Solberg Reconsiders "Elector" Ban on Election Day
Central Elections Committee Chairman Judge Noam Solberg has asked parties to propose alternative ways to encourage voter turnout following his ban on the "Elector" app. Both coalition and opposition parties have criticized the move as a "change of rules mid-game," while Likud is exploring legislative options to bypass the restriction.
Following a request from the Likud party to reconsider the decision of the Central Elections Committee Chairman, Judge Noam Solberg, who prohibited the use of applications like "Elector" on election day to track voter identity, the committee chairman has requested the positions of all parties on the matter.
The judge determined on Thursday evening that "in their responses, the parties must also address alternative and applicable ways to encourage voters to exercise their right to vote, while maintaining the framework of the decision."
It was previously revealed that Likud is interested in promoting a legislative amendment that would allow the use of the "Elector" application despite the ban, by establishing in law that such activity does not constitute a violation of privacy. Judge Solberg's decision has increased pressure on the coalition and Haredi parties, as one of their primary mobilization tools has been disqualified.
Relying on the Attorney General's opinion, which suggests that election laws override privacy concerns, coalition representatives have approached the opposition with a request to draft a consensus bill to validate the amendment. As of now, the opposition has not yet provided an official response.
The Ban and Arguments
Judge Solberg's decision, issued earlier this week, states that polling station committee members and party observers are not permitted to report the identity of voters to their parties via dedicated applications during election day. The judge ruled that transferring information regarding the fact of voting, the time, and the type of polling station constitutes a violation of the Privacy Protection Law.
Advocate Ilan Bombach, representing Likud, appealed to Judge Solberg to re-examine the ruling, stating: "We believe the decision is wrong, as the secrecy of the vote is preserved according to practices that have been in place for decades. No one knows how a voter actually voted, and a voter is entitled to cast a white ballot, which is identical to not showing up at all."
In a joint appeal signed by representatives from Likud, Religious Zionism, Yesh Atid, Labor, Shas, United Torah Judaism, and others, it was argued that the decision "establishes a precedent-setting prohibition in the middle of the election period." The signatories claim this amounts to "changing the rules of the game while the game is in progress," causing severe damage to the reliance interests of parties that planned their operations based on the previous legal framework.
