In the July House of Councilors election, a group of lawyers sought to invalidate the election, saying that it was unconstitutional that there was a maximum disparity of 3.03 times in the value of one vote in the July 14 House of Councilors election. Sentence in high court.
In this election, which was held in the same way as the previous three years ago, the disparity of about three times continues, and the focus is on how the court will decide.
In the House of Councilors election in July this year, there was a disparity of up to 3.03 times in the number of eligible voters per member depending on the electoral district, and two lawyer groups ``contrary to the equality of voting value and violate the constitution''. We have filed 16 lawsuits seeking invalidation in high courts and high court branches nationwide.
The first judgment in a series of trials is scheduled to be handed down at the Osaka High Court on the 14th, and then judgments will be made in various places over the next month.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 2010 and 2013 elections, when there was a five-fold or four-fold disparity in the number of votes cast in the House of Councilors election, were unconstitutional. 2016 and the previous year, 2019, when the disparity narrowed to about three times due to
In this election, which was held in the same way as the last time, the disparity of about three times continues, and the focus is on how the courts of each place will judge.