"Specific frame" of the proportional representation of the Upper House election The Supreme Court makes the first decision of the Constitution October 23, 16:12
In last year's House of Councilors election, the Supreme Court ruled that the newly introduced proportional representation "specific quota" would not violate the Constitution in a trial in which a group of lawyers complained that it was unconstitutional because the intentions of voters were not reflected. Showed and dismissed the complaint.
In the Upper House election in July last year, a new "specific frame" was set up for the proportional representation to determine the winners according to the order decided by the political party in advance, regardless of the individual votes of the candidates, and two people each from the LDP and Reiwa Shinsengumi. Was elected.
Regarding this "specific quota" system, a group of lawyers Kuniaki Yamaguchi and others filed a lawsuit seeking invalidation of the proportional representation election, saying that the electorate was decided due to the circumstances of the political party without reflecting the intention of the voters and violated the Constitution. The Tokyo High Court dismissed the complaint for not violating the Constitution.
In the ruling on the 23rd, Judge Kazumi Okamura of the Second Small Court of the Supreme Court said, "Since it is an election system that decides the winners based on the ranking of the specific frame of each political party and the number of votes of the candidate, the winner is the consensus of the voters. There is no difference from the method in which voters directly select and vote for candidates. Parliamentarians do not violate the provisions of the Constitution, which stipulates that they represent all the people, "he dismissed the complaint.
This is the first time that the Supreme Court has made a constitutional decision on a "specific quota."