*Translated by Google Translate

 Introduction 

The vote you cast in an election to determine the future of the country is only counted as a "vote" once it's placed in the ballot box. For many voters living in Japan, this may seem like a perfectly normal thing.

However, in the February 2026 House of Representatives election, which was the shortest since the end of the war from dissolution to voting, there were people for whom this "obvious" thing was not fulfilled.

The four plaintiffs, living in Germany, France, Australia, and Canada, requested their ballots more than a week before the dissolution of the House of Representatives and attempted to vote by international mail. However, the votes of three of them arrived in Japan after the election day. The remaining plaintiff received their ballot after the election day, making it impossible for them to even send it to Japan.

With only 16 days between the dissolution of parliament and the voting, no matter how much they rushed, they simply couldn't make it in time. As a result, the plaintiffs' "votes" were not even counted as invalid.

This lawsuit holds the government accountable for neglecting the overseas voting system, which makes it difficult for overseas voters to cast their ballots, and seeks a system that ensures everyone can cast their vote reliably without any special burden.

 Summary of the case 

The "overseas voting system" exists, but it doesn't allow people to vote.

Voters living abroad can cast their ballots in national elections either through "voting at an overseas diplomatic mission" or "by mail."

Voting at an overseas diplomatic mission means going to a Japanese embassy, consulate general, or consular office in the country where you are staying to cast your vote. The voting period is from the day after the election is officially announced until six days before the election day in Japan, although some overseas diplomatic missions may have a shorter period.

The nearest overseas diplomatic mission is approximately 200 to 1200 km away from the plaintiffs' homes. Traveling by car, train, or plane takes several hours to more than half a day each way, which is a significant burden both in terms of time and money in their busy lives. For this reason, the four chose to vote by mail.

Postal voting is a system where the entire process—① requesting a ballot from a Japanese local government, ② the local government sending the ballot, and ③ filling out the ballot and returning it to the Japanese election commission—is done via international mail. Even with the fastest international mail (EMS), it takes 1-2 weeks one way to many regions, making it extremely difficult to meet the deadline for elections with short schedules.

Furthermore, when you request a ballot, you will be mailed with the "Overseas Voter Certificate," which is also required for voting at overseas diplomatic missions. Therefore, once you have chosen to vote by mail, you cannot switch to voting at an overseas diplomatic mission.

On the other hand, the election period in Japan had been getting shorter year by year even before the introduction of the overseas voting system. The minimum legally mandated number of days from the official announcement to the voting and counting of ballots was "30 days" when the law was enacted in 1950, but after a total of five revisions, it was shortened to the current "12 days" in 1994.

Although the overseas voting system was established in 1998, the regulations regarding the minimum number of days required for an election have not changed since 1994. In other words, the overseas voting system was built upon an electoral system that did not anticipate voting by international mail at all, and the Diet has ignored this self-inflicted contradiction for many years.

The government was aware of the importance of overseas voters' "votes," but failed to protect them.

The general election in February 2026 took place just 16 days from the dissolution of the House of Representatives to the voting and counting of ballots, and only 12 days from the official announcement. It was the shortest election since the end of World War II, and the shortest period permitted under the current system.

The four plaintiffs had seen news reports suggesting the possibility of dissolution and had requested their ballots even before the dissolution on January 23rd. Although the system allows for requests for ballots at any time, they are not actually sent out until after the dissolution of the House of Representatives, so the plaintiffs acted early.

Ms. Terao, who lives in France, requested a ballot on January 15th, but it arrived only five days before the election on February 8th. She immediately sent it back via priority letter, but the ballot did not reach the Japanese election commission until five days after the election.

Ms. Higashida, who lives in Australia, also requested a ballot on January 16th, but it didn't reach the election commission until five days after the election. Similarly, Mr. Scheumann, who lives in Germany, received his ballot four days after the election and was unable to have it counted as a vote.

In the case of Ms. Chiba, who lives in Canada, she didn't receive her ballot until February 24th, 16 days after the election. There was no way she could have voted under those circumstances.

There are approximately 1.3 million Japanese people living overseas, of which about 1.05 million are eligible voters. However, only about 29,000 Japanese people living abroad actually voted in this election. When overseas voters are included in the base number, the actual voter turnout was only about 2.7%.

Of these, only 138 mail-in ballots were received and counted as "one vote" in this election, representing a mere 138 votes in single-member constituencies and 137 votes in proportional representation from around the world. On the other hand, it has been found that 53 votes, representing approximately 30% of the total, in both single-member constituencies and proportional representation did not arrive in time for the election day and were instead delivered to election officials after the vote counting.

Furthermore, this figure does not include people who gave up on voting altogether due to procedural obstacles.

This problem is nothing new. The government has long been aware that mail-in voting from overseas would not be completed in time given the short timeframe. There have been numerous opportunities to review the system, but it has been left unaddressed.

 What they are claiming in court 

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking state compensation and confirmation of illegality from the government, arguing that the government's long-standing failure to enact legislation to allow overseas citizens to exercise their right to vote and the right to national review violates Articles 15, Paragraphs 1 and 3, Article 43, Paragraph 1, and the proviso of Article 44 (guarantee of the right to vote), and Article 79, Paragraphs 2 and 3 (guarantee of the right to national review) of the Constitution.

1. The right to vote and the right to referendum must be exercised "without any special burden."

In its Grand Bench rulings in 2005 and 2022, which dealt with the constitutionality of restrictions on the voting rights and referendum rights of Japanese citizens residing abroad, the Supreme Court established a strict standard, stating that under the principle of popular sovereignty, the Constitution guarantees all citizens an equal opportunity to exercise their voting rights and referendum rights, and that such restrictions are not permissible unless there are "justifiable reasons."

Furthermore, in a 2006 Supreme Court ruling where the constitutionality of the failure to enact legislation guaranteeing the opportunity to exercise the right to vote for those who have difficulty going to the polls due to mental health reasons was contested, Judge Tokuji Izumi's supplementary opinion stated that "guaranteeing the right to vote also guarantees the ability to actually exercise the right to vote," and that this includes "the establishment of an electoral system in which all voters can exercise their right to vote without any special burden."

In short, the Constitution requires the government to establish a system that allows everyone to exercise the right to vote and the right to national review without any special burden. Legislative inaction that fails to establish the necessary systems to achieve this violates the Constitution unless there are "justifiable reasons."

2. The magnitude of the burden imposed on the plaintiffs

In order for the plaintiffs to vote at an overseas diplomatic mission, they had to bear transportation costs ranging from several thousand yen round trip using highways, public transport, and airplanes, and for those living far away, it could reach tens of thousands of yen, forcing them to endure long journeys. Moreover, the voting period at overseas diplomatic missions was only 4 to 6 days, shorter than in Japan, and the schedule was only announced just before voting began, making it difficult to make arrangements in advance. For this reason, they chose to vote by mail, but with only 12 days between the official announcement and the voting day, it was virtually impossible to complete the procedures of requesting, receiving, and returning ballots using international mail. As a result, the plaintiffs were unable to exercise their right to vote and the right to national review without incurring special burdens.

3. There are no "unavoidable circumstances" for the country.

There are no "unavoidable circumstances" for not establishing a system that allows Japanese citizens living abroad to vote without any special burden. There are multiple ways to enable voting from overseas. For example, sailors at sea and members of Antarctic research teams are permitted to vote using facsimile (sea voting, Antarctic voting), and it would be possible to introduce a similar system. Furthermore, the possibility of introducing internet voting was considered in the 2018 Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications research group report , and has been debated in the Diet ever since. In addition, it is possible to amend the law to extend the minimum election period of 12 days. Thus, despite having plenty of ways to guarantee voting opportunities, the government failed to establish the necessary systems. There are no "unavoidable circumstances" for this inaction, and it violates the Constitution.

4. The illegality of legislative inaction for approximately 20 years.

The Diet should have taken the necessary measures at the latest when the Supreme Court ruling in 2006 indicated the need to establish a system that would allow citizens to exercise their right to vote and the right to national review "without any special burden." However, for approximately 20 years, until 2026, no changes were made to the voting methods or election schedule to ensure that every vote is received. This prolonged legislative inaction should be considered illegal under the National Compensation Act.

 Social Significance 

In the past, Japanese people living abroad were unable to participate in national elections. The right of overseas voters to vote has been gradually gained through citizens raising their voices and fighting in court.

It all began in 1996 when citizens living overseas sued the government, arguing that it was unfair that they, as fellow Japanese citizens, could not vote. This led to the establishment of the overseas voting system in 1998. Initially, overseas voters were only allowed to vote in proportional representation, but this restriction was removed in a legal amendment the year after the Supreme Court ruled the system unconstitutional in 2005.

In 2022, a ruling was handed down declaring the national review of Supreme Court justices unconstitutional, finally opening the way for the exercise of review powers from overseas. This trial is an extension of this history.

Anyone could potentially move their base of operations overseas for various reasons, including studying abroad, work, marriage, or other circumstances. Creating a system that ensures voters can reliably cast their vote without any special burden, regardless of where they live, is essential to protecting the foundation of democracy.

The current situation, where some voters are unable to vote or are forced to bear special burdens in order to vote, depending on the election schedule set by the government in power, threatens the very foundation upon which our society stands.

Join us as the plaintiffs who have raised their voices across the ocean. We ask for your support to protect each and every vote and move the history of Japanese democracy forward.

 Message from the plaintiff 

 Messages of Support 

 Message from the legal team 

The Japanese Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to vote and the right to judicial review. However, these rights are only meaningful if there is a system in place to actually exercise them.

The Japanese government has been aware that the current overseas voting system does not adequately guarantee the voting rights of Japanese citizens living abroad, yet has neglected to take necessary reforms. This shows a disregard for the rights of overseas voters.

An emergency survey on overseas voting conducted by LEDGE after the official start of campaigning for the 2026 House of Representatives election received angry responses from nearly 400 overseas voters living in 49 countries and regions. Many complained about the short voting period, the significant time and financial burden of traveling to overseas diplomatic missions, the difficulties they faced in still being able to vote, or that they had given up on voting despite wanting to.

This lawsuit was launched in response to the frustration, disappointment, and indignation felt by Japanese voters living all over the world.

Through this lawsuit, we aim to rectify long-standing systemic problems and create a society where the vote of overseas voters is equally guaranteed as that of domestic voters. We humbly ask for your support.

 Introduction of the assigned lawyer 

Daisuke Igeta (Miyamura & Igeta Law Office, Secretary General of LEDGE, a general incorporated association)
Michiko Kameishi (Eclat Umeda Law Office, Representative Director of LEDGE General Incorporated Association)
MotokiTaniguchi (Tokyo Public Law Office, Attorney at Law; Director, LEDGE Association)
Yoshitaka Toda (LEDGE Law Firm)

On May 25, 2022, lawyer Motoki Taniguchi, who was the plaintiff and his representative in the "National Review Overseas" lawsuit (the lawsuit concerning the right to national review abroad), which resulted in the 11th ruling in history that a law was unconstitutional by the Supreme Court Grand Bench, and his representative, lawyer Daisuke Igeta, are also participating in this legal team.

 Use of Donations 

• Litigation costs : Actual expenses paid to the court, such as revenue stamps and prepaid postage, required when filing a lawsuit.
• Actual costs incurred for collecting materials : fees for copying court documents and fees for various submitted documents, etc.
• Other expenses : These include transportation costs for the plaintiff to appear in court, as well as for experts and other individuals who need to travel to the courthouse.
• Event hosting and publicity expenses : We would like to use the donations to cover the costs of events and publicity related to this trial.
• Legal fees, etc .: We intend to use these funds for retainer fees for legal team members, travel allowances, etc.

 About LEDGE 

LEDGE is a team of experts specializing in the strategic production of public litigation. This lawsuit is supported by LEDGE (some of the legal team members are LEDGE members).

We also post the latest information on this lawsuit on the official social media accounts listed below, so please follow us if you're interested.

LEDGE Official Website
Official X (formerly Twitter)
Official Instagram