*Translated by Google translate

Introduction

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

In fact, if you move more than twice within three months, you may not be able to vote in national elections.
In fact, I was not able to vote in the July 2025 House of Councillors election.

Therefore, they filed a lawsuit seeking compensation from the state, claiming that their voting rights had been restricted.
Perhaps you too will be unable to participate in the election due to moving.

This lawsuit is to win a future where voting rights are not restricted due to moving .

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

Overview of the case

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

Under the current legal system, if you move frequently, you may not be registered on any voter roll and may not be able to vote in elections. There is no other way to describe this legal system than as being flawed.

The reason I was unable to participate in the House of Councillors election was because the Diet had not properly enacted the law. Although the Diet was aware of this problem at least eight years ago, it continued to neglect to make the necessary legal reforms. This is why I have now filed a lawsuit seeking state compensation.

 History 

In 2022, I moved my residence registration from my parents' house to the address where I was living alone at the time.

I then graduated from law school in 2023 and passed the bar exam in 2024. As of 2025, I am undergoing training to become a legal professional as a judicial trainee.

The lease on my current home was due to expire in January 2025, before I began my legal training. At that time, I decided to move to a location with easy access to the Legal Training and Research Institute.

In April of that year, as part of the training system, I moved to Kyoto, the location designated by the Supreme Court for practical training.

When we moved, we transferred our residence registration.

I am often asked why I moved my residence to a place where I will only be living for a few months, but I simply moved my residence to accommodate my lifestyle. And yet, I am no longer able to vote in national elections.

▲ Reporting on this case at the "78th Legal Trainee Forum" subcommittee "Whose right to vote is it?" on October 12, 2025

What is being argued in court

The main points I am arguing in this lawsuit are ①, ②, ③, and ④.

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

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

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

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

City A: 4 months have passed since moving out → Deleted from the list
City B: The resident registration period is less than three months → not registered on the register
City C: Less than three months after moving → Not registered on the list

This creates a gap in the period when you are not registered on any list, and if an election record date is set during that period, you will not be able to vote in the election.

The reason I was unable to vote in the House of Councillors election this time was because the reference date fell during this gap period.

① In principle, restrictions on voting rights in national elections are not permitted.

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

Except when there are compelling reasons, the exercise of the right to vote should not be restricted.

It is clear from points ② and ③ below that restrictions on the exercise of the right to vote such as this cannot be said to be based on unavoidable reasons.

② There should be no three-month requirement for voting in national elections.

The right to vote in local elections is given to those who have resided in the area for three months. This is thought to be because local elections place importance on local ties. In line with this requirement, a three-month requirement is also set for voter lists (this point was confirmed in Diet responses).

Under the current system, a common voter roll is used for national and local elections.

Therefore, the system is set up so that if a person's resident registration has not been up to 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 or over, its exercise should not be affected by the requirements established for local elections.

3) The "three-month requirement" should not be imposed when moving within the same prefecture.

The establishment of the Basic Resident Register Network in 1990 made it easier for the government to track relocations. In particular, a 2016 legal amendment made it clear that the government can accurately track multiple relocations within the same prefecture and can calculate the total period before and after each relocation.

My first move was within Tokyo.

If the relocation is within the same prefecture, it would have been possible to count the period of residence before and after the relocation and remove the person from the voter roll four months after the last relocation. The current system is problematic in that it does not count the period of residence even if the relocation is within the same prefecture.

4 ) The government has been aware of the problem for over eight years, but has ignored it.

The government has been aware of this problem – that people who have moved multiple times cannot vote in national elections – for at least eight years now, as is clear from the purpose of the 2016 amendment to the Public Offices Election Act and from comments made by lawmakers during deliberations.

However, no improvements have been made to the system to this day. The reason I was unable to exercise my right to vote this time is because the Diet, while recognizing the problem, did not make the necessary legal reforms.

Social Significance

This is an issue that anyone can become involved in, any number of times, if they move multiple times.

Although the right to vote in national elections is granted to all citizens, under the current system, simply transferring one's residence registration to suit one's living conditions will restrict that right.

In modern times, it is no longer unusual for people to move multiple times in a short period of time for various reasons, such as continuing education, transferring schools, finding employment, transferring jobs, getting married, getting divorced, caring for elderly relatives, etc. In other words, this problem is not just a one-time misfortune for a specific person, but a social issue that affects the entire nation.

This lawsuit is an important step in highlighting these systemic problems and encouraging improvements to the system so that everyone can participate in politics. Participation in national elections is at the very core of democracy, and this issue is not someone else's concern. We believe that this lawsuit has great social significance in realizing a society in which more people can reliably participate in elections.

▲Promoting the 78th Legal Trainee Forum at the training site

Plaintiff's thoughts

This time, I was very confused to learn that no matter how hard I try, there are times when I am not legally allowed to vote.

When I was in college, I initially kept my residence registration at my parents' home, but I felt uncomfortable having to vote at the address of my parents' home, where I don't actually live, and not being able to vote at the address where I do. This made me reexamine my political participation and consider the convenience of participating in elections, and after considering this, I moved my residence registration to reflect my actual lifestyle. I have voted in national elections up to now, and I intended to vote in the upcoming House of Councillors election. I could not accept a situation where I was deprived of the opportunity to participate in politics just by having my residence registration copied to match my place of residence, as in this case.

The election commission told me that it would be difficult for busy people like me who move frequently in a short space of time to participate in the election. I felt that they were assuming that people who move frequently don't fit into society and therefore don't need to exercise their right to vote. Not being able to vote made me feel alienated from social interactions and denied my value. Depriving people of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote is a serious problem that denies people's dignity.

I believe that there are many people who, like me, have had their voting rights restricted and have had no choice but to give up after questioning the system. When I think of these people, I feel that it is my responsibility, as someone in a position to make it easier for people to access justice, to bring this issue to the attention of society.

As long as the current system continues, situations will continue to occur in which a certain number of citizens are unable to exercise their right to vote. This is an issue that we cannot overlook.

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, we would appreciate it if you could contact us.

Message from the lawyer

In our society, there are "promises" that we must all keep.

When we shop at the supermarket, we pay and receive our products. Cars drive on the left side of the road. Parents send their children to school. The fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, that we pay taxes, and that married couples have the same surname are all "promises" made by this society.

These "promises" are the law. We predetermine the structure of society in the form of laws. Promises are essentially made with mutual consent. An agreement that is left to someone alone cannot be called a promise in the true sense of the word.

If people who move frequently for work or family reasons cannot participate in elections, then the way our society makes promises is unfair. To ensure that the society envisioned by law is fair for everyone, we must first make the electoral system fair. We would appreciate your help in making this a reality.

Attorney Kyoko Yoshida

Introduction of attorney

Kyoko Yoshida (Tokyo Bar Association)
Daisuke Igeta (Tokyo Bar Association)
Han Taeyoung (Tokyo Bar Association)

Conclusion

This lawsuit is aimed at realizing a society in which the voting rights of all citizens are properly protected and democracy functions properly.
Your understanding will help us raise awareness of this issue and improve the system.
Through litigation, we will work towards realizing a fair electoral system.