Was Japan's House of Representatives re-election unconstitutional last year? What is the "one vote difference" problem of unequal value of tickets?

In October last year, when Japan held the re-election of the House of Representatives, the issue of "one vote difference (one vote の grid difference)" of "votes are not equal" once again became the focus of the topic. Among them, the value of one vote can be more than doubled due to the constituency in which it is located, so is it still "one person, one vote, and one vote is worth the same"?

Recently, the results of relevant lawsuits have been released one after another. The Tokyo High Court found last year's election "constitutional" on the other hand, but the Takamatsu High Court and the Osaka High Court ruled it "unconstitutional". What is going on?

Why are the tickets not worth the same?

If the number of voters eligible to vote in each constituency is not taken into account when dividing the scope of constituencies and setting the number of representatives to be elected in a constituency, the situation of “unequal votes” can easily occur. If the number of voters in a constituency is larger, and the constituency is not allocated more seats, the value of the votes in this constituency will be lower.

Last year's House of Representatives reelection was the largest difference of 2.09 times

Taking the re-election of the Japanese House of Representatives in October last year as an example, the constituencies with the largest difference in the value of each vote are Tottori Prefecture's 1st constituency and Tokyo's 13th constituency: the former is 231,313 voters elected 1 seat of the House of Representatives, and the latter is from 482,445 voters elected one seat in the House of Representatives. Judging by how many public opinions (how many votes) a member represents, candidates for the 1st constituency in Tottori Prefecture only need to get a relatively small number of votes to be elected to the House of Representatives, which means the value of one vote in the 1st constituency of Tottori Prefecture. relatively high. Converted, the value of votes in Tottori Prefecture's 1st constituency is equivalent to 2.09 times the value of votes in Tokyo's 13th constituency.

Over time, constituencies will also be redrawn

With the excessive concentration of population in cities, or the rate of increase and decrease of population in different places is inconsistent, even though it may have been possible to make the votes of each place “equal” as much as possible in the past, over time, the way of dividing constituencies or the allocation of seats by members has changed. , which may not conform to subsequent developments.

Therefore, the division of constituencies and the allocation of seats by members must also keep pace with the times, so as to ensure that every time voters in various places vote, the ballots in their hands are almost the same as other constituencies.

But this is easier said than done. For example, Japan's parliament is divided into the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the division of constituencies in the Senate will be more difficult than the House of Representatives. This is because Japanese senators are elected for a six-year term, but half of the seats are re-elected every three years, and not all of them are re-elected at each re-election, which makes it more difficult to redistribute seats in various constituencies or redefine constituencies.

Central public opinion representatives are prone to problems

By the way, the problem of "unequal value of votes" is most likely to occur in the representatives of public opinion, because the representatives of public opinion elected in various places have the same work in the parliament. As for the executive heads, it is not easy to encounter this problem. This is because the executive head will only elect one person, and each executive head is responsible for different tasks. Even if it is the executive head of different counties and cities, the head of city A is in charge of place A. The chief of the municipal administration and city B is in charge of the municipal administration of place B, and the work contents are different, so they cannot be compared.

The problem of the "one vote difference" in the election of the central public opinion representative will be more serious than that in the local public opinion representative election. Because compared with local elections with a smaller scope, the gap between counties and cities in central-level elections will be larger, so when discussing the issue of "unequal value of votes", the representatives of the central public opinion will be the main focus.

A Look Back at the History of "One Vote" Litigation

Looking back at the history of Japan's "one vote difference" lawsuit, it was first initiated in 1962. At that time, a group of lawyers argued that the "votes of different constituencies were not equal in value" in the national elections, and they suspected that they violated Article 14 of the Japanese Constitution, which guarantees that "everyone is equal before the law." Since then, if the problem of "unequal value of votes" in various constituencies is too serious in the national political election, a group of lawyers will file a lawsuit with the court for "election invalid", and this type of lawsuit is called "one vote by one vote" in Japan. Poor (one vote の grid difference)" lawsuit.

1976 Supreme Court Opinion

This series of "one-vote difference" lawsuits took until 1976 before the Supreme Court ruled that "one-vote difference" was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court also ruled that the result of the election (re-election for the House of Representatives in 1972) was still valid. This judgment also sets the standard for the follow-up "one vote difference" lawsuit. If you want to determine that an election is too serious because of the problem of unequal votes, if the "election is invalid", you must go through the following determination process:

1. Court finds the issue of unequal votes in this election has been "unconstitutional"
2. After the court finds that the election is an "unconstitutional state", if the situation does not improve after a period of time, it is "unconstitutional"
3. Only after the election is determined to be "unconstitutional" will it be considered whether the results of the election are valid. Should a new election be held? If it is determined that even if there is a new election, there is no way to solve the problem of unequal votes, the election will be judged "invalid"

Only the "unconstitutional state" has not been re-elected because of this

This set of standards means that even if the court finds that the unequal value of the votes in this election is already "unconstitutional," it is still a long way from the court finding that the election is "null and void."

To this day, the closest the "one vote difference" series of lawsuits has come to a "nullification of the election" judgment was in March 2013. At that time, the Hiroshima High Court held that the re-election of the House of Representatives in Hiroshima 1st and 2nd constituencies in December 2012 was "invalid." However, after the two cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, the court found that although it was an "unconstitutional state", the election itself was valid, so there was no need to hold a new election.

"One Vote" Litigation and Election Reform

Middle constituency system to small constituency system

In order to solve the problem of "one vote difference", in addition to the method of redistricting constituencies, Japan changed the electoral system from the middle electoral district system to the small electoral district system in 1994, also to solve the "one vote difference" problem. This trick was considered a special medicine at the time. Previously, the "one-vote difference" could be up to 4.99 times (in 1972), and "one-vote difference" of 3 or 4 times was commonplace. After changing to a small constituency, "one vote difference" was quickly made The difference in votes” dropped to about 2 times. After the change to the small constituency system, the first three re-elections of the House of Representatives (1996: 2.31, 2000: 2.47, 2005: 2.17) were all recognized by the courts as constitutional.

The multiplier must be less than 2 to be considered constitutional

However, from the point of view of "one person, one vote, and one vote is equivalent", if the multiplier of "one vote difference" is greater than 2, it is not actually "one person, one vote". Therefore, in the next re-election of the House of Representatives, if the ratio is greater than 2, it is judged to be "unconstitutional" (2009: 2.30, 2012: 2.43, 2014: 2.13), and in 2017, when it drops to 1.98 times, it is constitutional.

The problem is how seats are allocated

At that time (2011) the Supreme Court pointed out that after the change to the small constituency system, the ratio of "one vote difference" could not be reduced to less than 2 because of the "one person, one vote" method of seat allocation: first let 47 The prefectures had one seat first, and the remaining seats (300−47=253) were distributed according to the population, which contributed to the "one-vote difference" in each region.

The 2014 House of Representatives re-election reduced the "one-vote difference" ratio to 2.13 after abolishing the "one-person-separate approach" and reducing the number of House of Representatives by five seats. Although it is still recognized by the court as an "unconstitutional state", this trick seems to be really effective! Therefore, in the next election, "0 increase and 6 decrease" will be added as a temporary measure. In 2017, the ratio of the re-election of the House of Representatives will really drop to 1.98, which is the first time since the implementation of the small constituency system. of.

Towards electoral reform

On the other hand, the above only said that after the court determined that the election was an "unconstitutional state", if the situation did not improve after a period of time, it would be "unconstitutional". So how long does it take for the legislature to improve the situation before the legislature can amend the law? The answer may be 3 consecutive sessions.

In the three consecutive House of Representatives elections in 2009, 2012 and 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that the unequal votes had reached an "unconstitutional state", forcing the Japanese government to revise the law as soon as possible to resolve the "one-vote difference" The problem. Therefore, in May 2016, the "Relationship Law on the Reform of the House of Representatives Election System" was established, which reduced the total number of seats in the House of Representatives by 10 (called "0 increase and 10 reduction" in Japanese). "Adams's method" (Adams's method, アダムズ method) will be adopted in proportion to the population.

What is Adams Law?

The Adams Act was proposed by the 6th President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, so it was named after him. The specific method is to divide the population of each local county and city by the same fixed number X, and unconditionally round the quotient to the whole number, which is the seat that should be elected in the constituency. As for the fixed number X in the end is how much? It is necessary to go all the way through trial and error, find a fixed number X, and finally divide the result. The total number of seats that should be elected in each constituency is the same as the total number of seats that should be re-elected.

The problem is that the "Adams Method" was used to calculate constituency seats when the House of Representatives was re-elected from 2020, but the first House of Representatives re-election since 2020, that is, the 49th House of Representatives re-election in October last year, and No Adams method!

Accidentally discovered that it is necessary to "10 plus 10 minus"

The reason is that the quick report value of the 2020 national census (census) found that constituencies across Japan must be "10 plus 10 minus" in order to reduce the "difference of one vote" ratio to less than 2 (the ratio is less than 2). 1 person 1 vote).

"10 plus 10 minus" refers to: Tokyo Metropolitan (+5), Kanagawa Prefecture (+2), Saitama Prefecture (+1), Chiba Prefecture (+1) and Aichi Prefecture (+1) must increase seats, Miyagi Prefecture (+1) The 10 prefectures, Fukushima, Niigata, Shiga, Wakayama, Okayama, Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Ehime and Nagasaki, have to reduce one seat each.

The question is, it is relatively simple to add seats and subdivide constituencies, but which constituency merges with which constituency to delete seats? This is a big problem for incumbent MPs. The 2021 House of Representatives re-election is too late to deal with redistricting, so Adams Law's debut will have to wait until next time.

Yamaguchi Prefecture, which has produced the most prime ministers (and potential candidates), faces big problems

Among the "10 increase and 10 decrease", the most difficult problem is Yamaguchi Prefecture.

Yamaguchi Prefecture now has 4 constituencies. The representatives from east to west constituencies are: Nobuo Kishi (the younger brother of Shin Abe), Masahiro Takamura, Fangzheng Lin (the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is regarded as the successor of Fumio Kishida) and Shinzo Abe (former prime minister).

If you look at the local local cultural circle, it would be a better way to merge the two constituencies of Shimonoseki and Ube, but in this way, Abe Keizo (Shimonoseki) will be opposed to Kamiyabayashi (Ube). , directly into a big confrontation between the previous cabinet, the Abe faction and the Kishida faction, whoever wins and who loses will be very embarrassing. However, in order to prevent a confrontation between the two powerhouses, Ube City and Yamaguchi City, to which Lin Fangzheng belongs, are merged into one constituency. Now Ube City and Yamaguchi City are relatively concentrated places in Yamaguchi Prefecture, and it is conceivable to see two other constituencies from outsiders (below). Seki City and Iwakuni City) once the population drops, the problem of "one vote difference" will occur again. At that time, if the constituency needs to be redrawn again, it is bound to break up the newly merged constituency again.

At present, the Japanese government is scheduled to amend the law to redefine electoral districts in this year's Congress, but the problem of Yamaguchi Prefecture alone may be enough for the internal struggle of the Liberal Democratic Party for a long time.

Relevant lawsuits are being pronounced one after another

In short, in last year's House of Representatives re-election, because it was too late to deal with the redistricting of constituencies, the Adams method was not used to allocate seats.

A total of 14 high courts and their branches have filed lawsuits for invalidation of the election this time. The biggest point of contention is that it was originally agreed that the Adams method would be used to allocate seats from 2020, but it was shelved because it was too late, and the previous electoral division method was directly used, which actually expanded the ratio of the "one vote difference" from 1.98 times. To 2.09 times, it is obviously the government's neglect.

Since this week, the series of lawsuits have announced the verdicts one after another. While the Takamatsu High Court (2/1) and the Osaka High Court (2/3) have determined that it has reached an "unconstitutional state", the Tokyo High Court (2/2) believes that it is in line with the constitution. The problem is that this election adopts the same constituency division method as last time. Last time, the "one-vote difference" could be controlled to be less than 2. This time, it was not possible. The problem was mainly due to the speed of population movement during this period. Not what Congress could have expected when it amended the law. Therefore, both the Takamatsu High Court and the Osaka High Court stated that the re-election of the House of Representatives in October last year had reached an "unconstitutional state", but it was not unconstitutional.

Since all relevant lawsuits in various places have not yet been pronounced, the Tokyo case has been determined to be appealed, and the Osaka lawsuit also indicates that it will join the lawsuits in the same area to appeal to the Supreme Court for a unified judgment.