Case on Election District for a City/Do Council Member

[2014Hun-Ma189, June 28, 2018] * First Draft

In this case, the Constitutional Court held that the part including “Songpa-gu Constituency 3 of Seoul” and “Songpa-gu Constituency 4 of Seoul” specified in Table 2 regarding the Election District for a City/Do council member under the former Public Official Election Act does not infringe upon the complainants’ rights to vote and the right to equality as the population deviation is within the acceptable limit.

Background of the Case

The complainants have their addresses respectively at “Songpa-gu Constituency 3 of Seoul” and “Songpa-gu Constituency 4 of Seoul” specified in Table 2 regarding the Election District for a City/Do council member (hereinafter referred to as the “Constituency Table”), prescribed in Article 26 Section 1 under the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 12393 on February 13, 2014, and prior to amendment made by Act No. 15424 on Mar 9, 2018), and they planned to exercise their rights to vote for members of the Seoul Metropolitan Council at the 6th Local Election to be held on June 4, 2014. On March, 2014, the complainants filed a constitutional complaint claiming that the two constituencies for the Seoul Metropolitan Council specified in the Constituency Table infringe upon their right to vote and the right to equality.

Subject Matter of Review

The subject matter of review in this case is whether “Songpa-gu Constituency 3 of Seoul” and “Songpa-gu Constituency 4 of Seoul” specified in Table 2 regarding the Election District for a City/Do council member, redistricted by Article 26 Section 1 under the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 12393 on February 13, 2014, and prior to amendment made by Act No. 15424 on Mar 9, 2018) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constituency Table at Issue’) infringes upon the complainants’ basic rights. The Provision at issue reads as follows.

Provision at Issue

Former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 12393 on February 13, 2014,

and prior to amendment made by Act No. 15424 on Mar 9, 2018)

Article 26 (Demarcation of Constituencies for Local Council Members)

(1) The election district for a City/Do council member (hereinafter referred to "constituency for a City/Do council member") shall be demarcated by making the autonomous Gu/Si/Gun a zone or dividing the autonomous Gu/Si/Gun (if an autonomous Gu/Si/Gun consists of two or more constituencies for the National Assembly members, it refers to the constituency for the National Assembly member, and if the election district does not coincide with the administrative district due to a territorial change in the administrative district, it refers to the administrative district), in consideration of the population, administrative districts, geographical features, traffic, and other conditions, but the fixed number of the City/Do council members of local constituency to be elected in the single constituency for a City/Do council member shall be one and the names and districts of the constituencies for the City/Do council members shall be shown in attached Table 2.

[Table 2] The Election District constituency for a City/Do council member

(Number of local constituency members: 663)

Summary of the Decision

The 2005Hun-Ma985, etc., case decided on March 29, 2007, set 60% as the population deviation permissible in redistricting the constituency for a City/Do council member. However, the standard, adopted 11 years ago, may cause one vote to have four times greater value than another, which is excessively unequal in their respective value. Also when considering the standard proposed in this ruling will be applied to the local election to be held in 2022, a stricter limit for permissible maximum population deviation needs to be established at present.

Nevertheless, council members of a City/Do represent their respective regions at local councils that mainly address regional issues, and there exists special circumstances as the country holds huge population disparity between urban and rural areas and notably unbalanced development in many areas. Therefore, secondary elements such as administrative districts and local representativeness along with the population proportion should also be taken into account in redistricting a constituency for a City/Do council member.

Setting the maximum permissible population deviation at 50% means that the value ratio of a vote should be less than 3 to 1, which adds 50% to the ratio of 2 to 1, the limit of the equal value based on the population proportion. This standard allows wide consideration of the secondary elements compared with setting it at 33⅓%. Furthermore, adopting 33⅓% population deviation immediately from the 60% population deviation would very likely bring unexpected challenges in coordinating the constituency for a City/Do council member. Thus, it will be reasonable at the moment to adjust the maximum permissible population deviation at 50% (population proportion of 3:1) in redistricting the constituency for a City/Do council member.

The Constituency Table at Issue shows population deviation within 50% from the average population of the constituency for the Seoul Metropolitan Council. In consequence, it is not deemed to infringe upon the complainants’ right to vote and the right to equality.

*This translation is provisional and subject to revision.