6/25/2020 Details of 2017 (Gyo-Tsu) 47 | Judgments of the Supreme Court reapportionment of four seats among four constituencies conducted under the revision to the Public Offices Election Act by Act No. 52 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "2006 Revision"), the maximum disparity between constituencies at the time of each ordinary election held between 1995 and 2007 stayed around the level of 1:5. Meanwhile, in 1979 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 65, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of April 27, 1983, Minshu Vol. 37, No. 3, at 345 (hereinafter referred to as the "1983 Grand Bench Judgment"), the Grand Bench of this court presented a basic framework for determining the constitutionality of the provisions on the apportionment of seats, which will be discussed later in Section 3(1) below, and thereafter, with regard to the 1992 Election, the Grand Bench of this court held that extreme inequality had existed in the value of votes to such an extent a question of unconstitutionality could be raised (1994 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 59, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of September 11, 1996, Minshu Vol. 50, No. 8, at 2283). However, with regard to the two ordinary elections held under the provisions of the apportionment of seats after the 1994 Revision, the Grand Bench of this court held that the maximum disparity between constituencies could not be held to have reached such a level of inequality (1997 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 104, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of September 2, 1998, Minshu Vol. 52, No. 6, at 1373, 1999 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 241, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of September 6, 2000, Minshu Vol. 54, No. 7, at 1997). Subsequently, with regard to the two ordinary elections held under the provisions of the apportionment of seats after the 2000 Revision as well as the ordinary election held in 2007 under the provisions on the apportionment of seats after the 2006 Revision, the Grand Bench of this court made a determination in its conclusion, that the respective provisions on the apportionment of seats could not be held to have been unconstitutional, without making a clear holding as to whether or not the disparity had reached the abovementioned level of inequality (2003 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 24, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of January 14, 2004, Minshu Vol. 58, No. 1, at 56, 2005 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 247, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of October 4, 2006, Minshu Vol. 60, No. 8, at 2696, 2008 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 209, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of September 30, 2009, Minshu Vol. 63, No. 7, at 1520). However, in the above-cited judgment of October 4, 2006, the Grand Bench of this court pointed out that, taking into consideration the importance of equality in the value of votes, the Diet should make a constant effort to correct the inequality in the value of votes, and in the above-cited judgment of September 30, 2009, it also pointed out that, as the disparity at that time indicated that great inequality in the value of votes still existed, efforts should be made to reduce the disparity in the value of votes between constituencies, and in order to do so, it is necessary to reform the current mechanism of the election system itself. As seen from the above, with the maximum disparity between constituencies always remaining around 1:5, the Grand Bench of this court has started to take a stricter stance in substance toward disparity situations in terms of the value of votes. (3) In regard to the ordinary election held on July 11, 2010, with the maximum disparity between constituencies having reached a level of 1:5.00 (this election is hereinafter referred to as the "2010 Election"), in 2011 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 51, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of October 17, 2012, Minshu Vol. 66, No. 10, at 3357 (hereinafter referred to as the "2012 Grand Bench Judgment"), the Grand Bench of this court concluded that the provisions on the apportionment of seats could not be held to have been unconstitutional at the time of the 2010 Election. However, in view of the changes in the circumstances surrounding the system and society over a long period of time, the Grand Bench of this court pointed out that the requirement of equality in the value of votes should not be taken any more lightly simply because the election in question is for members of the House of Councillors, and that the fact that each prefecture can be defined as a political unit and other facts that are https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1534 4/24