In a representative democracy, the value of one vote is supposed to be more or less equal. In the 2001 Upper House election, however, one vote in rural districts carried much greater weight than it did in urban districts; in an extreme case, one ballot in Tottori Prefecture was worth 5.06 ballots in Tokyo. Lawyers filed suits demanding the annulment of the voting, but the Supreme Court has rejected the request -- with serious reservations.

The ruling, delivered last week, said the seat distribution in the election does not violate the Constitution. But six of the 15 judges on the Grand Bench said that these wide vote-value disparities are unconstitutional because they contravene the principle of equality under the law. And four of those who supported the arrangement warned, in effect, that they might reverse their judgment if the inequalities are not corrected by the next Upper House election in July.

Wide imbalances in vote value existed in other Upper House elections as well, but the Supreme Court stopped short of declaring them unconstitutional, as it did in the latest case. This time around, however, its "patience" seems to have been stretched to the limit, with as many as 10 judges (including the six who disagreed outright) taking a critical stand. The Diet should reallocate seats before the July election.