In the House of Representatives election last October, a series of trials in which the pros and cons of the so-called one-vote disparity of up to 2.08 times were disputed on the 16th, and three courts handed down judgments, two of which were "constitutional." , One case was judged to be "unconstitutional".
In the House of Representatives election last October, there was a difference of up to 2.08 times in the value of one vote, and a group of two lawyers filed a lawsuit for invalidation of the election, saying that it violates the constitution against equality of voting value. We have raised 16 cases in high courts and high court branches nationwide.
Of these, three decisions were handed down on the 16th, and the Hiroshima High Court Matsue Branch and the Fukuoka High Court Miyazaki Branch said, "This election zoning was intended to correct the equality of voting values and the stability of the election system. The maximum disparity is slightly more than double, and it is acceptable. "
On the other hand, the Nagoya High Court said, "The fact that the maximum disparity has more than doubled is not rational for exercising the discretionary power of the Diet. I have no choice but to say, "I decided that it was unconstitutional.
In both cases, the appeal for invalidation of the election was rejected.
The high court has 11 judgments, 6 constitutional and 5 unconstitutional.
The remaining judgments will be available by the 9th of next month, after which the Supreme Court will provide a unified judgment.