This court ruling called for continued efforts for electoral reform while recognizing the Diet's measures in that regard.
The Supreme Court's Grand Bench ruled that the House of Councillors election in July last year, in which vote-value disparities reached a maximum of 3-to-1, was constitutional. Four of the 15 justices found the election to have been unconstitutional or held in a state of unconstitutionality.
The top court handed down such a ruling on constitutionality for the second time in a row, following its decision regarding the 2016 upper house election in which the maximum vote-value gap was 3.08-to-1 after electoral districts were merged to create integrated constituencies. The disparity narrowed further after the number of seats up for grabs in the Saitama constituency, which had the largest number of voters per upper house member, was increased by one.
The Supreme Court recognized efforts to rectify the vote-value gaps by maintaining the two integrated constituencies, despite calls from local residents and others to dissolve the integrated constituencies, and increasing the total number of seats in the chamber, which had not been done for a long time. This is a reasonable decision.
As half of the upper house seats are contested every three years, at least two seats are allocated to each constituency. It was reasonable for the ruling to point out that electoral reform must be carried out gradually, as the division of roles between the two chambers of the Diet needs to be taken into consideration.
However, this does not mean the top court has allowed the situation to remain as it is. The ruling stressed, "It cannot be said that the efforts by the legislative body to consider measures to prevent vote-value disparities from widening again have made significant progress."
In lawsuits over the 2010 and 2013 upper house elections in which the maximum vote-value gaps were 5-to-1 and 4.77-to-1, the Supreme Court ruled that the elections had been held in a state of unconstitutionality.
Following this court decision, the Diet approved the introduction of integrated constituencies, while stipulating in a supplementary provision of the Public Offices Election Law that the Diet will "definitely draw conclusions" on a drastic review of the electoral system.
However, the only measures taken after that included such steps as an increase in the number of seats in the Saitama constituency. This is far from drastic reform.
The Diet should not be content with the top court ruling on constitutionality, and neglect efforts for reform.
The trends of the depopulation of regional areas and people concentrating in urban cities have continued. Unless the current electoral system is changed significantly, the number of prefectures subject to the integration of constituencies could increase further, and opposition from regional areas could intensify.
In light of this, to dissolve the integrated constituencies, the Liberal Democratic Party has proposed a constitutional revision allowing at least one member to be elected from each prefecture every time seats in the upper house are contested.
The Constitution stipulates that Diet members are representatives of all the people. If upper house members' position as regional representatives is strengthened, it will also become necessary to review the proper state of the upper house.
Amid changes in the social structure, the reform process in which efforts are pursued only to rectify vote-value disparities in both Diet chambers is reaching its limit. The ruling and opposition parties must deepen discussions on the division of roles between the two Diet chambers, as well as on the authority of the upper house.
-- The original Japanese article appeared in The Yomiuri Shimbun on Nov. 21, 2020.
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
