Counting the overseas vote
(From The Japan Times Sept. 20 issue)

在外邦人の選挙権

    The Supreme Court on Sept. 14 made a long-overdue decision when it found that a provision of the Public Offices Election Law — which prevents qualified voters living abroad from voting for local candidates in Diet elections — is unconstitutional.

    The ruling is confirmation that, beginning with the next general election, voters living abroad may cast their ballots for individual candidates in single-district constituencies as well as for political parties in proportional-representation constituencies. An Upper House election is scheduled to be held in the summer of 2007, so the Diet must revise the Public Offices Election Law by then.

    The 12-2 ruling by the top court's Grand Bench has been viewed as epoch-making because the nation's highest court has tended to avoid taking a clear stance on the constitutionality of an action or inaction by the government or the Diet. The latest ruling marks the seventh time since the inception of the current Constitution that the Grand Bench has deemed something "unconstitutional." In effect, the ruling severely censures the Diet for not assuring the voting rights of Japanese citizens living abroad. Of the 960,000 Japanese who live overseas, more than 720,000 are expected to become eligible to vote.

    Under the Public Offices Election Law, enacted in 1950, otherwise eligible voters living overseas were not allowed to vote in Upper and Lower House elections. Fifty-three Japanese voters living in eight countries challenged this restriction by filing a lawsuit with Tokyo District Court. The plaintiffs, who had not been permitted to vote in the October 1996 Lower House election, claimed that the law was unconstitutional and sought a ¥5,000 solatium for each plaintiff.

    In 1998, the law was revised to partially rectify the situation. The revision let eligible voters living abroad vote only in proportional-representation segments of Diet elections. The right was not extended to single-district constituencies, however, on the grounds that it was too difficult and time-consuming for election officials to send a fair amount of information on each candidate to each voter. The district court and the Tokyo High Court turned down the plaintiffs' demand in 1999 and 2000, respectively, saying the state could restrict voting rights to operate elections equitably and efficiently. The two courts avoided passing judgment on the law's constitutionality.

    The Supreme Court on Sept. 14 overturned these lower court rulings, saying that restricting the exercise of voting rights cannot be condoned in principle, since the Constitution guarantees electoral equality. The court said the restriction is unconstitutional and that an exception can be made only when it is impossible or extremely difficult for officials to let voters exercise their voting right while ensuring the fairness of an election. It added that the conditions creating such an impossibility or difficulty do not appear to exist.

    The top court attached importance to the fact that a revision bill that the government submitted to the Diet in 1984 would have made it possible for eligible voters overseas to vote for individual candidates. That bill died after the Lower House was dissolved in 1986. The court censured the Diet for doing nothing for almost a decade afterward.

    The court awarded the ¥5,000 solatium to the plaintiffs, who have dwindled to 13 in number. It pointed out that, as the means of communication progresses rapidly on a global scale, it will not be difficult for election officials to distribute information to voters living abroad.

    For the Sept. 11 Lower House election, about 83,000 Japanese living abroad were added to the registered voters who could exercise their voting rights. About a quarter of them voted. Although the Supreme Court's ruling is a big step forward, it does not refer to specific forms the law should take after the Diet's anticipated revision.

    Procedures for voting abroad are complicated. A voter must go to a Japanese diplomatic mission and ask for a registered certificate in his or her name. The request is sent to the relevant election management committee in Japan, and the certificate is sent to the voter; this is said to take about three months. The voter then either casts his ballot at the diplomatic mission or mails it. Obviously the top court's ruling will not become meaningful until the Diet and government ministries concerned work out a viable procedure convenient to overseas voters.

The Japan Times Weekly
Sept. 24, 2005
(C) All rights reserved

    最高裁大法廷が14日、在外邦人の選挙権を制限した公職選挙法の規定は違憲との判決を下したことで、次回の国政選挙から在外邦人には比例区だけでなく小選挙区でも選挙権が認められる。

    今回の最高裁の判決は、判事14人のうち12人の多数意見で、これまで政府、国会に関係する合憲性問題への判断を避けてきた最高裁としては画期的な決定だ。

    1950年に成立した公選法では、在外邦人は国政選挙での選挙権は認められていなかった。在外邦人53人が同問題について東京地裁に訴訟を起こし、98年の公選法の改正によって比例区でのみ在外邦人の選挙権が認めらるようになった。

    1999年の東京地裁、2000年の高裁と、同訴訟は2度斥けられた。選挙を公平かつ効率的に運営するため、国は選挙権を制限することができるとの理由からだがその際、公選法の合憲性についての判断は避けられていた。

    最高裁は今回、1、2審の判決を覆し、公平な選挙を保証する憲法の下で、選挙権を制限することはできないと判断した。

    最高裁は13人に減った原告ひとり当たり5000円の慰謝料の支払いを命じ、通信手段の発達で、在外邦人有権者に情報を伝達するのは容易になっていると指摘した。

    9・11総選挙で、8万3000人の在外有権者が追加登録されたが、実際の投票はその4分の1だった。

    現行規定では、在外邦人が投票するには、在外公館で事前に在外選挙人名簿への登録申請を行う。申請後、3ヵ月ほどで関係市区町村の選挙管理委員会から在外選挙人証が送られてくる。それを用いて在外公館投票か郵便投票を行うのだが、国会と政府が在外邦人の投票手続きを簡略化しなければ、今回の判決の意義は薄れてしまうだろう。