Japan's Supreme Court says the '1 vote gap of 3.13 times' in last year's House of Councilors election is unconstitutional.

(Tokyo = Yonhap News) Correspondent Do-yeon Lee = The Supreme Court ruled on the 11th that in the Japanese House of Councilors (Senate) election held in July last year, the 'one vote gap' between each voter was up to 3.13 times 'unconstitutional'.

Accordingly, the Japanese parliament is in a situation where it must take measures to redraw constituencies or revise the number of seats before the next election.

According to NHK, the Supreme Court of Japan's Supreme Court on this day ruled that the gap between one vote in last year's House of Councilors election was up to 3.13 times "unconstitutional," and said, "The imbalance in the value of votes has reached a level that cannot be overlooked."

The unconstitutional state is unconstitutional, but it is not immediately judged as unconstitutional and loses effect. It is a ruling that it will become unconstitutional if it is not corrected within a certain period of time.

Lawyer groups filed a lawsuit to invalidate the election, claiming that after the House of Councilors election in July last year, there was a gap of up to 3.13 times in the number of voters per member depending on the constituency.

In relation to this, among the 16 rulings issued by high courts in various parts of Japan, 11 were unconstitutional and 5 were 'constitutional'.

However, in the appeal trial on this day, the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court ruled that last year's House of Councilors election was unconstitutional, saying that the National Assembly's response was "stalemate."

The imbalance in the value of one vote means that the value of a vote from a voter in a rural area with few voters is reflected more heavily than the value of a vote from a voter in a large city.

Regarding the one-vote gap in the House of Councilors elections, the Supreme Court ruled that the gap of 5 times in the 2010 election and 4.77 times in the 2013 election was unconstitutional.

However, after the 2016 election, when the gap was reduced by about three times due to the consolidation of constituencies, it was judged constitutional three times in a row.

Japanese media reported that this is the first time that a gap of about three times has been judged unconstitutional.

On this day, the Supreme Court dismissed the request to invalidate the election results.