Conseil Constitutionnel Decision on Minimum Ballot Quotas for Women
French Constitutional Council
Decision 82-146 DC (1982) (translation available at http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr)
- Written by Nathan Herkamp, JD
Facts
France (defendant) had a party-list style of voting. Political parties submitted lists of candidates for the available seats. Voters voted for a party, not a candidate. The party was then awarded a number of seats based on how many voters voted for the party. The individuals who were listed on the party list were then seated in the legislature or other elected body. The electoral code was changed to require each party to ensure that the party list consisted of no more than 75 percent of the same sex. The statute was challenged as unconstitutional because it separated the French people into two groups. Political-party leadership (plaintiffs) argued that the statute violated article 3 of the French constitution by distinguishing between citizens on a basis other than abilities and virtues. Article 3 stated that sovereignty belonged to the people, and that the people could not be divided, distinguished, or separated into different groups to be treated differently. The political-party leadership argued that by distinguishing between the sexes to balance the party lists, the government was unconstitutionally dividing the French people. The Conseil Constitutionnel issued judgment on the provisions mandating representation of both sexes on the party lists.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.