| 英文摘要 |
According to Article 129 of the Constitution, “one person, one vote rule” is the voting power of a person. As well, Article 16 of the Constitution states that “where there is a right, there is a remedy”. Therefore, when there is a gap in the value of votes in the electoral system and apportionment, people have the right to remedies. However, there is no legal basis for the electors to request a review for the apportionment of electoral district in Taiwan and in Japan. To remedy this legal loophole, Japan has extended the application of lawsuit on invalid elections. This article argues that under the current legal system, election incidents can be prosecuted according to the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act or the Administrative Litigation Act. Specifically, given the nature of the incident and the types of litigation, it is most appropriate for people to file an election invalidation lawsuit to dispute the uneven distribution of the number of legislators. This approach is similar to judicial opinion of and coincides with Japanese law. The purpose of the lawsuit against the division of the legislative electoral district is to conduct judicial review, whereas the purpose of the election invalidation lawsuit is to correct the flaws of election affairs by the election commissions. The two purposes differ in terms of the elements of interpretative application and the contents of judgments. Therefore, the most appropriate ultimate goal is to formally regulate the lawsuit against the division of the legislative electoral district. Moreover, the article suggests that due to the particularity of the dispute, in addition to choosing between election litigation and administrative litigation, additional provisions in Section 4, Chapter 3 of the Election and Recall Act could be an option for categorizing the lawsuit. |
