In last year's House of Representatives election, the 16 cases that had been filed nationwide over the pros and cons of the so-called one-vote disparity of up to 2.08 times were decided by the High Court on the 9th.
Nine cases are "constitutional" and seven cases are unconstitutional. The high court's judgment is roughly divided into two, and the Supreme Court will show a unified judgment in the future.
In the House of Representatives election in October last year, there was a difference of up to 2.08 times in the value of one vote, and two lawyer groups nationwide appealed for invalidation of the election, saying that it violates the constitution against equality of voting value. 16 cases have been filed in the High Court and its branches.
Of these, the Hiroshima High Court handed down the judgment on the 9th, and the judgments at the high court stage of the first instance were completed.
Neither admitted that the election was invalid, but the evaluation of the one-vote disparity was broadly divided into two.
Nine decisions, including the Hiroshima High Court on the 9th, including the Tokyo High Court and the Sendai High Court, are "constitutional" that do not violate the Constitution, saying that "there was a slight increase in population movement that exceeded expectations." I decided.
On the other hand, seven judgments such as the Osaka High Court and the Nagoya High Court have judged that the voting value is unequal even if the discretionary power of the Diet is taken into consideration when the disparity exceeds double. did.
The plaintiffs' group of lawyers has already appealed and will be heard by the Supreme Court and a unified decision will be made.