Recognizing Political Effort for Vote Value

The Supreme Court decided that the election of House of Councillors last summer was constitutionally valid in terms of gap of one vote. Although the value of one vote showed 3.08 times of difference at most, the court found it as not extremely unequal in light of the Constitution. Urging the House continuous effort not to widen the gap, the court recognized certain effect for improvement.

In the previous election of House of Councillors in 2013, the value of one vote in Tottori District, which had the least voters for one seat, was 4.77 times greater than in Hokkaido District. Supreme Court found the election to be under unconstitutional condition in terms of people’s equality under the law. The court suggested that the electoral district did not have to be along with borders of prefectures.

After the election, the House introduced new concept of district, which integrate two districts with less voters into one. As the result, Districts of Tottori and Shimane was integrated into one, as same as Tokushima and Kochi, in the election this summer. The seats were reduced in ten districts and increased in other ten. The adjustment contained the gap of one vote to 3.08.

The Supreme Court positively evaluated those efforts of the House. “By introducing district integration for the first time in its history, the House of Councillors could narrow the value gap of one vote that had been around five times for decades,” said the sentence. The court also praised further effort to improvement by 2019 written in revised Public Offices Election Act in 2015.

One thing different from current decisions was the recognition that equality in value of one vote would not be an absolute standard for elections. “Equality in value of one vote required by the Constitution is not an only and absolute standard that determines election system, and it should be achieved in harmony with consideration of political purpose or reason by the Diet,” said the decision. The Court also warned that election system based on prefecture should not be denied in terms of representing regional political will.

It is likely that the Court warned easy argument on constitutional amendment. Some conservative lawmakers demand new provision in the Constitution for rendering the House a role of representing each prefecture. Although it is obviously not the matter of constitution, but of revision of election law, the conservatives are enthusiastic in searching for every reason to amend the Constitution of Japan. Such eccentric discussion made Supreme Court soft on the politics in the House.