Previous 6 / 8 Next

6/25/2020 Details of 1996 (Gyo-Tsu) 28 | Judgments of the Supreme Court Form No. 13-7 set forth in Article 10-5 of the Ordinance. We must say that such a manner of administration and execution of absentee voting is extremely sloppy to the extent that it ignores the purport of the Act which strictly stipulates the requirements, procedures and formats for absentee voting. Through such sloppy procedure for administration and execution, as many as 1,713 voters, about 10% of all voters, cast absentee votes, and as many as 668 absentee votes were accepted by using voting slips, etc. delivered to the voters who requested absentee voting, despite the facts that the grounds they argued obviously did not fall under any of the statutory grounds for absentee voting or were insuﬃcient to be judged to fall under any of the statutory grounds for absentee voting. In view of these facts, we cannot deny the possibility that these illegal aspects in the administration and execution of absentee voting caused the abuse of absentee voting or mixture of illegal votes. Also taking into consideration the share of absentee votes in the total votes gained by each candidate in the election in question as mentioned above, we must say that the illegal aspects in the administration and execution of absentee voting were serious enough to question the fairness of the absentee voting as a whole, and that they would make us suspect that the result of the election might have been diﬀerent if absentee voting were implemented properly. Assuming so, in this case wherein the total number of absentee votes exceeds the diﬀerence between the number of votes gained by the winning candidate and that by the defeated candidate, even when we pay attention only to the illegal aspects in the administration and execution of absentee voting as a whole, we can conclude that such illegal aspects were likely to change the result of the election. Some of the absentee votes are acceptable because the grounds that the voters argued can be deemed to fall under any of the statutory grounds for absentee voting as far as the statements in the written requests/oaths submitted by the voters are examined ex post facto from a formality perspective, and the number of absentee votes mentioned in (1) to (3) above alone, which should obviously be excluded from valid votes ex post facto from a formality perspective, does not exceed the diﬀerence between the number of votes gained by the winning candidate and that by the defeated candidate. However, this does not aﬀect our conclusion. II. With regard to the vote counting procedure in the election in question, the court of prior instance legally determined the following facts: (1) In its ﬁrst release, the election meeting only released the number of voters as well as the numbers of votes gained by Candidate A and Candidate B respectively, without releasing the number of invalid votes. According to the second release made by the election meeting on April 18, 1993, around 9:55 p.m., after the audience of the meeting asked about the breakdown of invalid votes, the number of voters was 17,512, the number of votes gained by Candidate A was 9,199, the number of votes gained by Candidate B was 8,241, and the number of invalid votes was 88 (the records suggest that these invalid votes included nine votes that were not accepted). This means that the number of votes was larger than the number of voters by 16 votes. (2) Subsequently, according to the ﬁnal release made by the election meeting on April 20, around 7:50 p.m., the number of voters was 17,512, the number of votes gained by Candidate A was 9,199, the number of votes gained by Candidate B was 8,241, and the number of invalid votes was 77 (the records suggest that in addition to these invalid votes, nine votes were not accepted). Thus, the number of invalid votes was changed, and the number of votes was still larger than the number of voters. (3) The appellant of ﬁnal appeal inspected the votes based on a request for review made by the appellees of ﬁnal appeal, and found that the number of voters was 17,512, the number of votes gained by Candidate A was 9,199, the number of votes gained by Candidate B was 8,225, the number of invalid votes was 77, and the number votes not accepted was 9. The number of votes gained by Candidate B as found by the appellant was smaller than that released by the election meeting by 16 votes, and the number of voters was larger than the number of votes by two. (4) The inspection of the voting records of https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=262 6/8

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

1996 (Gyo Tsu) 28 [Judgment of the Second Petty Bench, partially dismissed, partially quashed, and partially terminated]

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether denying absentee ballots to voters outside of the country for official ballots is sufficient to dispute the election result.

Alleged Acts: When a voter is outside of the municipality on the election date for unavoidable business that individual qualifies for an absentee ballot. The chairperson must examine those ballot to determine whether they classify as unavoidable business.1,713 absentee ballots of 17,512 total votes were cast. 293 voters cast absentee ballots stating that they were unable to go to the voting place of election day without additional explanation. The voters failed to mention the purposes of that trip so the court could assess whether they were classified as municipal business. In order to be defined as unavoidable business the trip must be difficult to reschedule or a courtesy according to socially accepted ideas. The chairman failed to require additional explanation into the need for an absentee ballot.

Summary: The court determined that the administration failed to provide proper training on absentee ballots and how to deal with them. Thus, the inexperienced voters did not look to whether the voter met the unavoidable business standard. 56 of those absentee ballots clearly failed to meet the threshold. 612 lack sufficient information to determine whether the threshold was met. 18 absentee ballots were counted without corresponding names. In the election the share of absentee ballots for the winning candidate was 12.5%. The share of absentee ballots for the defeated candidate was 6.5%. The court stated that absentee ballots were avaliable in exception cases to diminish the risk of voter fraud. The court found the number of absentee ballots and training failures sufficient to question the overall fairness of the voting process. The court notably reach this conclusion even though — after excluding the arguably valid absentee ballots — the number of ballots in question was less than the victory margin. Further, the number released after the election exceeded the total number of electors by 16 votes.

Conclusion: The impact of the voting disparity were severe enough to question the fairness of the election. The court determined that the disparities were likely to change the outcome of the election.

Legal Issue(s)

Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Japan

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: May 31, 1996

Geolocation

Latitude: 35.73293062845158

Longitude: 139.75537618376217

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

1996 (Gyo-Tsu) 28 _ Judgments of the Supreme Court.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

1996 (Gyo Tsu) 28 [Judgment of the Second Petty Bench, partially dismissed, partially quashed, and partially terminated]

Primary Documents

Notifications