Prohibition of Youth’s Election Campaign Found Unconstitutional
Tokyo District Court found that a provision of Public Offices Election Act (POEA), which prohibits election campaign by the people under age of eighteen, would violate the Constitution of Japan that guarantees freedom of expression. Although the defendants, the government of Japan, argued that the provision was necessary for protecting young students from exploitation, the court dismissed necessity of the indiscriminative regulation on the young people.
The POEA provides that the age of eligible voter is eighteen or older. Article 137 of POEA prohibits people younger than age of eighteen to participate in election campaign and anyone to use those young people for election campaign. A violation causes up to one year of detention or up to 300 thousand yen of fine. This provision was added to the act in 1952 to avoid political exploitation of young people or immature participation in election of public officers.
However, development of information technology enabled young people obtaining various political information in the elections. Even young people can access election campaign sites of any candidate. Four high school students under the age of eighteen filed a lawsuit in February 2025, demanding confirmation of their right to participate in election campaign to support a specific candidate.
The plaintiffs hoped to campaign for specific candidates in the elections between 2022 and 2024 and refrained from doing that, realizing it to violate the law. The defendant argued that exclusion of those young people was necessary to maintain fair election, avoiding mobilization of young people or unfair involvement of them in the campaign.
The court realized that the POEA already had regulation on excessive mobilization and found that unexceptional prohibition of young people’s election campaign would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan which guarantees freedom of expression. The court decision said that it was hard to find a reason to prohibit the people under eighteen to participate in election campaigns based on their own interest or value.
However, the court also recognized the necessity of the provision of POEA which prohibited use of young people in the election campaigns. It is possible that parents can mobilize their children for election campaigns based on their political preference. The court dismissed the demand of compensation, denying omission of legislation to review that old provision in the POEA.
One of the plaintiffs was interested in climate change and participated in a project for Upper House election at the age of fifteen. But she was told that she could not help any election campaign at her age. The court decision paved the way for young people’s participation in political activities that would determine their future. However, it is not easy to distinguish voluntary participation from political exploitation through coercive mobilization to an election campaign.
Comments
Post a Comment