The "Elector" storm: What Judge Solberg decided and why the Likud is angry
The decision by Central Elections Committee Chairman Judge Noam Solberg to ban the real-time transfer of voter data from polling stations is a game-changer for the Likud and Haredi parties. We examine how voter mobilization apps work, why they were deemed a privacy violation, and how parties are attempting to bypass the new restriction.
The Chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Judge Noam Solberg, has banned observers and members of polling station committees from transferring information in real-time — via dedicated voter mobilization apps such as "Elector" — regarding the identity of voters who have arrived to cast their ballots. While the reasoning was based on concerns over privacy violations, the decision has sparked significant anger within the Likud and Haredi parties.
How do these apps work?
Voter mobilization apps allow parties to aggregate data on potential supporters by cross-referencing national voter registries with information from social media and internal party databases. Once this information is consolidated, party representatives at polling stations track in real-time which supporters have arrived. Those who have not yet voted are identified and monitored, often receiving mobilization calls from the party urging them to go to the polls.
What did Judge Solberg rule?
Judge Solberg did not ban the use of the apps themselves, but rather the transfer of information regarding the identity of voters who have arrived at the polling station. He argued that transmitting data from inside the polling station about the act of voting, including the time and location, constitutes a violation of privacy. Solberg ruled that election laws do not authorize party representatives to transfer such data for campaign purposes. In effect, the judge prioritized the right to privacy over the goal of increasing voter turnout.
Who is most affected?
The decision primarily impacts large parties represented in the Knesset, which possess robust databases and official representation at polling stations. New parties, which lack Knesset representation, do not have the same access to these resources; therefore, the ruling is less critical for them. For instance, the party of Gadi Eizenkot is unaffected. Conversely, during previous elections, data sharing occurred within the Netanyahu bloc, with the Likud sharing polling station representatives in Haredi areas with the Shas and United Torah Judaism parties. Some opposition parties also utilized this practice in the past.
Next steps
The Likud, represented by attorney Ilan Bombach, argued that the ruling violates the parties' reliance interest. They contend that if Judge Solberg insists on his position, it should only apply to future elections, as campaign strategies were already built around this mobilization practice. The Likud has also approached the opposition in an attempt to legislate a consensus that would allow voter mobilization at polling stations without it being considered a privacy violation, though it remains unclear if the opposition will agree.
