Constitutional Court Rules 'Semi-Linked Proportional Representation System' Constitutional... "Improves Electoral Proportionality"

Unanimous Opinion: "Rational Legislation of the National Assembly Election System is Possible, Not a Constitutional Violation"

With about nine months remaining until the next general election, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the provisions of the Public Official Election Act stipulating the 'semi-proportional representation system' do not violate the Constitution.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

On the 20th, the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of the Public Official Election Act regulating proportional representation in a constitutional complaint case filed by Heo Kyung-young, honorary representative of the People’s Revolutionary Party, and ordinary voters.

The semi-proportional representation system is a system that guarantees the total number of seats by allocating proportional representation seats equivalent to the difference if the number of seats a party wins in constituencies falls short of its nationwide party vote share. It was passed in December 2019 when the Democratic Party of Korea and the Justice Party formed the ‘4+1 consultative body’ and passed it despite opposition from the then-opposition Liberty Korea Party (now People Power Party).

Heo and others filed a constitutional complaint arguing that the provisions of the Public Official Election Act regulating the total number of members of the National Assembly and introducing the semi-proportional representation system violate the principles of direct election and equal election, infringing on the petitioners’ voting rights and eligibility for election.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint regarding the provision on the total number of members of the National Assembly, which states, “The total number of members of the National Assembly shall be 300, comprising 253 constituency members and 47 proportional representation members,” and the special provision applicable only to the 21st National Assembly election held on April 15, 2020, on the grounds that the petition period had expired or the election had already ended, thus no benefit of adjudication was recognized.

Regarding the provision on the allocation of proportional representation seats, the court stated, “The legislature may reasonably legislate the National Assembly election system by comprehensively considering the history of our country’s election system and political parties, the uniqueness of our election and political culture, political, economic, and social environments, and the level of public awareness and legal sentiment related to elections,” and ruled, “As long as the principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret elections stipulated in the Constitution and the freedom of elections are not unduly restricted, it cannot be said to violate the Constitution.”

It added, “The method by which the results of party votes by voters are converted into proportional representation seats is fixed, and post-election interventions such as changing the seat allocation method after voters have cast their ballots are not permitted, so the seat allocation provision does not violate the principle of direct election.”

Furthermore, the court stated, “The seat allocation provision improves the proportionality of elections compared to the parallel voting system under the previous Public Official Election Act, and there is no clear evidence that this method violates the constitutional election principles,” and ruled, “It is difficult to regard the seat allocation provision as an unreasonably irrational legislation that distorts the value of votes or infringes on the essence of electoral representation merely because it has resulted in the entrenchment of a two-party system in actual elections due to party voting strategies.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.