The High Court of Justice, sitting as the High Court (Bagatz), has issued an order nisi regarding petitions filed against the decision of the Central Election Committee, which permits political parties to track and report in real-time on citizens arriving at polling stations. Under the order, the Election Committee is required to present legal arguments as to why its decision should not be overturned by the court. In accordance with the court's instructions, the Committee must submit its written response by the upcoming deadline, with a follow-up hearing expected within two days.
The petitions follow a decision by the Central Election Committee, which opted to overturn a previous ruling by the Committee Chairman, Justice Noam Sohlberg. Justice Sohlberg's original ruling, which sought to ban the use of the "Elector" application for tracking voters, faced intense opposition from coalition members. During subsequent High Court proceedings, the justices suggested returning the matter to the full plenary of the Election Committee. After re-evaluating the issue, the Committee members, relying on the coalition majority within the body, decided that the use of reporting applications would be permitted as usual.
During the High Court hearing, attorneys for the Likud party, represented by Adv. Ilan Bombach, raised claims regarding potential damage caused to the party by these decisions so close to the election date. Conversely, Justice Khaled Kabub questioned whether the impact of such decisions is limited to specific parties or if it has broader implications for all parties participating in the elections. Adv. Bombach argued that this constitutes a change in existing practice, affecting his party's voter database and the ability to utilize data accumulated over years.
The legal issue currently before the High Court concerns the tension between a party's right to manage a data-driven campaign and individual privacy rights of voters, as well as the question of judicial intervention in decisions made by the Central Election Committee. The order nisi indicates that the court attaches significant importance to clarifying the issue before the elections, and the Committee must respond in writing to the petitioners' claims by the deadline set by the justices.