Disparity in 1 vote of last year's Upper House election to hearing in Supreme Court Grand Court 4:39, July 2
Regarding the one-vote disparity in the House of Councils elections held in July last year, the Supreme Court decided to hear in a grand court of all 15 judges to determine whether the disparity violates the Constitution. It was.
Two groups of lawyers argued that they were "unequal in voting value and violating the Constitution" about the fact that there was a maximum of 3.002 times the difference in the number of voters per member of parliament in the Upper House election last July. , Wants to invalidate the election.
The 16 judgments passed by the high courts and branch offices of various places were 14 cases of "constitutional" and 2 cases of "unconstitutional state" that did not violate the constitution. did not.
The Supreme Court decided to hear these cases in a grand court of all 15 judges on the 1st.
Regarding the disparity of one vote in the House of Councilors election, the Supreme Court decided that the 2010 and 2013 elections were "unconstitutional", while the 2016 disparity was reduced to a maximum of 3.08 times due to the correction of a fixed number. We decided that it was “constitutional” based on things.
In last year's election, the number of seats for re-election in Saitama constituency was increased by one, and the difference was up to 3.002 times.