The Grand Bench of the Supreme Court will hand down its ruling today in a trial in which it was disputed whether the disparity in one vote, which was a maximum of 2.08 times, in the House of Representatives election two years ago violated the constitution.

Judgments by high courts around the country are split almost evenly between "constitutional" judgments, which state that they do not violate the Constitution, and "constitutional state" judgments. The focus is on how

In the House of Representatives election held in October 2018, there was a disparity of 2.08 times in the value of one vote, and two groups of lawyers filed a nationwide lawsuit demanding the nullification of the election, arguing that it was against the equality of vote value and violated the constitution. We have raised 16 cases in conjunction with the high court and the high court branch.



The judgments of the courts in each region did not recognize the invalidity of the election, but the constitutional judgments were almost evenly divided, with 9 cases being "constitutional" and 7 cases being "unconstitutional."



Regarding these trials, the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court will hand down judgments on the afternoon of the 25th and present a unified judgment.



The Supreme Court evaluated the response of the Diet, which decided to adopt a new quota distribution method called the "Adams method," in the previous election, which had a maximum disparity of 1.98 times, and judged it to be "constitutional." doing.



The year before last election was held with the same district division as six years ago, but the disparity has more than doubled due to population fluctuations, and the focus is on how to judge this situation and the Diet's efforts to correct it. becomes.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the Diet repeats its response

Regarding the disparity in one vote in the House of Representatives election, the Diet has repeatedly responded to the Supreme Court's judgment and worked to correct the disparity.

The Supreme Court's Disparity Judgment in the Era of Medium-sized Constituencies

The Grand Bench of the Supreme Court called the elections in 1972, when the maximum disparity in votes was 4.99 times, and in 1983, when it was 4.4 times, "unconstitutional," and the disparity exceeded 3 times. It declared the 1980 and 1990 elections "unconstitutional."

It is pointed out that the introduction of the single-seat constituency system is also a factor in the disparity

Since the introduction of the single-seat constituency system in 1994 and the narrowing of disparities, it has continued to be judged as "constitutional", arguing that it does not violate the Constitution.



However, since the disparity continued to more than double after that, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2009 election, which had a 2.3-fold increase, was ``unconstitutional'' and allocated one seat to each prefecture first. ” pointed out that it was a factor of disparity and asked for correction.



In response to this, the Diet deleted the provision of the "single-seat quota system" and revised the law to reduce the number of single-seat constituencies by five, so-called "0 increase and 5 decrease", but it was not in time for the 2012 election. The difference was 2.43 times, and it was judged to be "unconstitutional".



In the 2014 election, which reflected the ``0 increase and 5 decrease,'' the disparity narrowed to 2.13 times, but the Supreme Court ruled that this was also ``unconstitutional.''

Adoption of the Adams method is a major reason for constitutionality

In 2016, in response to three successive rulings of "unconstitutional status," the Diet introduced a new method called the "Adams method," which distributes seats more proportionally to the population, based on the census four years later. decided to



In addition, as a provisional measure, it was decided to increase the number of single-seat constituencies by 0 or 6, and in the 2017 election the following year, about one-third of the electoral districts were reallocated, resulting in a maximum disparity of 1.98. , less than doubled for the first time since the single-seat constituency system was introduced.



The Supreme Court praised the Diet's efforts to rectify disparities and ruled that it was "constitutional."



Among them, the adoption of the "Adams system" was a major reason for its constitutionality, stating that it "shrinks the disparity to a considerable extent, and that state will continue stably."

What is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the House of Representatives election?

The 2017 election, where the judgment was handed down on the 25th, was held in the same district division as in 2017, but due to population fluctuations, the disparity in one vote was 2.08 times, again more than twice.



Later, when the results of the national census were finalized, the division of districts was reviewed based on the "Adams system." The number of single-seat constituencies increased by 10 in five prefectures, including Tokyo, while 1 in 10 prefectures. The "10 increase, 10 decrease" that decreases one by one has been confirmed, and from the next time, it will be implemented in a new division.



In arguments held before the Supreme Court in December last year, the defendant's Election Commission side touched on this review, saying, "With the new allocation of seats based on the 'Adams method,' the disparity will less than double in the future. The imbalance in vote value will be resolved," he said, emphasizing that efforts to correct the disparity are progressing.



On the other hand, the lawyers' group argued, "The 'Adams method' is not an excellent method, and it is far from a quota proportional to the population."



If the judgment on the 25th is severely evaluated, the Diet will be forced to respond again, and attention will be paid to what kind of judgment the Supreme Court will show regarding the introduction of the "Adams method".

Starting with the next House of Representatives election, district divisions will be implemented based on the Adams method.

The "Adams system" is a fixed allocation system that is said to have been devised by the 6th president of the United States, John Quincy Adams, and has been adopted in France and other countries. is carried out.



It is a method of determining the number of seats by dividing the population of each prefecture by a certain number. I'm here.



Based on the results of the national census three years ago, a review based on this method was carried out, and the revised Public Offices Election Law, which increased the number of single-seat constituencies by 10, was enacted and put into effect in the Diet last year. rice field.



The number of single-seat constituencies will change in 15 prefectures: Tokyo will increase by 5 to 30, Kanagawa will increase by 2 to 20, Saitama and Aichi will increase by 1 each to 16, and Chiba will also have 1. Increase to 14.



On the other hand, the 10 prefectures of Miyagi, Fukushima, Niigata, Shiga, Wakayama, Okayama, Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Ehime, and Nagasaki each decrease by one.



In addition, although the number of electoral districts remained the same, there were some prefectures where the lines were changed.



The House of Representatives election two years ago was held before the results of the national census were finalized, so it was held with the same district division as the previous 2017 election before the introduction of the Adams method.

Judgment of courts in various places "constitutional" 9 cases "unconstitutional state" 7 cases

In the series of trials this time, the judgments of the courts in each region were almost evenly divided, with nine cases being "constitutional" and seven cases being "unconstitutional."



The point where the judgment was divided was the evaluation that the disparity has expanded, albeit slightly, compared to the previous election six years ago.



The difference from the previous time was 1.98 times at maximum.



The number of votes fell below 2 for the first time since the introduction of the single-seat constituency system, and the Supreme Court ruled that the election was "constitutional."



On the other hand, the previous year's election was held with the same district division as the previous election, but the disparity was more than doubled again.



Regarding this point, the Tokyo High Court's ruling out of the nine cases judged to be "constitutional" pointed out that "the disparity has been corrected, and the fact that the disparity has exceeded the doubling rate is due to an unexpected population movement." Did.



On that basis, even considering the fact that the disparity slightly more than doubled remains, it was determined that there was no significant inequality in vote value, and other judgments have made similar assessments.



On the other hand, the seven rulings that were deemed "unconstitutional" took a serious look at the situation in which the disparity widened again and more than doubled as a result.



Of these, the Osaka High Court's ruling pointed out that ``a situation in which a disparity of more than doubles exists among a considerable number of electoral districts should be considered unequal.''



However, the Diet was able to recognize this situation only after the results of the national census came to light, and decided that it was not unconstitutional, saying that it was "virtually impossible to correct it by the time of this election." doing.