Previous 4 / 7 Next

Disabilities, Remedy against Infringement of Their Rights, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities”) and subordinate statues thereof. For example, a terrestrial broadcasting business entity or a program provider that engages in general 101 programming or specialized programming of news reports are required, among the Election Broadcast Programs of this case, to broadcast speeches of candidates, candidate’s campaign speeches supervised by broadcasting facilities, and interviews or debates supervised by Election Debate Broadcasting Committee with closed captions. Broadcasting in Korean sign language and captions has continuously and gradually improved to provide hearing-impaired persons with more opportunities to obtain election information. The aforementioned Acts established different targets and timelines for providing broadcasts for persons with disabilities based on the types and sizes of broadcasting business entities, conditions for producing broadcasting programs for persons with disabilities, demand for viewers, the characteristics of broadcasting channels, and the types and costs of broadcasting for persons with disabilities, thereby continuously increasing the portion of programs for persons with disabilities from 2012 to 2016. Also, Korea Smart Sign Language Broadcasting Service which was developed in 2014 and has been in service since 2019 allows users to adjust the size and placement of the sign language screen or delete it. At least all interviews and debates supervised by the Election Debate Broadcasting Committee during the recent general election campaigns have been broadcast with Korean sign language. Also comprehensively considering the fact that there are many other means for the hearing impaired to obtain election information, the Provision of Korean Sign Language or Captions of this case is not deemed to violate the right to vote and equality of Complainant Kim △△ and Ham ▲▲. Summary of Dissenting Opinion by Three Justices 1. Standard of Review A proportionality test with strict scrutiny should be carried out in this 102 case as the right to vote holds a significant value in a representative democracy. 2. Provision on Election Campaign Bulletins of this case Persons with visual disabilities may experience difficulties in getting election information through visual means. They also have limited access to auditory information as it requires using a specific medium or going to a specific place, or it can only be heard once. Accordingly, persons with visual impairment are likely to find it harder to obtain a broad and deep background knowledge about politics in general, such as political party platforms, political philosophies and ideologies of candidates, and political realities, compared to individuals without such disabilities. The only means for visually-impaired voters to get election information regardless of time or space and without help from others or assistive devices, among election campaign methods permitted in all public official elections under the Public Official Election Act, is the braille-type election campaign bulletins

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