Yellow

3. National Assembly Election Redistricting Plan Case
[13-2 KCCR 502, 2000Hun-Ma92, 2000Hun-Ma240 (consolidated), October 25, 2001]

Contents of the Decision
1. Limits to legislative discretion in redistricting electoral districts. 2. Permissible limit on population disparity in electoral districts. 3. A case where the redistricting discriminating electors in a particular district from those in other electoral districts was not regarded as gerrymandering. 4. Whether to declare the entire Election Redistricting Plan unconstitutional when parts of the Plan has unconstitutional elements. 5. Reasons for giving temporary effects to provisions declared nonconforming to the Constitution.

Summary of the Decision
1. A wide scope of legislative discretion is recognized in developing the National Assembly Election Redistricting Plan. However, the constitutional principle of equal election limits legislative discretion in the matter. First, the equality in the value of each vote is the most important and basic factor in constituency rezoning. Accordingly, unreasonable redrawing of electoral districts violating the constitutional mandate of equal weight of votes is arbitrary, and hence, is unconstitutional. Second, gerrymandering is not within the constitutional limits of legislative discretion, and is unconstitutional. Gerrymandering refers to intentional discrimination of electors in a particular region through the arbitrary division of electoral districts. It would be a case of gerrymandering if electors in a particular electoral district lose opportunities to participate in political affairs because of an arbitrary division of electoral districts, or if the constituency is redrawn to prevent the election of a candidate supported by electors from a particular region. 2. There are many suggestions for permissible limits on population disparity in electoral districts, and at this moment, the Court can consider adopting two of these options. One is to set the...