Previous 5 / 7 Next

and they contain essential election information. Therefore, they are essential means for persons with visual disabilities who find it difficult to access other types of election information to collect political information on political parties or candidates in a comprehensive and systematic manner. As braille cannot adjust the font size and has a unique characteristic of writing every consonant and vowel independently from one another unlike general letters, it requires about 2.5 to 3 times more number of pages than general letters. Therefore, limiting the number of pages of braille-type election campaign bulletins within that of booklet-type ones would inevitably lead to not being able to contain all contents included in booklet-type election campaign bulletins. As increasing the page limit of braille-type election campaign bulletins does not necessarily mean forcing a candidate to prepare a greater number of pages thereof, it does not impose impossible obligations on the candidate when considering realistic conditions such as the availability of 103 braille publication facilities and persons who engage in braille translation or correction. The issue with securing facilities, staff, and costs necessary to prepare and mail braille-type election campaign bulletins can be resolved by providing the visually-impaired with various options to choose from when receiving election campaign bulletins, such as mailing election campaign bulletins by post, downloading an electronic version thereof, etc. In light of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities which imposes on candidates for public election and political parties the obligation to convey information about them to persons with disabilities on an equal basis with persons without disabilities and the Braille Act which stipulates that where any visually impaired person makes a request, the relevant public institution shall provide him/her with braille documents the contents of which are the same as the corresponding documents in general letters, the cost of preparing and mailing braille-type election campaign bulletins borne by the State cannot be considered excessive to the point of having to give up on ensuring the visually-impaired equal access to election information. Article 34 Section 5 of the Constitution provides that “citizens who are incapable of earning a livelihood due to a physical disability, disease, old age or other reasons shall be protected by the State under the conditions as prescribed by Act.” Nevertheless, people with disabilities have long been considered as a group of a minority or the socially weak, and such inequality and discrimination have only been consolidated as they were excluded from policy decision-making processes. Given the constitutional significance of substantially guaranteeing the right of the visually-impaired to vote, including the right to know about political information and opinion of candidates for public election and political parties, and public interest of the development of democratic politics, the Provision on Election Campaign Bulletins of this case runs counter to the principle against excessive restriction and thus infringes upon the right to vote of Complainant Kim □□. 104 3. Provisions on Korean Sign Language or Captions of this case

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
Korean
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

2017Hun-Ma813

Primary Documents

Notifications