Disparity in Value of One Vote Found Constitutional

The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided that the largest disparity in the value of one vote in the election of House of Councillors in 2022, which was actually 3.03-to-1, fell within the requirement of Constitution of Japan. Although the situation of the value-gap was not fully accepted by the voters, the court found that the disparity had not grown so much. The decision requires the House further efforts for adjustment anyway. 

According to a non-profit organization, National Conference for Realization of One Vote for One Person, one councillor in Fukui District (one seat) had 317,564 eligible voters in the election 2022, while another one in Kanagawa (four seats) had 962,098. Thus, the value of one vote in Fukui is 3.03 times greater than in Kanagawa.

 

The plaintiffs, two groups of lawyers demanding invalidation of the election, argued that the election violated Article 1 of the Constitution of Japan which determines that the sovereignty resides with the people. They think that the lawmakers, who were selected in an election disproportionate to the population, cannot represent the will of sovereign people, and that the exercise of sovereignty with simple majority by the lawmakers, with whom sovereignty does not reside, violates the constitution.

 

The decision of Supreme Court did not approve the discussion in the House as sufficient for further adjustment of the disparity. However, it found that the disparity became restrained after the reform in 2015, which introduced integration of two districts into one beyond the prefectural border. And the majority opinion pointed out a concern on the integrated electoral districts where the turnout had been showing a tendency of decline.

 

Three judges submitted minority opinions. Raising the fact that the number of eligible voters in three districts, in each of which the eligible voters for one seat was three times more than in Fukui, occupied over 20% of the whole, Judge Katsuya Uga argued that the election was invalid and the election system was unconstitutional. Judges Mamoru Miura and Akira Ojima found that the disparity of one vote beyond 3-to-1 should be extreme and the election was in the state of unconstitutional.

 

Although the Supreme Court regarded the elections in 2010 and 2013 as in the state of unconstitutional, which meant the election was unconstitutional but valid, other ones in 2016 and 2019 were constitutional. Those were based on the notion that the disparity of one vote became small by the reform in 2015 from 5-to-1 to 3-to-1. But even the 3-times is far from the parity.

 

In the House of Representatives, disparity of 2.13-to-1 in the election in 2014 was regarded as in the state of unconstitutional. There is no reason that the value of one vote can be different between two Houses. The lawmakers of both Houses have to make further efforts to adjust the disparity.