Inequality Of One Vote

The Tokyo High Court on Wednesday released a decision that the general election of the House of Representatives last December was against the Constitution of Japan. Although the court dismissed the demand of plaintiffs, a group of lawyers, that the election had been invalid and needed to start over, the decision cast new question on Japanese politics. Is it legitimate for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to lead the administration?

The decision focused on whether difference of value in one vote was tolerable or not. The largest value of one vote was that in the District 3 of Kochi prefecture, which had 204,196 people who were vested voting right. But the District 4 of Chiba prefecture had 495,212. So the value of one vote in the District 3 of Kochi was regarded as 2.43 times higher than in the District 4 of Chiba. The accusers claimed that the existence of the margin was against the Constitution, which guarantees the people’s equality under the law.

The Supreme Court in March 2011, determined that when one vote had more than two times higher value than another vote, it was against the Constitution. According to the decision, the Tokyo High Court made its mind that the margin of 1:2.43 in last election was unconstitutional.

On validity of the election, however, the high court introduced “situational theory,” in which a court could dismiss the accusation, if the execution of a decision might extremely harm public benefit. Considering the trouble when the qualification of those lawmakers was denied and they lost their seats, the high court avoided ordering another election under the reasonable situation.

The Liberal Democratic Party won 294 seats out of 480. With that big gain, Abe was elected to Prime Minister. But if the general election last December was not authorized by the constitution, how the legitimacy of the administration, as well as of the representatives, is reserved? There is no provision which determines the status of Prime Minister, when the general election was invalid.

The accusers appeal that the illegitimate regime must not exercise its power. In terms of constitutionality, the policies the administration already delivered, including budget, the joint statement between the government and the Bank of Japan, or the promises in the meeting of Abe with US President Obama, might be recognized as invalid, too. Although it is unlikely for the government of Japan to deny all policies, the situation describes Japanese democracy in its half way.