candidacy violate constitutional principles such as equality under law.

The Public Offices Election Law stipulates candidates must be at least 30 to run for an Upper House seat and in prefectural governor elections. The minimum age requirement for candidates in Lower House and other elections is 25.

According to the plaintiffs, the minimum age for candidacy in Lower House elections was set at 30 under the Meiji Constitution.

After World War II, the current age requirements were established based on decisions by the Japanese government and the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Allied Forces, and have remained unchanged for over 70 years, they said.

The six men and women, including Momoko Nojo, 27, attempted to file candidacies in various regions during the 2023 unified local elections, but their applications were rejected due to the age restrictions.

As a result, they filed the lawsuit in July 2023 with the aim of lowering the minimum age and convincing the court that it is unlawful to bar them from running in the next election due solely to the age restrictions.

They also sought compensation of 100,000 yen ($654) each, claiming emotional distress caused by the Diet’s “legislative inaction” in failing to amend the election law.

The central issue in the lawsuit was whether the age restrictions under the Public Offices Election Law violate two points in the Constitution: Article 15, which guarantees the right to vote, and Article 44, which prohibits discrimination in qualifications for lawmakers and voters based on attributes such as race.

The plaintiffs argued that the right to run for office is inseparable from the right to vote and is constitutionally protected.

They claimed that anyone 18 or older should be eligible to run, and that the restriction lacks a rational basis, thereby violating Article 15.

Regarding Article 44, they asserted that the current limits lack specific justification and constitute unreasonable age-based discrimination.

The central government countered that while candidacy is an important constitutional right, the specific rules—including age requirements—fall within the reasonable discretion of the Diet.

It argued that politicians are required to pass judgments based on life experience, making the age limits of 25 and 30 reasonable.