Previous 1 / 7 Next

Case on Access to Election Information by Persons with Disabilities, etc. [2017Hun-Ma813, August 28, 2020] In this case, the Court held that (1) the prohibition imposed on Complainant Yoon ○○ against watching the 19th presidential election interviews and debates on television at the time when he was receiving military training from the Korea Army Training Center; (2) the part concerning “within the page limit for booklet-type election campaign bulletins imposed by Section 2” in the main text of Article 65 Section 4 of the Public Official Election Act, requiring the number of pages of braille-type election campaign bulletins to be within the page limit for booklet-type election campaign bulletins; and (3) Article 70 Section 6, part of Article 71 Section 3 concerning Article 70 Section 6, Article 72 Section 2, and Article 82-2 Section 12 of the Public Official Election Act, prescribing Korean sign language or a caption to be discretionary in making an election broadcast do not violate the Constitution. Background of the Case 1. Complainant Yoon ○○, while he was receiving military training at the Korea Army Training Center, requested for watching the 19th presidential election interviews and debates on April 23 and 27, 2017, and Respondents, the platoon leader and the company commander of the Korea Army Training Center, prohibited such request (hereinafter referred to as “Watching Prohibition of this case”). Complainant Yoon ○○, arguing infringement of his right to vote and equality, filed this constitutional complaint on July 21, 2017. 2.Complainant Kim □□, who is visually impaired, filed this constitutional complaint on July 21, 2017, claiming that Article 65 Section 4 of the Public Official Election Act, requiring the number of pages of election campaign bulletins in braille to be within the page 97 limit for booklet-type election campaign bulletins, has violated the Complainant’s right to vote and equality. 3.Complainants Kim △△ and Ham ▲▲ are hearing impaired and filed this constitutional complaint on July 21, 2017, arguing that Article 70 Section 6, Article 71 Section 3, Article 72 Section 2, and Article 82-2 Section 12 of the Public Official Election Act have violated the right to vote and equality of the Complainants as they do not require Korean sign language or captions mandatory in airing the broadcast advertisement, broadcast speech of candidates, etc., broadcast of candidates’ campaign speeches supervised by broadcasting facilities and interviews and debates supervised by the Election Debate Broadcasting (hereinafter referred to as “Election Broadcast Programs of this case”). Provisions at Issue The subject matter of this case is whether (1) the Watching Prohibition of this case; (2) the part concerning “within the page limit for booklet-type election campaign bulletins imposed by Section 2” in the main text of Article 65 Section 4 (hereinafter referred to as “Provision on Election Campaign Bulletins of this case”) of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 15551, Apr. 6, 2018); and (3) Article 70 Section 6, part of Article 71 Section 3 concerning Article 70 Section 6, Article 72 Section 2 of

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

2017Hun-Ma813

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether any of the following alleged acts violate citizens’ constitutional rights to vote or equality under the law: 1) denying a soldier’s request to watch presidential election interviews and debates; 2) requiring election campaign bulletins written in braille to be within the page limits for booklet-type campaign bulletins; and 3) failing to require Korean sign language or captions in all election-related broadcasts.

Alleged Acts: Complainant Yoon alleges that his platoon leader infringed on his right to vote and to equality under the law because the platoon leader denied Yoon’s request to watch the presidential election interview and debates on April 23 and 27, 2017. Complainant Kim(1), who is blind or has low vision, alleges that Article 65, Section 4 of the Public Official Election Act violates his constitutional rights to vote and to equality under the law by requiring that election campaign bulletins written in braille be the same number of pages as booklet-type campaign bulletins (even though braille characters require more space). Complainants Kim(2) and Ham, who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, allege that several provisions in the Public Official Election Act violate their constitutional rights to vote and to equality under the law because the provisions do not require the use of Korean sign language or captions in election-related broadcasts.

Procedural history: All complainants filed complaints with the Constitutional Court on July 21, 2017.

Summary: Complainant Yoon: The Court held that the platoon leader’s prohibition on watching the debates was part of complainant’s military training. Since allowing the debates would have created a high possibility of interference in the training, the Korea Army Training Center did not provide a television in the dormitory, and the complainant was able to acquire information through other means. The Court ruled that it was difficult to see how complainant’s rights to vote and to equality under the law were violated as he had access to this election-related information. Complainant Kim(1): The Court held that providing materials in braille (a cost borne by the State) is expensive and difficult. Furthermore, a 2015 amendment to the Public Official Election Act requires a candidate or political party “to prepare and submit election campaign bulletins in braille” if they are running in Presidential elections, which greatly expanded the law in favor of citizens who are blind or with low vision. Finally, there are “many other means” by which voters who are blind or with low vision can obtain election-related information. Considering these facts, the Court held that complainant Kim’s rights to vote and to equality under the law had not been violated. Complainants Kim(2) and Ham: The Court held that imposing sign language or captioning requirements on broadcasters would impose excessive costs and infringe upon the freedom of broadcasting and programming. The Court cited laws such as the Broadcasting Act, the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and the Act of the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities to find that the law has already made it compulsory to provide information to voters who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, and that caption and sign-language broadcasting has improved throughout the 2010s (with many recent general election debates being broadcast with sign language). Considering these facts and the law, the Court did not find an infringement of the right to vote or to equality under the law for either complainant.

Conclusion: The Court dismissed all three complaints.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Elections as a Fundamental Right
Electoral Administration Irregularities

Applicable Law(s): Korean Constitution; Public Official Election Act Art. 65 § 4, Art. 71 § 3, Art. 72 § 2, Art. 82-2 § 12

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: South Korea

Language of Decision

English

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Presidential

Date of decision: Aug 28, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 37.53259896192619

Longitude: 126.9684824804054

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

2017Hun-Ma813(Eng).pdf
english
Download View
2017Hun-Ma813.pdf
other
Download View