6/25/2020 Details of 2001 (Gyo-Tsu) 233 | Judgments of the Supreme Court violation of Article 15(1) of the Constitution because the necessity of an electoral campaign becomes greater as more persons are included in the candidate list and the exclusion of persons in dual candidacy from the number of persons in the candidate list seems reasonable. Therefore, the dual candidacy system adopted for an election of HR members under the Public Offices Election Law cannot be deemed to be in violation of Article 14, Article 15(1) and (3), or the proviso of Article 44 of the Constitution or the constitutional requirement of direct election. 4. The election system under which political parties or groups submit, in advance, a list stating the names of candidates and the ranking of being chosen as successful candidates, voters choose a political party or group, and successful candidates are decided in proportion to the number of votes acquired by each political party or group and according to the ranking for persons on the list, does not differ at all from an election system under which voters directly choose individual candidates, because successful candidates are decided as a result of voting or based on voters' consensus in both systems. If two or more persons in dual candidacy have the same rank in the ranking for being chosen as successful candidates in an election under the proportional representation system, the ranking for such persons must depend on the result of the election under the single-seat constituency system (Article 95-2(3) of the said law), but it is eventually decided based on the result of voting. Therefore, this cannot be deemed to be a reason to deny that an election under the proportional representation system is a direct election or allege that it is in violation of Article 43 or 15 of the Constitution. 5. The jokoku appellants argue that comparing the total of the number of the seats apportioned to each constituency in an election under the proportional representation system and the number of seats to be filed in an election under the single-seat constituency system in the area of that constituency, there is a disparity between constituencies in terms of the population size and also in terms of the number of voters per member, and this is contrary to the Constitution. However, it is obvious that such comparison is unreasonable, and it must be said that it is unallowable to challenge the constitutionality of the mechanism of the election under the single-seat constituency system in a suit to seek nullification of the election under the proportional representation system. An election under the proportional representation system cannot be deemed to be detrimental to equality in the value of each voter's vote, and the electoral zoning cannot be regarded as being unconstitutional. Consequently, the provisions of Article 13(2) and Appendix Table 2 of the Public Offices Election Law cannot be deemed to be in violation of Articles 14, 43, or 44 of the Constitution. 6. The reasoning mentioned above is the same as the purport of 1999 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 8, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of November 10, 1999, Minshu Vol. 53, No. 8, 1577, or obvious in light of such purport. The judgment of the second instance that goes along with this reasoning can be accepted as justifiable. The jokoku appellants' argument cannot be accepted. Therefore, the judgment was rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices. Justice KANATANI Toshihiro Presiding Judge Justice CHIGUSA Hideo Justice OKUDA Masamichi Justice HAMADA Kunio (This translation is provisional and subject to revision.) (* Translated by Judicial Research Foundation) https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=569 8/9