In the House of Representatives election held in October 2018, the Supreme Court Grand Bench ruled that the so-called disparity of one vote was 2.08 times at maximum, and that it was not in violation of the Constitution.
In the House of Representatives election held in October 2016, 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, including the High Court and High Court branches.
The judgments of the courts in each region did not recognize the invalidity of the election, but the constitutional judgment was almost evenly divided, with 9 cases being "constitutional" and 7 cases being "unconstitutional".
In arguments held at the Supreme Court last month, a group of lawyers argued that ``13.6 million people have suffered the unbearable disadvantage that their voices have not been heard equally in the Diet.''
On the other hand, the defendant's election management committee argued, ``The disparity has more than doubled, but given the shrinking situation, it cannot be said to be against the equality of voting value.''
And on the 25th, Chief Judge Saburo Tokura of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the disparity of one vote in the previous election was "constitutional" and did not violate the Constitution.
The previous year's election was held with the same district division as the previous six years, when the disparity had narrowed to less than double for the first time since the introduction of the single-seat constituency system, but the disparity was more than doubled again.