Supreme Court Third Petty Bench Decision of February 28, 1995, 49 Minshu 2-639, 1523 Hanji 49. The Court affirmed a lower court's refusal to permit the plaintiffs, Korean nationals with permanent resident status, to be listed on voter regulation rolls and participate in local elections. While acknowledging that the constitutional right to vote in such elections applied solely to Japanese nationals, the Court, in dicta, supported the drafting of legislation to allow foreign residents in Japan the right to vote in local elections.

Supreme Court Second Petty Bench Decision of March 24, 1995, 1526 Hanji 87. The Court found a ratio of approximately one to two in the relative weight of votes cast for Tokyo Metropolitan City Council members during the 1993 Tokyo Metropolitan City Council elections constitutional. The ratio was based on a comparison of the relative weight of votes within Chiyoda Ward.

Supreme Court First Petty Bench Decision of May 25, 1995, 49 Minshu 5-1279, 1531 Hanji 3, 878 Hanta 63. The Court reversed a lower court decision (Tokyo High Court Decision of November 29, 1994, 1513 Hanji 60) which had questioned the validity of a political party's expulsion of one of its members and the resulting removal of the member's name from the list of party representatives appointed to represent the party in accordance with the proportional representation election system. Recognizing the broad autonomy of political parties, the Court held that the formulation of the list of party representatives lay solely within the jurisdiction of the party and that the fact that the electorate had been provided with the list upon its determination of the extent of the party's representation in the Diet did not undermine the party's power to adopt regulations allowing for alteration of the list following the election.

Supreme Court First Petty Bench Decision of June 8, 1995, 49 Minshu 6-1443,1538 Hanji 185. The Court affirmed a lower court's determination that the proportional weight of votes during the House of Representatives general election of July 1993 of as much as 1(Tokyo Seventh District) to 2.82 (Ehime Third District) did not violate the Article 14 of the Constitution as, at the time of the election, the relative inequality in voting rights did not exceed the reasonable discretional limit of the Diet. Two justices dissented with the determination of constitutionality, although they concurred in supporting the validity of the election.

Supreme Court Grand Bench Decision of September 11, 1996, 50-8 Minshu 2283, 1582 Hanji 3, 922 Hanta 96.  The Court dismissed appeals brought by both parties from a determination of the Osaka High Court (Osaka High Court Decision of December 16, 1993, 1501 Hanji 83) in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of Osaka voters, who sought a declaration that the July 26, 1992 House of Councilors election was unconstitutional insofar as the proportional relationship between votes was, at its greatest, 1 (Tottori Prefecture) to 6.59 (Kanagawa Prefecture).  The Osaka High Court's finding of unconstitutionality was the first such finding with respect to a House of Councilors election.  While, the Court unanimously affirmed that the degree of proportional difference between the votes had reached an unconstitutional level, an eight judge majority determined the election was not ultimately unconstitutional as the Diet must be permitted a reasonable period of time to correct such imbalances, and this period had not yet expired.  The Public Elections Law was amended in 1994 (after the Osaka High Court determination but before publication of the Supreme Court opinion) in part to address these proportional differences.

Supreme Court First Petty Bench Decision of March 13, 1997, 51-3 Minshu 453, 1605  Hanji 16, 944 Hanta 83.  The Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal from a lower court decision (Sendai High Court Decision of July 8, 1996, 49 Minshu 2-38) upholding the constitutionality of Article 251-3(1) of the Public Elections Law, the so-called "guilt by association" provision.  The plaintiff was elected to the Aomori Prefectural Assembly in April 9, 1994, but was subsequently removed from office and prohibited from candidacy for a period of five (5) years as a result of illegal activities undertaken by leaders of the plaintiff's election committee found to be in violation of Article 221-1(1) of the Public Elections Law.  Article 251-3(1) of the Public Elections Law provides for the individual liability of a candidate for failure to prevent activities of leaders of his or her election committee which illegally undermine the fairness and propriety of public elections.   The Court found the legislative purpose of Article 251-3(1) rational and the means by which this legislative purpose is achieved reasonable and necessary.  

Supreme Court Second Petty Bench Decision of March 28, 1997, 1602 Hanji 71, 939 Hanta 98.  The Court dismissed the appeal from a lower court decision (Osaka High Court Decision of September 11, 1992, 39 Sogetsu 6) denying the plaintiffs claims that an order compelling production of their voting records to the police as part of its investigation of alleged election crimes violated Article 15(4) of the Constitution relating to the secrecy of ballots.  The police were investigating allegations that a candidate and a number of his supporters had falsified voter registration forms and voting ballots in order to secure the candidate a seat on the municipal council.  As the records of the polling locations were inadequate to assess whether or not the ballots themselves had in fact been falsified, the police requested and were awarded discovery of 226 ballots voted in favor of the candidate.  The plaintiffs included the candidate and a number of voters not implicated by the investigation.   The Court determined that as the sole purpose of the compelled production of the voting ballots was the comparison of fingerprints on the ballots with those of the supporters suspected of election crimes and that the plaintiffs' fingerprints were not among those used in this comparison, there was little danger that the contents of the plaintiffs' voting ballots would be disclosed.  Accordingly, even if the secrecy of the plaintiffs ballots could be interpreted to have been violated, there was little danger of actual harm to the plaintiffs or their legal rights stemming from such invasion.

Supreme Court Second Petty Bench Decision of March 13, 1998, (Unpublished). The Court dismissed the appeal of a political group of foreign residents of Japan and the group's individual representative, a third generation Korean with permanent residency status in Japan. The political group and its representative had brought suit against the election commission alleging violation of Article 15(1) of the Constitution for failure to accept the registration of ten members of the political group as well as that of the group's representative for candidacy in the July 1992 House of Councilors representative elections, and Osaka municipal elections. The group members as well as the group's representative, had attached their foreign resident certificates to their application of candidacy. In each case, the electoral board had refused to accept the plaintiffs' registration as candidates based on the regulatory requirement that registrations be accompanied by a copy of the citizen's registry or a summary thereof. The Court affirmed the lower court's determination that neither Article 10(1) of the Public Elections Law, which stipulates only Japanese citizens have the right to participate in elections, nor any of the other provisions raised by the plaintiffs violate Article 15(1) of the Constitution, which provides the people the right to select public officials, nor Article 25 of the International Treaty on Human Rights.

(2) With respect to the small constituency elections, the plaintiffs alleged that the criteria for the establishment of the small constituencies regards the members of the House of Representatives from small constituencies to be representatives of the locality, and therefore are in violation of Article 43(1) of the Constitution. The plaintiffs also assert the demarcation of constituency boundaries in accordance with this criterion has resulted in 28 constituencies in which the difference in the numbers of population is more than double of other constituencies, in violation of Article 14(1) of the Constitution. There were two principle criteria for setting the boundaries of the small constituencies. First, the populations of each constituency were to be proportional so that the relationship between the between the least populated constituency and most populated constituency should be less than 1:2, although administrative division, geography, transportation and other circumstances may be taken into account. Second, seats were to be allocated to each of the 47 prefectures prior to the demarcation of the boundaries of the small constituencies and the number of constituencies within each prefecture determined by subtracting the number of prefectures from the number of the members of the House of Representatives and allocated to each prefecture in proportion to its population plus one. Thus, while demarcation was designed to approximate a direct relationship between population and representation, the criteria established contemplated that a certain amount of imbalance is inevitable. The demarcation applicable to the election in question was based on the national census of October 1990, and resulted in a maximum difference in population between constituencies of 1: 2.137. The national census immediately before the election in October 1995 resulted in a maximum difference in population between constituencies of 1:2.30 (Shimane No. 3: Kanagawa No. 14). However, the majority of the Court found that, although the difference between constituencies was greater than 1:2, even at the outset, the challenged demarcation was not outside the established criteria. The criteria specifically allow for the appropriate consideration of other factors which may impact the creation of a direct relationship between population and representation. Indeed, the requirement that seats be allocated to each of the prefectures in advance of demarcation of small constituencies clearly contributes to an imbalance in the value of votes in various constituencies, but stems from an appropriate concern that residents of sparsely populated prefectures continue to have their views reflected in national politics. In light of these considerations, the majority found the resulting difference in the value of votes between constituencies not to have reached the level of unreasonableness in general, and therefore, not in violation of Article 14(1) of the Constitution. Nor, in the majority's opinion, could the criteria themselves be considered unconstitutional or the Diet's adoption of the criteria and the demarcation based on them outside the exercise of its reasonable discretion. Finally, with respect to plaintiffs' claims regarding Article 43(1) of the Constitution, the majority found that the provision that members of the Diet represent all people means that members of both houses of the Diet, regardless of the method of election, are representatives of all people and not representatives of a specific class, party, or locality, and are mandated to act for all people in an independent way without being bound by instructions of a particular class of voters and cannot be understood to require an election system strictly proportional to the numbers of population. Simply because the allocation of seats to each prefecture prior to allocation to small constituencies results in more seats allocated to less populated prefectures, members elected under this system do not lose the characteristic of being representatives of all people.