Previous 3 / 7 Next

television was furnished in the trainees’ dormitory at the Korea Army Training Center; and (3) Complainant Yoon ○○ was able to acquire election information through other means, it is difficult to say that the Watching Prohibition of this case infringes upon the Complainant’s right to vote and equality. 2. Provision on Election Campaign Bulletins of this case There are only about 40 braille libraries functioning as braille publication facilities and about 20 of which are located in the capital area. Unlike the booklet-type election campaign bulletins, the costs of preparing braille-type election campaign bulletins are borne by the State. The Provision on Election Campaign Bulletins of this case was introduced taking into account the practical difficulties caused by the lack of braille publication facilities and persons who engage in braille translation or correction, and the possibility of the State taking excessive financial burden relating thereto. The legislators have the freedom to legislative formation through which various ways can be explored to guarantee the right to access to election information for individuals with visual disabilities. The legislators amended the Public Official Election Act on August 13, 2015 to require a candidate or a political party running in a presidential election, etc. to prepare and submit election campaign bulletins in braille 100 or substitute them with print-ready barcodes. This is a considerably improved legislation in terms of expanding opportunities for persons with visual disabilities to obtain election information. Also, adopting the above method instead of increasing the number of pages of braille-type election campaign bulletins does not seem to go beyond the limitations of legislative discretion. In addition, given that the Public Official Election Act stipulates that essential issues shall be included in the braille-type election campaign bulletins and that there are many other means for the visually impaired to obtain election information, the Provision on Election Campaign Bulletins of this case does not violate the right to vote and the right to equality of Complainant Kim □□. 3. Provisions on Korean Sign Language or Captions of this case The Provisions on Korean Sign Language or Captions of this case prescribe the airing of Korean sign language or captions as a discretionary matter, in consideration of the facts that the decision on airing Korean sign language or captions depends on the substantial capability of broadcasting business operators to secure staff, equipment, technical level, etc.; and that prescribing it as a mandatory matter may incur excessive election costs and impose restrictions on the freedom of broadcasting and programming of a broadcasting business operator and on the freedom of election campaign of a candidate or a political party. Making it compulsory to provide election information for hearing-impaired persons, particularly with captions, has mostly been realized in a normative sense by means of the Broadcasting Act, the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities and the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with

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