Residency Questions Rock the Zushi City Council Election as Three Candidates Come Under Scrutiny

Contradictions between the objections and official documents

Disputes over local lawmakers’ actual residence (their principal place of living) have been occurring one after another across Japan. The issue concerns so-called “commuter candidates”—people who transfer only their official residency registration immediately before an election while continuing to live in another city.

Throughout Japan, there has been a steady stream of cases in which elected officials have had their victories invalidated because they were found not to have met the residency requirement necessary to run for office. One of the best-known recent examples is that of Makoto Nishimoto (39), better known as “Super Crazy-kun,” who won a seat in the 2021 Toda City council election in Saitama Prefecture. After it was determined that he did not actually reside in the city, his election victory was ultimately invalidated following a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court. Similar cases have recently arisen in Iruma City in Saitama Prefecture and Aisai City in Aichi Prefecture, as well as previously in Tokyo’s Shinjuku Ward.

Against this backdrop, an unprecedented situation unfolded in the Zushi City council election in Kanagawa Prefecture, which was held on March 22 of this year.

An objection seeking to invalidate the election of council members on the grounds that they did not actually reside within Zushi City and therefore lacked eligibility to run for office was accepted by the election administration committee. Remarkably, however, the objection targeted three people simultaneously.

The three individuals named in the objection were incumbent council members Yuji Sagisaka (56, serving his fifth term), Makoto Hattori (49, serving his second term), and newcomer Mamiko Ito (55, elected for the first time).

The objection was filed by Kazuyuki Hirano (50), another incumbent council member who was elected in the same race. Normally, petitions to invalidate election results are filed by unsuccessful candidates, such as runners-up. In this case, however, a sitting council member simultaneously challenged the election of three of his colleagues.

It was also unusual that the three people named included not only a newcomer but also veteran politicians such as Sagisaka, who had previously served as the sixty-fifth chairperson of the city council, and Hattori, who was serving his second term.

This may well be the first case in Japan of a simultaneous challenge to the election of three officials based on questions regarding their actual residence. What exactly are the allegations?

In the case of newcomer Ito, she owns a home in the neighboring town of Hayama, approximately 2.5 kilometers from Zushi City Hall. Although the distance is close enough to walk, the address she registered when running for office was a one-bedroom apartment near city hall.

Council member Hirano stated:

“Council member Ito owns a detached house in Hayama with the mortgage fully paid off, and her family lives there. Even though her family resides there, there is no reasonable explanation for her to deliberately live separately in an apartment in Zushi that is only a stone’s throw away. In fact, we confirmed that before the election her car was not parked in Zushi but was generally kept at her home in Hayama.”

Meanwhile, incumbent council member Sagisaka transferred his residency registration to his family’s home in Zushi—a business related to the housing industry—claiming that all five family members had moved there. Hirano questioned whether that claim reflected reality.

“It appears that they are living on the second floor of a workshop. Judging from the condition of the torn shoji screens at the back of the building, it is difficult to imagine that a family of five could maintain a normal and cultured communal life there. The place seems to show very few signs of daily life. I have serious doubts as to whether it truly serves as their principal residence.”

According to Hirano, the extraordinary decision to file the objection stemmed from information he had received concerning Sagisaka.

“Ever since Council member Sagisaka became council chairperson two years ago, rumors had circulated within the city council that he was living outside the city. Then, around June of last year, I received a specific tip asking why he was serving as chairperson while living in an apartment building in Yokosuka. When I investigated, I found that Council member Sagisaka had continued to rent a parking space there and that his personal vehicle appeared to be parked there.”

During the course of that investigation, suspicions also arose regarding another incumbent council member, Makoto Hattori.

“Council member Hattori currently has his residency registration at his family home in Zushi. However, during his years as a salaried employee, he commuted to Zushi from his apartment in Yokohama for many years. Leaving his family in Yokohama while transferring only his own residency registration to his family home amounts to nothing more than a single-person relocation, or a move undertaken solely for the purpose of running for office. Furthermore, it appears that the mortgage on the Yokohama apartment—which requires the borrower and family members to reside there—remains in effect, and that he continues to maintain both his voting rights in the condominium association and the account used to pay management fees. I believe this demonstrates that his financial base remains in Yokohama.”

Unnatural living arrangements revealed through reporting

Why, in the first place, are local legislators subject to residency requirements? Members of the National Diet, governors, and mayors are not required to satisfy residency requirements when running for office.

Professor Tomomi Kamiyama of the Faculty of Economics at the University of Toyama, an expert in issues concerning residency requirements for local legislators and a specialist in administrative and environmental law, explained why such requirements apply only to local representatives:

“Local governments are characterized as ‘community-based societies,’ and local legislators are expected to maintain strong ties with those communities. As representatives of the region, they are expected to share in local concerns such as taxes, disaster preparedness, and waste management. Furthermore, from the perspective of local autonomy, the requirement is also intended to prevent the emergence of so-called ‘migratory candidates.'”

Regarding this residency requirement, the Public Offices Election Act stipulates that candidates for local office must have maintained a legal address within the municipality continuously for at least three months. In other words, to satisfy the residency requirement, a person’s legal address must be recognized as having been located in the city for more than three months.

What, then, does the legal term address actually mean?

Professor Kamiyama pointed out that it does not simply refer to the location of a person’s registered residence and explained the standard as follows:

“In order for a location to be recognized as an address under the Public Offices Election Act, it must objectively constitute the center of a person’s daily life. More specifically, strict consideration is given to such factors as where the individual sleeps on a daily basis, where everyday activities such as laundry and bathing take place, where family members live, where mail is received, where utility bills are paid, the person’s relationships with neighbors and local community organizations, commuting patterns, property management, and other factors in determining the true center of that person’s life.”

What, then, is the actual situation regarding the three council members?

As reporters investigated their living arrangements, they uncovered several unusual circumstances and traces of daily life. Concerning the apartment in Zushi City where newcomer Mamiko Ito had registered her residence, local residents had the following to say:

“During the colder months, from around December of last year through February, a young man who looked to be in his twenties was living there. We often saw him smoking on the balcony. After he moved out, around March, a woman moved in as if replacing him. After that, the woman was definitely living in the apartment. We repeatedly saw her hanging up and taking in laundry.”

According to the residents, a man had been living there during the winter period corresponding to the three-month requirement stipulated by election law, and they said they had not seen any woman there. They added that only around March, as the election approached, did signs of a woman—believed to be Ito herself—begin to appear.

Meanwhile, residents of the apartment building in Yokosuka owned by Yuji Sagisaka stated:

“We occasionally see Mr. Sagisaka when people are taking out the garbage in the morning.”

As for Makoto Hattori, reporters were unable to determine whether he was actually living in the apartment he owns in Yokohama. The building stands along the waterfront overlooking an inner bay, with a large shopping mall nearby, suggesting that it offers an exceptionally comfortable environment and an attractive location.

What the three council members say

The three council members at the center of the allegations were asked about their actual places of residence.

When reporters asked Mamiko Ito whether she had been living in the apartment during the three months leading up to the election, she declined to answer directly, saying:

“No comment.”

Yuji Sagisaka, speaking by telephone, insisted:

“My actual residence is definitely in Zushi.”

When asked about reports that he had been seen taking out the garbage at the apartment building in Yokosuka, he replied:

“My wife and daughter spend a lot of time there, so there are occasions when I go back there from Zushi in the morning and take the garbage out for them. That doesn’t mean I’m sleeping at the apartment.”

Makoto Hattori submitted a written response:

“My principal place of residence, as defined under the Public Offices Election Act, is in Zushi City, and I reside in Zushi City. As for my family members, they each live according to their own circumstances, but my own principal residence is in Zushi City. Matters relating to my mortgage agreement are being handled appropriately in accordance with my contract with the financial institution. The property in question is also being used as a place for my family to live.”

In this way, he denied the allegations.

The Zushi City Election Administration Commission is currently investigating the matter. Although Professor Tomomi Kamiyama stated that she was not in a position to make judgments regarding individual cases, she nevertheless offered the following criticism:

“The residency requirement is not merely a formal condition that applies when a person runs for office; it is also a qualification that must be maintained while serving as a council member. In that sense, if questions continue to be raised, the council members themselves have a responsibility to explain the situation and, at the very least, to correct their conduct accordingly. At the same time, there is room to examine whether the system itself allows questions concerning legislators’ qualifications to be verified objectively and promptly.”

At the same time, Professor Kamiyama offered a different perspective and suggested that the current system itself may need to be reconsidered:

“Modern lifestyles have become increasingly diverse, with more people maintaining homes in multiple locations and working remotely. The government itself is strengthening cooperation between rural and urban areas through initiatives such as the Digital Garden City Nation Initiative and is promoting dual-location living. At a time when local governments are facing a serious shortage of people willing to serve as legislators, the current strict three-month residency requirement, which is based on the assumption that a person has only one residence, may no longer be appropriate for modern society. From the standpoint of broadening voters’ choices and attracting a more diverse range of talent, there is room to re-examine the system—for example, by expanding the residency requirement to three months within the same prefecture.”

How the Zushi City Election Administration Commission will rule remains to be seen. Kazuyuki Hirano, the council member who filed objections against his fellow legislators, emphasized the seriousness of the matter and issued the following warning to the commission:

“Under the Public Offices Election Act, an address is determined not simply by the number of nights spent there but by where the center of a person’s life actually lies. Staying somewhere while leaving one’s home and family outside the city and remaining able to return there at any time amounts to nothing more than a matter of convenience. Objective public records, such as property registration documents, reveal the truth. I urge the election commission to make a strict judgment so that the city’s history is not tarnished by an overly lenient decision. There is only one address, and there is only one truth.”

Whether these elected representatives truly reside where they claim to live is ultimately a question that strikes at the very credibility of local government itself. The commission’s conclusion, and developments going forward, will be closely watched.