一票の不平等 いつまで放置するのか

--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 26
EDITORIAL: Vote-value disparity a gross inequality that cannot continue
（社説）一票の不平等　いつまで放置するのか

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling on the issue of vote-value disparity has left us wondering how long it will take until this clear, outrageous inequality is corrected.
It seems that both the judiciary and the legislature lack awareness of the urgent need to fix this unacceptable situation.
　国民の間に厳然とある不平等をいつまで放置するのか。司法も立法府も、異常をただす切迫感に欠けるのではないか。

The Supreme Court’s Grand Bench ruled on Nov. 25 that the Lower House election in December last year was held in a “state of unconstitutionality,” citing a huge disparity in the relative vote-value among constituencies.
　昨年の衆院選での一票の不平等をめぐり、最高裁が「違憲状態」との判決を出した。

Given that the top court has handed down three similar rulings in the past four years, it has become almost routine to hear it declare that an election was held in a “state of unconstitutionality.”
同様の結論はこの４年間で３回目であり、慣例化した感も漂う。

The Diet has dragged its feet on reforming the electoral system, so a fundamental solution to the problem has yet to be found.
　国会では抜本的に身をただす選挙制度改革の動きは遅れたままだ。

We are concerned that the Supreme Court’s tepid ruling on the issue could be used by the Diet as an excuse for its inaction.
最高裁の手ぬるい判決が国会の免罪符にされてしまわないか、懸念が残る。

In its ruling in 2011, the top court argued that the method of first distributing one seat to each of the 47 prefectures before allocating the remaining seats in the single-seat constituency part of the electoral system in proportion to population was the main cause of the vote-value disparity. The court said this approach should be “abolished as soon as possible.”
　最高裁は２０１１年、各都道府県にまず議席一つずつを割り振る１人別枠方式が、不平等を生む要因と断じた。「できるだけ速やかな撤廃」を求めた。

In its 2013 ruling on the Lower House election held in December 2012, however, the court took note of the Diet’s last-minute move to reduce the number of seats slightly as “certain progress,” easing the pressure on the Diet. The court’s latest ruling is in line with the 2013 decision.
　ところが１３年の判決では、国会が駆け込みで若干の定数削減を決めたことを「一定の前進」とし、手綱を緩めた。今回の判断もこの延長上にある。

In the Nov. 25 ruling, the Supreme Court had encouraging words for work by a Lower House expert committee on the election system to come up with measures to revamp the seat-allocation method, saying efforts to improve the situation are being made in line with the past rulings.
　有識者でつくる衆院の選挙制度調査会が見直し策を検討していることにも言及し、これまでの判決に沿って是正が進められていると高く評価している。

Let us ponder this problem from a basic standpoint.
　原点に戻って考えたい。

In the Lower House election last December, one vote in the nation’s least populated constituency was worth 2.13 votes in the most heavily populated district. In other words, the weight of one person’s vote in a certain district was less than half of the weight of another person’s vote in a different district.
今回の最大格差は２・１３倍。ある選挙区での一票の重みは、別の選挙区での半分にも満たない。

Casting votes in elections is the most important of the few opportunities for the public to exercise their sovereign power that is invested in them by the Constitution.
　選挙で票を投じるという行為は、憲法に定められた国民主権を具現化する数少ない、そしてもっとも重要な権利である。

Allowing a situation to continue where a vote in one district is worth less than half of a vote in another represents an egregious inequality among the people that must be redressed immediately.
住む場所によって票の価値が倍以上も違うという不平等はただちに改善されるべき問題だ。

The fact that the flawed seat-allocation method remains basically unchanged four years after the Supreme Court criticized is testimony to the Diet’s gross negligence.
　最高裁が１人別枠方式の問題を指摘して４年がたってもなお事実上撤廃されていないのは、国会の怠慢というほかない。

What is notable about the latest Supreme Court ruling is that three of the 14 justices of the Grand Bench criticized the Diet for its failure to tackle the problem, saying sufficient time had passed to realize equality in voting.
　注目すべきは、１４人中３人の裁判官が、「投票の平等」を実現するのに必要な時間はもう十分あったと批判している点だ。

Two of the three dissenting justices argued for invalidating the Lower House election, and the remaining one called for declaring the election “unconstitutional” in the text of the judgment.
うち２人は選挙の無効を、１人は主文での「違憲」の宣言を、それぞれ主張している。

In the ruling, the top court maintained that the constitutional order should be formed through interactions between the judiciary and the legislature.
　最高裁は判決で、憲法の秩序は立法府との相互作用で形成されるとの趣旨を展開している。国会が法をつくる。

The interactions apparently work as follows. The Diet makes laws, and the Supreme Court sends its messages on certain laws through its rulings. The Diet then reforms the laws in response to the court’s rulings.
最高裁が判決でメッセージを出す。それにもとづいて国会が法を改める。

This seems to mean that the top court puts much importance on “dialogue” between the legislature and the judiciary.
立法府と司法との「対話」を重んじる考え方のようだ。

But history shows the Diet has repeatedly ignored messages from the judiciary or interpreted them in a way convenient to it.
　しかし振り返れば、司法のメッセージを国会は繰り返し無視したり、都合よく解釈したりしてきた。

In order to ensure meaningful “dialogue,” the top court should have made more specific demands, such as setting clear deadlines for corrective actions by the Diet.
「対話」を成り立たせるためには、今後の是正期限を明記するなど具体的な求めが必要だったのではないか。

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that both the Upper and Lower Houses have been elected in a “state of unconstitutionality.” This is simply an extraordinary situation.
　衆参両院が「違憲状態」で選ばれたと再三指摘されているのは異常事態である。

It is unacceptable that the Diet members, who are obliged to respect the Constitution, allow such serious inequality to remain unchanged.
憲法尊重の義務を負う議員が、不平等を野放しにすることは許されない。

This injustice should be rectified immediately.
早急に改めるべきである。