Even a former chairperson is among them… Allegations of “migrant candidacies” involving three people! An unprecedented “actual residence” issue has surfaced in the Zushi City Council election

Discrepancies Between the Objection and Official Documents

Disputes over local council members’ “actual residence (principal place of residence)” are occurring one after another nationwide. This refers to the issue of so-called “commuter candidates”—those who transfer their resident registration just before an election while actually living in a different city.

In local elections across the country, there is no end to cases where election victories are invalidated on the grounds that candidates lack the “actual residence” required to run. One of the most widely known recent examples is the case of Makoto Nishimoto (39), known as “Super Crazy-kun,” who was elected to the Toda City Council in Saitama Prefecture in 2021.His election was ruled invalid after a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court, as it was determined he did not actually reside in the district. Similar incidents have occurred recently in Iruma City, Saitama Prefecture, and Aisai City, Aichi Prefecture, as well as in the past in Shinjuku Ward, Tokyo.

Amid this trend, an unprecedented situation—unlike anything seen elsewhere in the country—occurred in the Zushi City Council election held on March 22 of this year in Kanagawa Prefecture.

An objection seeking to invalidate the election of council members on the grounds that they “do not actually reside in Zushi City and are therefore ineligible to stand for election” was accepted by the election commission—but the objection targeted, astonishingly, “three candidates at once.” The three council members subject to the objection were incumbent Yuji Kurosaka (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), an incumbent city council member who was also elected in the same election. While it is common for objections to invalidate an election to be filed by unsuccessful candidates—such as those who finished in second place—in this case, an incumbent council member filed an objection against three of his colleagues simultaneously.Furthermore, it is unusual that the three targeted in the petition include not only a newcomer but also a veteran like Mr. Sagisaka—who previously served as City Council President (65th term)—and an incumbent like Mr. Hattori, who is serving his second term.

This is likely Japan’s first instance of a “simultaneous petition to invalidate the election of three candidates” based on actual residence status—but what exactly are the specifics of the case?

For example, regarding Mr. Ito, a newcomer, he owns a home in the neighboring town of Hayama, approximately 2.5 km from Zushi City Hall. Although it is a distance that could be covered on foot, the address he listed when running for office was a one-room apartment with a kitchen (1DK) near Zushi City Hall. Councilmember Hirano stated,

“Councilmember Ito owns a single-family home in Hayama on which the mortgage has been fully paid off, and her family resides in this home in Hayama.Despite her family living there, there is no reasonable justification for her to deliberately live alone and separately in an apartment in Zushi, which is just a stone’s throw away. In fact, I have confirmed that until before the election, her car was not in a Zushi parking lot but was generally parked at her home in Hayama,”

. Furthermore, incumbent Councilmember Kurosaka has transferred his residence registration to his family home (a store related to the housing industry) in Zushi, claiming that “all five family members moved there.” Councilmember Hirano also raises questions about the reality of this situation.

“It appears they are living on the ‘second floor of a workshop.’ Judging by the condition of the torn shoji screens at the back of the building, it is hard to imagine this as an environment where a family of five could lead a normal, communal life; it seems devoid of any signs of daily life. I believe there remain doubts as to whether this is actually their primary residence,”

In the first place, what prompted Mr. Hirano to take the extraordinary step of filing this objection was a tip regarding Mr. Sagisaka.

“Ever since Councilmember Oshizaka assumed the position of Speaker two years ago, there have been rumors within the City Council that he might be living outside the city.Then, around June of last year, I received a specific tip asking, ‘Why is he serving as Speaker when he lives in an apartment in Yokosuka?’ In fact, when I investigated, it appeared that Council Member Oshizaka had been continuously renting a surface parking space at that apartment complex, and his personal vehicle was parked there,” said Council Member Hirano.

Furthermore, while investigating Council Member Niizaka’s circumstances, suspicions also arose regarding another incumbent, Makoto Hattori (serving his second term).

“Councilman Hattori currently has his official residence registered at his parents’ 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 residence registration to his parents’ home amounts to nothing more than a ‘single-person assignment’ or ‘commuting for work’ for the purpose of becoming a city council member.Furthermore, it is presumed that a mortgage on the apartment in Yokohama—which is currently contingent on ‘residence by the borrower and their family’—remains in place, and that he continues to maintain voting rights in the homeowners’ association and the account used for managing maintenance fees. I believe this serves as evidence that his financial base is in Yokohama,” said Mr. Hirano.

Unnatural Living Conditions Revealed by Our Investigation

To begin with, why are there “residency requirements” for local council members? There are no residency requirements for members of the National Diet or for heads of local governments, such as governors and mayors, when they run for office.

Professor Tomomi Kamiyama (Administrative Law and Environmental Law) of the Faculty of Economics at the University of Toyama, who is well-versed in issues regarding residency requirements for local council members, explains the reason why “residency requirements” are imposed only on local council members as follows:

“Local governments are characterized by ‘community-based societies,’ and it is considered essential for local council members to have ties to those communities. As representatives of the region, they are expected to share in local concerns such as the tax burden, disaster prevention, and waste management. Furthermore, from the perspective of local autonomy, it is believed that this requirement is also intended to prevent the nomination of ‘transient candidates.’”

Regarding this “residency requirement,” the Public Offices Election Act stipulates that to be eligible to run for local office (the right to stand for election), a candidate must “have had a ‘residence’ within the municipal boundaries for at least three consecutive months.” In other words, to meet the residency requirement, one’s legal “residence” must be recognized as having been in that municipality for at least three months.

So, what exactly does this legal “address” refer to? Professor Kamiyama points out that it does not simply mean the location where one’s resident registration is filed, and explains the criteria for determination as follows:

“To be recognized as an ‘address’ under the Public Offices Election Act, it must be accompanied by ‘an objective reality that constitutes the center of one’s life.’Specifically, ‘where the center of one’s life is located’ is strictly determined by comprehensively considering factors such as one’s daily sleeping arrangements, the places where daily activities like laundry and bathing take place, the whereabouts of one’s family, the receipt of mail, the payment of utility bills for electricity and water, as well as relationships with neighbors and the local residents’ association, commuting patterns, and property management.”

So, what is the actual situation with these three council members? When this reporter investigated their living arrangements, he caught glimpses of unnatural circumstances and traces of daily life. First, in the area around the apartment in Zushi City where newcomer Mr. Ito has his official residence registration, the following was heard:

“During the cold months from around December to February of last year, a young man who looked like he was in his 20s lived there. I often saw him smoking on the balcony. After that young man moved out, around March, a woman moved in right after him. Since then, the woman has definitely been living in this apartment.I started seeing her hanging up and taking in the laundry many times.”

During the winter—which falls within the “three months prior to the election” as defined by the Public Offices Election Act—a man was living there, and residents said they “didn’t see any woman.” It is said that around March, as the election approached, signs of a woman believed to be Ms. Ito herself suddenly began to appear.

Additionally, at the condominium in Yokosuka City owned by Mr. Kousaka, a resident of the same building said,

“I sometimes see Mr. Sagisaka when taking out the trash in the morning,”

Regarding Mr. Hattori, it was not possible to ascertain the details of his daily life at the condominium he owns in Yokohama City. That condominium is located along the coast with an inner bay stretching out right in front of it, and with a large shopping mall nearby, it appeared to offer a very comfortable living environment with an excellent location and scenery.

The Three Lawmakers at the Center of the Controversy argue that…

  We asked the three lawmakers facing allegations about their actual living situations.

When asked by a reporter whether he had been living in the apartment for three months prior to the election, Mr. Ito

“Please allow me to say ‘no comment,’”

, avoiding a clear answer.

When interviewed by phone, Mr. Sagisaka stated,

“My actual residence is definitely in Zushi,”

. When asked about reports of him being seen taking out the trash at his apartment in Yokosuka,

“My wife and daughter are often there, so sometimes I return (from Zushi) in the morning to take out the trash for them. I’m not sleeping at the apartment,”

Mr. Hattori provided a written response.

“My ‘principal place of residence’ under the Public Offices Election Act is in Zushi City, and I reside in Zushi City.As for my family, they live according to their respective circumstances, but my own primary residence is in Zushi City. Regarding matters related to the mortgage contract, I am handling them appropriately in accordance with the agreement with the financial institution. Furthermore, I use the residence in question as a place for my family to live,”

he said, denying the allegations.

Currently, the Zushi City Election Administration Commission is conducting an investigation into the facts of the matter. Professor Kamiyama, while stating that he is “not in a position to judge individual cases, ” offered the following criticism:

“The residency requirement is not merely a formal requirement at the time of candidacy; it is a qualification that must be maintained throughout one’s term as a council member. In that sense, if doubts are continuously being raised, the council member has a responsibility to explain the situation and, at the very least, should conduct themselves with greater integrity.At the same time, there is room to examine whether the city council’s system is structured in a way that allows for objective and prompt verification of doubts regarding a council member’s eligibility.”

On the other hand, Professor Kamiyama offers a different perspective, raising the following point regarding the very nature of the current system:

“In today’s world, lifestyles are diversifying, with the rise of dual-residence living and telework.The national government is also strengthening ties between rural and urban areas through initiatives such as the ‘Digital Garden City Concept’ and promoting dual-residence lifestyles. As the shortage of candidates for legislative office in rural areas becomes increasingly severe, it is possible that the current strict three-month residency requirement—based on the premise that ‘one must have a single registered address’—is no longer suited to the times.From the perspective of broadening voters’ choices and attracting a diverse pool of talent, I believe there is room to reexamine the system—for example, by expanding the scope of the residency requirement to ‘three months within the same prefecture.’”

What kind of ruling will the Zushi City Election Commission ultimately issue? City Councilmember Hirano, who filed the objection against his own colleagues, emphasizes to the Election Commission—with a strong sense of urgency regarding this issue that touches the very foundation of local autonomy—that:

“Under the Public Offices Election Act, ‘residence’ is not merely a matter of how often one sleeps at a place, but rather ‘where the center of one’s life lies.’ Staying in the city while leaving one’s home and family outside the city—and being able to return at any time—amounts to nothing more than ‘temporary work for convenience.’Objective public records, such as real estate registrations, reveal the truth. I urge the Election Commission to make a strict ruling so that a stain is not left on local history through careless leniency. There is only one address, and there is only one truth.”

The veracity of the “actual living circumstances” of council members—elected as representatives of the voters—calls into question the very trustworthiness of local assemblies. We will be watching closely to see the outcome and how the situation unfolds.