Court Finds Vote Disparity Unconstitutional
The Hiroshima High Court on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, delivered a significant ruling, declaring that Japan's July 2025 House of Councillors election was conducted in an 'unconstitutional state' due to a substantial disparity in the value of individual votes. This decision was the 11th of its kind among 16 lawsuits filed nationwide by two groups of lawyers challenging the fairness of the election.
The court identified a maximum vote value gap of 3.13 times between the most and least populated electoral districts. Despite this finding, the court, like others before it, rejected demands to nullify the election results, a common outcome in such cases in Japan.
The 'Unconstitutional State' Doctrine
The concept of an 'unconstitutional state' (known as Iken-Jotai in Japanese) is a judicial doctrine frequently employed by Japan's Supreme Court in cases of electoral inequality. This doctrine acknowledges that an election was held under conditions that violate constitutional principles, such as equality in vote value, but stops short of invalidating the election itself. The primary purpose is to urge the Diet (Japan's parliament) to implement reforms to correct the disparities without causing political instability by nullifying election outcomes.
Judges in various high courts have expressed concern over the persistent nature of these disparities and the perceived lack of progress by the legislature in addressing them. The Hiroshima High Court's Okayama branch previously stated that a disparity of 'about three times is serious and difficult to overlook'. Similarly, the Sapporo High Court indicated it 'cannot tolerate such a gap remaining high'.
Widespread Legal Challenges and Future Outlook
The ruling from Hiroshima is part of a broader series of judgments concerning the July 2025 Upper House election. Out of the 16 lawsuits filed across 14 high courts and their branches:
- Eleven rulings have found the election to be in an 'unconstitutional state'.
- Five rulings have concluded that the election was constitutional.
The issue of vote value disparity has been a long-standing challenge in Japanese electoral law, largely stemming from the country's complex districting system and demographic shifts, which often lead to rural votes carrying more weight than urban votes. The maximum gap in the previous 2022 Upper House election was 3.03 times, indicating a slight widening of the disparity in the latest poll. The Supreme Court is anticipated to issue a unified judgment on these cases in the future, which will be a critical step in determining the path forward for electoral reform in Japan.
5 Comments
Stan Marsh
Acknowledging the 'unconstitutional state' is a necessary legal step to address electoral inequality. However, the repeated failure of the Diet to implement effective reforms after such rulings is deeply concerning and undermines public trust.
Kyle Broflovski
The complexity of electoral districting and demographic shifts makes reform challenging, which the courts seem to recognize by not nullifying elections. But if these rulings don't lead to concrete legislative changes soon, the concept of 'Iken-Jotai' risks becoming meaningless.
Eric Cartman
The court's decision highlights a fundamental issue in Japan's electoral system, which is important for public awareness. Yet, the persistent nature of these disparities suggests the current approach isn't forcing sufficient legislative action.
Stan Marsh
At least the judicial system acknowledges the problem. It's a start.
Kyle Broflovski
It's good that the court identifies the disparity, as it puts pressure on the Diet to reform. However, without nullifying results, it feels like a symbolic gesture that lacks immediate impact for voters.