The Supreme Court will hear in a large court of all 15 judges to determine whether the disparity is unconstitutional, as the so-called one-vote disparity was up to 2.08 times in the House of Representatives election last October. I decided that.
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 nationwide appealed for invalidation of the election, saying that it violates the constitution against equality of voting value. Woke up in.
The 16 judgments handed down by the high courts and high court branches in each region were divided into 9 cases of "constitutional" and 7 cases of "unconstitutional state".
None of them admitted that the election was invalid.
On the 15th, the Supreme Court decided to hear these trials in a large court of all 15 judges.
Regarding the one-vote disparity in the lower house elections, the Supreme Court decided that the three elections up to 2014 were "unconstitutional", and after that, the division was partially reviewed and the disparity was the first since the introduction of the single-member constituency system. The 2017 election, which has shrunk to less than double, is judged to be "constitutional."
However, as a result of conducting the election last year in the same division as in 2017, the disparity was 2.08 times, which was more than double again.
The focus is on how the Supreme Court evaluates widening inequality, and the decision will be handed down as early as this year.
Regarding the one-vote disparity in the lower house election, the government council, which has been considering revising the single-seat constituency to "10 increase 10 decrease" so that the disparity will be less than double, proposed a revision on the 16th. I will make a recommendation.