The Supreme Court held a heated hearing on the Likud party's petition against a decision by the Chairman of the Central Election Committee, Justice Noam Sohlberg. The decision prohibits party representatives at polling stations from using applications to update in real-time which eligible voters have already cast their ballots. The panel of judges hearing the case includes Justices Yael Willner, Alex Stein, and Khaled Kabub.
During the hearing, Likud's counsel, Attorney Ilan Bombach, argued that the ban causes severe harm to his party and deviates from established practice. Bombach emphasized that Likud had invested significant resources in dedicated software to manage this data as part of its election day preparations. In contrast, during the exchange, the panel of judges focused on assessing the legality of such tracking activities and the authority of Justice Sohlberg as head of the administrative body.
Justice Alex Stein stressed that monitoring who has voted and who has not constitutes an intrusion into personal information, which could amount to a violation of privacy. Justice Yael Willner added that this involves an encroachment on the cognitive space, as revealing the information allows for inferences regarding citizens' political affiliations, particularly in small localities. Regarding the authority of the Election Committee Chair, the judges rejected the petitioners' claims of lack of authority. Justice Stein clarified that if there is evidence of conduct contrary to the law by representatives at a polling station, the Committee Chair has full authority to intervene and order changes. Justice Khaled Kabub reinforced this, noting that representatives at polling stations serve as the long arm of the Committee Chair, who is entrusted with the integrity of the elections, and are therefore obligated to act in accordance with his directives.
The discussion revealed an inherent tension between traditional party practice and the principles of privacy protection and the oversight powers of the Central Election Committee. The judges challenged Likud's counsel on whether the right to party tracking outweighs the prohibition against violating voter privacy, clarifying that the ban established by Justice Sohlberg applies to all parties equally. The petition raises broad questions regarding the balance required between parties' desire to maximize voter turnout and the obligation to maintain an anonymous and private election process. At this stage, the legal proceeding has not yet been resolved, and the parties are awaiting the court's decision on this fundamental issue, which underscores the relationship between party technology and laws protecting voter privacy at the ballot box.