Election law details

I confess that this one remains somewhat of a mystery to me. While I am a fan of wonky articles about the intricacies of Japanese politics, this leash dispute over one vote disparities completely loses me.  So, did I translate it properly...you tell me. I think so, but hard to say when you really don't grasp what they're arguing about.

「一票の格差」上告審が結 審 １７件中３件で高裁 「違憲」 平成２２年参院 選

2012.9.12 21:14

平成２２年７月の参院選で最大５倍の 「一票の格差」が生じたのは憲法違反とし て、２つの弁護士グループらが選挙無効を 求めた計１７件の訴訟の上告審弁論が１２ 日、最高裁大法廷（裁判長・竹崎博允＝ひ ろのぶ＝長官）で開かれ、結審した。

全国１４の高裁・支部は選挙無効の請求 はいずれも退けたが、３件で明確に「違 憲」としたほか、「違憲状態」「合憲」と 判断が分かれており、大法廷の結論が注目 される。判決期日は追って指定される。

弁論で弁護士グループはそれぞれ「格差 がある現行の選挙制度では、民意を国政に 正確に反映できない」「代議制民主主義の 点から人口比例の選挙区割りしかありえな い」と主張。選挙管理委員会側は「著しい 不平等状態に至っていたと判断し得ない」 と反論した。

参院選の一票の格差をめぐる大法廷判 決は、最大格差が６・５９倍だった４年選 挙について、８年に「違憲状態」とした以 外、いずれも合憲と判断。２１年には、 最大格差４・８６倍だった１９年の参院選 について合憲としたが「選挙制度の仕組み の見直しが必要」と是正を求めていた。

１７件の訴訟のうち１件は、竹崎長官の 実兄が被告である香川県選管の委員長だっ たため、竹崎長官は審理に加わらない。

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/120912/trl12091221150014-n1.htm

“One vote disparity” appeals concluded – 3 of 17 instances declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court in Upper House Election

The appeals of two groups of lawyers seeking the invalidation of 17 elections results from the July 2010 Upper House Elections where 5 times the “1 vote disparity” occurred on the basis that they were unconstitutional were heard by the full Supreme Court on the 12 th (chief justice Hironobu Takezaki presiding).

Nationwide, 14 requests for invalidation were dismissed by high and regional courts. Aside from 3 counts that were clearly ruled unconstitutional, rulings were split between constitutional and unconstitutional so the decision of the Supreme Court is drawing attention. The date for a decision is expected to be set shortly.

At the trial, the lawyer groups argued that “The current system for dealing with disparities is unable to accurately reflect the will of the people in the affairs of state” and “From the perspective of representative democracy, election districts proportioned according to population is the only possibility.” The board of elections countered that “It is impossible to judge that any remarkable state of inequality has been reached.”

In the case before the supreme court of one vote disparities in Upper House elections, The greatest disparity of 6.59 times, other than the 1996 election that was ruled unconstitutional, that occurred in the 1992 election was ruled constitutional. In 2009, the highest disparity 4.86 times in the 2007 election was ruled constitutional, but a revision was requested that “reform of the framework of the electoral process is necessary.”

Of the 17 incidents, Chief Just Takezaki recused himself from one case where his elder brother is the head of the Kagawa Prefecture board of elections which is a defendant.