Previous 2 / 8 Next

6/25/2020 Details of 1996 (Gyo-Tsu) 28 | Judgments of the Supreme Court without observers---, given the facts that (i) as many as 1,713 voters, about 10% of all voters, cast absentee votes, and as many as 668 absentee votes were accepted despite the fact 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, and (ii) the share of absentee votes in all votes gained is 12.5% for the winning candidate and 6.5% for the defeated candidate, it should be concluded 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 since 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, such illegal aspects were likely to change the result of the election. References (Concerning 1 and 2) Article 49, paragraph (1) of the Public Oﬃces Election Act; (Concerning 2) Article 205, paragraph (1) of the Public Oﬃces Election Act, Article 53, paragraph (1), Article 56, paragraph (2), and Article 59-4, paragraph (3) of the Order for Enforcement of the Public Oﬃces Election Act, Article 10-5 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Public Oﬃces Election Act Article 49, paragraph (1) of the Public Oﬃces Election Act (1) A voter who is unable to go to the voting place and vote in person on the date of election due to any of the grounds listed in the following items, as provided by a Cabinet Order, shall be allowed to vote at a place administered by the absentee voting administrator which is provided for making an entry of vote, notwithstanding the provisions of the proviso to Article 42, paragraph (1) (Listing in Electoral Register and Voting), Article 44 (Voting at Voting Place), Article 45 (Delivery and Format of Voting Slip), Article 46, paragraph (1) to paragraph (3) (Matters to Be Entered for Vote and Casting), the preceding Article, and the following Article: (i) The voter is engaging in his/her duties or services outside the area of his/her voting district. (ii) The voter, due to an unavoidable business or accident, is on a trip to or staying outside the area of the municipality in which his/her voting district is located. (iii) The voter has extreme diﬃculties in walking due to an illness, injury, pregnancy or aging or physical disability, or puerperium, or is under detention at a prison, juvenile training school or womenʼs guidance home. (iv) The voter is residing or staying on an island or in any other place with diﬃculty to access which is speciﬁed by an Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Aﬀairs, or is engaging in his/her duties or services in such area. (v) The voter is residing at a domicile outside the area of the election district for members of the council of the prefecture to which the area of his/her voting district belongs. Article 205, paragraph (1) of the Public Oﬃces Election Act (1) Where an objection is made, a petition for review is ﬁled or a suit is ﬁled with regard to the validity of an election, if there is a violation of any provision on election, the election administration commission concerned or the court shall make a decision, determination or judgment to declare nulliﬁcation of the whole or part of the election, only when such violation is likely to change the result of the election. Article 53, paragraph (1) of the Order for Enforcement of the Public Oﬃces Election Act (1) Where the chairperson of a municipal election administration commission has received a request for delivery of a voting slip and envelope for voting under the provisions of Article 50, paragraph (1) or paragraph (4), when he/she ﬁnds, by checking the request against the electoral register to be used for the election in question or extract thereof (in an election of members of the council of a prefecture or the head of a prefecture, with regard to a person who has the right to vote in the election under the provision of Article 9, paragraph (3) of https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=262 2/8

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