*Translated by Google translate

[Regarding the start of fundraising]

This lawsuit concerns the problems with the current system, which restricts the exercise of voting rights due to relocation.

Regarding this lawsuit, we had refrained from soliciting donations until now because the plaintiff was undergoing legal training, but we have now begun soliciting donations.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude once again to everyone who has sent messages of support regarding this lawsuit.
If you are interested in this lawsuit, we would appreciate any support you can provide to the extent possible.

 Introduction 

Have you ever moved?
Or, do you have any plans to move in the future?

Actually, if you move more than twice within a three-month period, you may become ineligible to vote in national elections.
In fact, I was unable to vote in the House of Councillors election in July 2025.

Therefore, I filed a lawsuit seeking state compensation on the grounds that my right to vote had been restricted.
You too might be unable to participate in elections due to moving.

This lawsuit is aimed at winning a future where moving does not restrict one's right to vote .

▲Signboard for the House of Councillors election held in July 2025

 Summary of the case 

I moved from Ward A in Tokyo to Ward B in Tokyo in January 2025, and then moved from Ward B in Tokyo to City C in Kyoto Prefecture in April of the same year. Due to these moves, I was not registered on the voter register of either of my addresses as of the cutoff date for the 27th House of Councillors election, and therefore was unable to vote in the election held on July 20 of the same year.

Under the current legal system, if you move repeatedly, you may not be registered on any electoral roll and may be unable to vote in elections. There is no other way to describe this legal system than problematic.

The reason I was unable to participate in the House of Councillors election was because the Diet had not properly enacted the necessary laws. Despite the Diet being aware of this problem at least eight years ago, they continued to neglect the necessary legal amendments. Therefore, I have now filed a lawsuit seeking state compensation.

 Background 

In 2022, I moved my registered address from my parents' home to my then-own address where I was living alone.

After that, I completed law school in 2023 and passed the bar exam in 2024. As of 2025, I am undergoing training as a legal apprentice to become a legal professional.

In January 2025, before the start of my legal training, my lease on my previous residence expired. At that time, I moved to a location that was more convenient for accessing the Legal Training and Research Institute.

In April of that year, as part of the legal apprenticeship program, I moved to Kyoto, which is a practical training location designated by the Supreme Court.

I changed my registered address with each of my moves.

I'm sometimes asked why I moved my residency registration to a place where I'd only be living for a few months, but I simply moved it to reflect my actual living situation. Despite this, I've become unable to vote in national elections.

▲The plaintiff presents a report on this case at the "Whose Right to Suffrage Is It?" breakout session of the "78th Judicial Apprentices Forum" on October 12, 2025.

 What they are claiming in court 

My main arguments in this trial are the following four points: ①, ②, ③, and ④.

◆ Premise: The "three-month requirement" necessary to vote in an election.

In order to vote in an election, you must be registered on the "voter register" beforehand. Under the current system, you will not be registered on the register until three months have passed since your resident registration was established (this is the "three-month requirement").

Furthermore, after four months have passed since you moved out, your name will be removed from the list of registered names.

Therefore, if you move from City A to City B to City C in a short period of time, the following situations may occur.

City A: Four months have passed since moving out → Removed from the register
City B: Resident registration period is less than 3 months → Not registered in the roster
City C: Less than 3 months after moving in → Not registered on the roster

This creates a gap in the voting list during which a person is not registered, and if the election cutoff date falls within that period, they cannot vote in the election.

The reason I was unable to vote in the recent House of Councillors election was because the voting period coincided with this gap in my voting history.

① Restrictions on the right to vote in national elections are, in principle, not permitted.

The right to vote in national elections is an important right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Except in cases of unavoidable circumstances, the exercise of the right to vote should not be restricted.

It is clear from points ② and ③ below that the restrictions on the exercise of voting rights in this case cannot be said to be based on unavoidable circumstances.

② A "three-month requirement" should not be imposed on voting in national elections.

The right to vote in local elections is granted to those who have resided in the area for three months. This is thought to be because local ties are considered important in local elections. In line with this requirement, a three-month residency requirement is also set for the voter registration list (this point has also been confirmed in parliamentary responses).

Under the current system, a common electoral register is used for both national and local elections.

Therefore, if a person's resident registration record is less than three months old, they are effectively unable to exercise their right to vote in national elections. Since the right to vote in national elections is a right granted to all citizens aged 18 and over, its exercise should not be influenced by the requirements established for local elections.

③ The "three-month requirement" should not be imposed when a person moves within the same prefecture.

With the establishment of the Basic Resident Register Network in 1990, it became easier for the government to track people's moves. In particular, the 2016 legal amendment made it clear that the government can accurately track multiple moves within the same prefecture and consider the periods before and after those moves together.

My first move was within Tokyo.

In the case of relocation within the same prefecture, it was possible, for administrative purposes, to total the periods of residence before and after the move and remove the person from the voter register four months after the last place of residence. The current system is problematic because it does not total the periods of residence even when relocating within the same prefecture.

④ The government had been aware of the problem for over eight years, but neglected to address it.

The government was aware of this issue—that people who have moved multiple times are unable to vote in national elections—at least eight years ago. This is evident from the intent behind the 2016 amendment to the Public Offices Election Act and from the statements made by lawmakers during the deliberations.

However, no improvements have been made to the system, and this situation continues to this day. The reason I was unable to exercise my right to vote this time is because the Diet recognized the problem but failed to make the necessary legal amendments.

 social significance 

This is a problem that anyone can become involved in multiple times, especially if they move multiple times.

Although the right to vote in national elections is granted to all citizens, under the current system, simply moving one's residence registration to reflect their actual living situation can restrict that right.

In modern times, it's no longer unusual for people to move multiple times in a short period due to various reasons such as entering higher education, changing schools, finding a job, being transferred, getting married, getting divorced, or caring for elderly family members. In other words, this issue is not just a one-time misfortune for a specific person, but a societal problem that affects the entire nation.

This lawsuit highlights these systemic problems and represents an important step towards improving the system to allow everyone to participate in politics. Participation in national elections is fundamental to democracy, and this issue is not something that can be ignored. We believe this lawsuit has great social significance in realizing a society where more people can reliably participate in elections.

▲The plaintiff is shown promoting the "78th Judicial Trainee Forum" at his practical training site.

 Use of Donations 

The donations we receive from everyone will be used primarily for the following expenses.

Court costs: Actual expenses such as stamp duty and photocopying fees.
Fees for opinion papers: These are the costs incurred to have experts such as constitutional scholars write opinion papers.
Research expenses: Costs incurred for research involving obtaining documents and translation work, such as researching overseas laws regarding restrictions on voting rights due to relocation.
Transportation expenses for lawyers and other legal professionals: Transportation expenses for lawyers and other experts who come to the court.
Event hosting and publicity expenses: Expenses for events and publicity related to this lawsuit.
Legal fees, etc.: If there are any remaining donations, I plan to give the entire amount to the lawyers on the legal team. None of the donations I receive will remain in my personal possession.

 Plaintiff's thoughts 

I was deeply confused to learn that there are times when, no matter how hard you try, you are not legally allowed to vote.

During my university years, I initially kept my residency registration at my parents' home. However, I felt uncomfortable having to vote at my parents' address, where I didn't actually live, and not being able to vote at my actual place of residence. This led me to re-examine my approach to political participation and, considering the convenience of election participation, I moved my residency registration to reflect my actual living situation. I have voted in national elections up until now, and I intended to vote in this House of Councillors election as well. I could not accept being deprived of the opportunity to participate in politics simply because I moved my residency registration to reflect my place of residence.

The election commission told me that it would be difficult for someone as busy as me, who moves frequently in a short period of time, to participate in the election. I felt like they were assuming that people who move often are unable to integrate into society and therefore don't deserve to exercise their right to vote. Because I couldn't vote, I felt alienated from social interaction and that my worth was being denied. Depriving people of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote is a serious problem that denies human dignity.

I believe there have been others, like me, whose voting rights have been restricted, who have had to give up after questioning the system. Thinking of such people, I felt it was my responsibility, given my position of having easy access to the judiciary, to bring this issue to public attention.

As long as the current system remains in place, a certain number of citizens will continue to be unable to exercise their right to vote. This problem absolutely cannot be overlooked.

If you have moved multiple times in a short period of time, or if you have actually been unable to exercise your right to vote in a national election, please contact us.

 Message from the lawyer 

Our society has "promises" that we must keep together.

When you shop at a supermarket, you pay for your goods and receive them. Cars drive on the left side of the road. Parents send their children to school. Marriage being between a man and a woman, us paying taxes, and married couples sharing the same last name—all of these are "agreements" of this society.

These kinds of "promises" are what constitute laws. We pre-determine the structure of society through laws. A promise, by its very nature, is something made with mutual agreement. An agreement left solely to one person cannot be considered a true promise.

If people who have to move frequently due to work or family circumstances are unable to participate in elections, then the way society makes its promises is unfair. To ensure that the society envisioned by law is fair for everyone, we must first make the election system fair. I would greatly appreciate your support in achieving this.

Lawyer Kyoko Yoshida

 Introduction of a lawyer representing you 

Kyoko Yoshida (Second Tokyo Bar Association)
Daisuke Igeta (Second Tokyo Bar Association)
Han Tae-young (Second Tokyo Bar Association)

▲From left: Attorney Yoshida, Plaintiff Yui Inoue, Attorney Han, Attorney Igeta

 In conclusion 

This lawsuit aims to create a society where all citizens' right to vote is properly protected and democracy functions correctly.
Your understanding will help bring this issue to the attention of society and improve the system.
Through litigation, we will work towards realizing a fair electoral system.