Key Points
- Four Japanese nationals living in Germany, France, Australia, and Canada have filed a lawsuit against the Japanese government, claiming the current overseas voting system is unconstitutional.
- The plaintiffs argue that the postal voting system is too slow and complex, which completely disenfranchised them during the snap general election in January, which had the shortest campaign period in post-war history.
- Expatriates face “extraordinary burdens,” such as spending over 100,000 yen to travel to distant embassies or consulates to vote in person.
- The plaintiffs and their legal team are calling for the immediate implementation of online voting to ensure the constitutional rights of over one million Japanese citizens living abroad.
Full Transcript (English)
Host (Aoi Mizoguchi): A constitutional lawsuit regarding overseas voting was filed against the government today. Right now, the House of Councillors is debating an amendment bill that includes a supplementary provision to consider introducing online voting for citizens abroad. At this very timing, what are the Japanese voters living overseas demanding? Let’s listen to their voices. Here is the press conference.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): The plaintiffs are four Japanese nationals living in Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. They have filed a state compensation lawsuit and a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment of illegality against the government.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): Specifically, they argue that during the House of Representatives general election held in January this year, the government failed to take legislative measures to allow overseas citizens to exercise their voting rights and national referendum review rights. They claim this legislative inaction violates Article 15 and Article 79 of the Constitution, and they are seeking damages for the mental distress caused.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): Secondly, assuming this legislative inaction is unconstitutional, they are seeking a declaration that restricting the plaintiffs’ voting and review rights in the next House of Representatives election under the current system is illegal.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): Both claims argue that the government’s failure to take measures allowing overseas citizens to vote without extraordinary burdens is unconstitutional.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): Let me explain the details. First, regarding the current overseas voting system, there are two main methods for Japanese nationals living abroad to vote: voting at overseas diplomatic missions, such as embassies and consulates, and postal voting.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): The plaintiffs in this case all chose postal voting. However, the postal voting system is extremely time-consuming. First, voters must request a ballot by mail from the municipality in Japan where they are registered. Second, the election administration commission in Japan mails the ballot to the voter. Third, the voter fills out the ballot and mails it back to Japan. This three-step process takes a lot of time.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): During the recent general election, the schedule was extremely tight. The dissolution of the Diet was announced on January 23, the election was officially announced on January 27, and voting day was February 8. The period from dissolution to voting day was only 16 days, the shortest in post-war history.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): The plaintiffs requested their ballots around January 10, immediately after media reports of a potential dissolution, even before the official announcement. Despite this, for three of the plaintiffs—Ms. Scheidmann, Ms. Terao, and Mr. Higashida—the ballots only arrived between February 3 and 5, just three to five days before the deadline. Even though they mailed them back immediately, their ballots did not arrive in Japan by February 8.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): For the plaintiff in Canada, Ms. Chiba, the ballot arrived on February 24, more than two weeks after the election had ended. Consequently, none of the plaintiffs were able to vote.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): Why did they choose postal voting? Because traveling to an embassy or consulate is too costly and time-consuming. For some, it requires taking a flight and spending over 100,000 yen. The postal voting system was created to help such people, but it failed to function.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): This situation violates the fundamental human rights of voting and national review guaranteed by the Constitution. This long-standing issue has been neglected, and we argue this inaction is unconstitutional.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): There are two famous Supreme Court precedents regarding overseas voting: one in 2005 regarding voting rights, and another in 2022 regarding national review rights. The Supreme Court ruled that restricting these rights is generally impermissible unless there are unavoidable reasons.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): Furthermore, in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, Justice Tokuji Izumi stated in a supplementary opinion that the guarantee of voting rights includes establishing a system where all voters can vote without extraordinary burdens.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): We argue that the government’s failure to establish such a system is unconstitutional. What constitutes an “extraordinary burden” will be a key point. The Supreme Court previously set damages for voting rights violations at 5,000 yen. Any system that forces voters to spend more than that to vote imposes an extraordinary burden.
Lawyer (Yoshikyo Toda): We also argue there are no unavoidable reasons for this failure. Even now, fax voting is allowed for people on ships or in Antarctica, and online voting has been debated for years. Despite these alternatives, the government has done nothing, which we believe is unconstitutional.
Plaintiff (Yumiko Scheidmann – Germany): I am Yumiko Scheidmann, living in Germany. For the recent election, since I live 200 kilometers away from the consulate in Frankfurt, I used postal voting. However, because the election period was too short, my ballot did not arrive in Japan in time.
Plaintiff (Yumiko Scheidmann – Germany): Although it is just one vote, it is my precious vote. The fact that I couldn’t vote, and that my ballot was treated as non-existent, makes me feel that my constitutionally guaranteed right has been practically stripped away.
Plaintiff (Yumiko Scheidmann – Germany): This is not just my problem. Some live in countries where mail takes months, or where postal services are unstable. Some spend tens of thousands of yen to mail their ballots. A friend of mine in Thailand still hasn’t received their ballot. This is a global issue. I joined this lawsuit to speak for them.
Plaintiff (Yumiko Scheidmann – Germany): Furthermore, under the current administration, constitutional amendment debates are active, which means a national referendum is a real possibility. If a referendum is held under the current system, many overseas voters will be unable to participate in a decision that affects the foundation of our country. This threatens the legitimacy of our democracy.
Plaintiff (Yumiko Scheidmann – Germany): Improving the system is an urgent issue. The government must introduce online voting and reform the system immediately.
Plaintiff (Terao – France): I am Terao, living in France. People often ask if I’ve become a French citizen, but I am Japanese, and my only voting right is in Japanese national elections. In France, presidential and local elections are held close by, and children grow up seeing politics as something familiar. As a mother, the only election I can show my children I am participating in is the Japanese election.
Plaintiff (Terao – France): However, the process is incredibly difficult. First, after moving, you must live at your new address for three months, get proof of residence, submit it to the consulate, and register on the overseas voter list. This list is sent to your registered municipality in Japan, which issues an overseas voter card, which is sent back to you. Only then are you ready to vote.
Plaintiff (Terao – France): Then, when an election is announced, you must mail a request for a ballot to Japan. The ballot is sent to you via EMS, which is expensive and paid for by taxes. You fill it out and mail it back. This multi-step process is highly vulnerable to postal delays.
Plaintiff (Terao – France): Many of my Japanese friends here haven’t registered because they moved and didn’t update their address, or didn’t know they needed a voter card. The hurdle is just too high. Unless you live in Paris where the consulate is easily accessible, voting is extremely difficult. Postal voting is practically non-functional, especially after the pandemic made postal services worse.
Plaintiff (Terao – France): We are only able to vote today because of the efforts of previous generations of overseas residents. To ensure that our votes are counted, and for the sake of the one million Japanese living abroad, I decided to join this lawsuit.
Plaintiff (Takaaki Higashida – Australia): I am Higashida, living in Australia. I have lived here for 34 years. While I am grateful to Australia, my roots are in Japan, and as I grow older, I feel more strongly about being Japanese. For me, overseas voting is an irreplaceable link to my homeland.
Plaintiff (Takaaki Higashida – Australia): Since I don’t live near a consulate, I have always used postal voting. Every time, I worry whether my ballot will arrive in time, and sometimes I’ve had to give up. This time, I felt strongly that this system, which makes us worry about whether our votes will count, is wrong and violates the Constitution.
Plaintiff (Takaaki Higashida – Australia): Overseas voting shouldn’t be treated as something that doesn’t matter. In this global era, Japanese people live all over the world. Having the voices of overseas citizens reflected in Japanese politics is beneficial for Japanese society. I hope people in Japan will show interest in this issue from a human rights perspective. I also hope this lawsuit will encourage other overseas Japanese who have given up on voting to realize the importance of their rights and participate.
Lawyer (Rinko Kameishi): I will read the comment from Eriko Chiba, who lives in Canada. “I have always voted since I lived in Japan. For the last election, I prepared early, requesting my ballot even before the Diet was dissolved. However, the ballot only arrived after voting day. Despite my strong desire to vote and completing all procedures, I was unable to. I feel strong anger. This is a problem that will recur every time as long as I live abroad. Even abroad, I am a member of Japanese society. My family is in Japan, and my daughter, who has Japanese nationality, has her future there. Japanese politics directly affects my life. Restricting our voting rights simply because we live abroad is irrational. I strongly demand a system reform so that all overseas citizens can vote reliably.”
Host (Aoi Mizoguchi): I am Mizoguchi from 8bitNews. I would like to ask the plaintiffs: Right now, the House of Councillors is debating a bill regarding the introduction of online voting for overseas citizens. While you are arguing that the legislative inaction is unconstitutional, what do you want to demand or convey to the members of the Diet? I would like to hear from each of you.
Plaintiff (Yumiko Scheidmann – Germany): This lawsuit is about state compensation, meaning we are suing the government. It is very encouraging that the Diet is finally debating this issue thanks to the voices of many people. However, the current bill only says they will “consider” online voting, not “implement” it. We four plaintiffs represent many others who face the same issue. I want the lawmakers to understand the gravity of this problem. Postal voting is no longer functional. In this digital age, online voting is absolutely necessary. I strongly urge them to move from “consideration” to “implementation” immediately.
Plaintiff (Terao – France): Since I live in a rural area, I used postal voting. This system assumes that mail between Japan and other countries is stable. When the overseas voting system was created by previous generations, they focused on major cities. They didn’t fully consider those living in rural areas or countries with poor postal services. I want lawmakers to listen to the voices of diverse overseas residents.
Plaintiff (Terao – France): We four live in relatively developed countries, but there are many in other regions facing even greater difficulties. Also, regarding online voting, My Number cards are often mentioned. However, those of us who left Japan before 2015 do not have My Number cards, and we are currently excluded from the system. I want lawmakers to simulate the system thoroughly to ensure it works for everyone, without leaving anyone behind. Leaving people behind is a failure of legislation.
Plaintiff (Takaaki Higashida – Australia): It is great that the Diet is debating online voting. During the recent election in Australia, I tracked my ballot. It went from Adelaide to Sydney, then to Tokyo, and then to the local election commission. It took about two weeks just to arrive, even with express mail. Even in developed countries, postal services are not as fast or reliable as in Japan. In a vast country like Australia, or in developing nations, postal voting is practically impossible. Online voting is the only viable solution.
Plaintiff (Takaaki Higashida – Australia): Lawmakers should look at countries like France or Estonia, which already use online voting, and build a better system. Overseas citizens have been waiting for over 30 years. It is time to create a system where everyone who wants to vote can do so. We will do our best from the legal side to push for this change.
Host (Aoi Mizoguchi): One more question. The overseas voting system was established not by political initiative, but because citizens took action, filed lawsuits, and fought for their rights. Given this history of over 20 years, how do you position this lawsuit, and what are your thoughts going forward?
Lawyer (Daiki Taniguchi): Indeed, the overseas voting system was built on the efforts of many predecessors, and the judiciary played a crucial role. The two Supreme Court decisions were milestones. This lawsuit is a continuation of that struggle.
Lawyer (Daiki Taniguchi): The recent election was the shortest in post-war history, and postal voting failed completely, with over 20% of ballots arriving late or not at all. This proves the current system is broken. While online voting is one solution, our core argument is that the government must guarantee a system where all voters can vote without extraordinary burdens. We want to make this clear in court.
