简体中文
Japan's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the 2013 Upper House vote was held "in a state of unconstitutionality"due to the disparity in the weight of individual votes across different constituencies.
The top court in the nation, however, opted not to invalidate the election, despite calls to do so from civil groups of lawyers who have been petitioning a number of High Courts in Japan over the issue, which in one case has seen votes in the least populated constituency worth 4.77 times more than a vote in the most populous one.
The 15 judges on the Grand Bench in the Supreme Court said that parliament had stayed within its discretionary limits, although had failed to resolve the voting disparity before the upper house election, which takes place every three years.
Some of the judges, once again, called for new legislation to comprehensively address the voting weight imbalance, as well as proportional representation as regards seats per prefecture, but four of the Supreme Court judges filed a minority motion stating that the disparity in the weight of individual votes across different constituencies was"unconstitutional."
Justice Tsuneyuki Yamamoto, former head of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, went as far as saying the upper house election in 2013"should be invalidated."
In December 2013, two high courts in Japan ruled that July's upper house election was "in a state of unconstitutionality" due to voter weight disparities, an issue that has, for decades, plagued the nation's electoral system.
The rulings handed down by the presiding judges at the Takamatsu High Court and the Nagoya High Court mark the fifth such ruling following lawyers nationwide contesting the July vote and filing a total of 16 lawsuits with high courts across the country here.
Two civil groups of lawyers involved in filing lawsuits at high courts across Japan have been seeking the annulment of the upper house vote and have been making individual claims against the electoral committee of each constituency.
The lawyers involved have stated that the voter-representative ratio disparity has been found to be as high as 4.77 times in the most extreme case, severely undermining voters' rights to equality, as guaranteed by Japan's Constitution.
In many cases, the high courts stated that there was an " excessive inequality" in the voter-representative ratio disparity at the time of the July election, but the disparity did not equivocally violate the Constitution, as altering the allocation of seats in the upper house, despite vociferous calls from civic groups, some high courts, the electorate and the Supreme Court itself for parliamentarians to do so, falls within the discretion of parliament.
Up until now, the predominant defense, aside from the generic" parliament's discretion"excuse, has been the fact that parliament did not have enough time during the election to fix the disparity. But while it has been widely accepted that due to the disparity, the election was indeed "in a state of unconstitutionality," but the majority of high courts have stopped short of nullifying the results.
The lawyers'groups are now expected to file lawsuits to nullify the results of the upcoming lower house election on Dec. 14, called by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, following the leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party opting to dissolve parliament' s most powerful chamber, in a bid to gain public support for his make-or-break blend of aggressive economic policies and for delaying a related unpopular second sales tax hike, after the first increase pushed the nation into recession.
Abe said he would stand down as prime minister if his ruling coalition fails to gain a majority in the upcoming election.
The Supreme Court has previously called for a wholesale referendum of the electoral system, which the ruling LDP vowed to carry out, but as yet to no avail, barred minor amendments being made to the election law in 2012 seeking reforms to be concluded ahead of the 2016 upper house elections.
Pressure will now be increasing on Abe, as per his original election campaign pledge, to reform the electoral process and ensure the voter-representative ratio disparity be corrected and not call Japan's Constitution into question -- a thorny topic considering the premier's somewhat blas attitude to the nation' s charter.
But Abe could rely on the fact that despite two of the high courts previously going as far as nullifying the election results, they gained limited traction as invalidating the entire election would have caused mayhem as the nation has never had to face such an issue.
In 2011, the Supreme Court slammed the electoral map for the lower house of parliament stating it was in a "state of unconstitutionality" due to it "disenfranchising" the electorate and as such electoral reform was in"dire need."
Specifically, it stated in March 2011 that the gap of up to 2.3 times in the weight of votes in a 2009 lower house election was " in a state of unconstitutionality,"but the 2012 general election went ahead regardless, with Abe vowing to reform the electoral system once he was in office -- a pledge yet to come to full fruition despite some minor revisions being made, yet plenty of time being allocated for the ruling bloc to enact a fully constitutional electoral map.
Thus far, the revisions made have reduced the maximum disparity to just under two, but the new measures were not fully finalized prior to the snap election being called that saw Abe and his LDP regain power in Japan following the 2012 elections.
Re-zoning to address the disparity has since been completed but authorities said that some serious disparities still remain between urban and rural areas and, in some cases, have widened.
While political observers said that votes are still expected to be cast on Dec. 14 without any correction of the disparity, the lawyers'groups are planning to seek an immediate annulment of all 295 single-seat constituencies after the upcoming general election.
Political analysts noted that while in the past 60-years, the Supreme Court has never overturned an election result because of a voting disparity, despite a number of post-election backlashes from an electorate who feel they have been hugely misrepresented, the possibility, in light of the vociferousness of recent legal calls for change, is now tangibly, legally and constitutionally increasing. Enditem
