The Supreme Court unanimously accepted several petitions on Thursday against a decision by the Central Elections Committee. The ruling effectively reinstates a ban prohibiting party representatives at polling stations from transferring real-time voter turnout data back to their respective parties.
Justices Yael Wilner, Alex Stein, and Khaled Kabub ordered the committee’s decision to be annulled.
At the center of the ruling was a practice that had been in place for years: party representatives stationed at polling places would report in real time to their party headquarters when specific citizens arrived to cast their ballots. That information was cross-referenced with party databases, allowing campaigns to identify potential supporters who had not yet voted and contact them through text messages, phone calls, or home visits to encourage them to go to the polls.
Central Elections Committee Chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg ruled last month that providing such information was prohibited. However, the full Elections Committee overturned his decision and ruled that the practice could continue in the upcoming elections, subject to certain restrictions - such as prohibiting the recording of exact voting times or sharing the data with outside entities.
Several petitions were filed with the Supreme Court against that reversal, including actions brought by attorney Shahar Ben-Meir, the Reservists Party and Yoaz Hendel, the "Voters in Israel" association, and the Movement for Quality Government in Israel.
Writing for the panel, Justice Wilner ruled that the practice violates the law on two main grounds: party representatives at polling stations perform a public function under the law without statutory authority to transfer voter turnout data to their parties, and the transfer itself directly infringes on voters’ right to privacy.
“No statutory source of authority was presented that empowers party representatives at polling stations to transfer information regarding a person’s exercise of their right to vote to their party; certainly, no specific, detailed, and explicit authorization of this kind was presented," Wilner wrote, adding that a longstanding custom cannot replace the explicit legal authorization required by law.
The ruling further determined that whether a person exercises their right to vote constitutes personal information and even “information of particular sensitivity." Wilner explained that a person's decision to go to the polls or abstain may reflect their political worldview, and that the systematic tracking of such data by political actors is fundamentally different from an incidental encounter in the vicinity of a polling station.
The court also rejected arguments that voters implicitly consented to the transfer of their data, ruling that the claim was entirely unsupported by evidence.
While the justices voted unanimously to accept the petitions and overturn the Elections Committee's decision, a separate Likud petition concerning previous rulings by the Elections Committee chairman was dismissed without an order for costs.
The Religious Zionist Party responded: “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the decision of the Central Elections Committee is intended to undermine right-wing parties’ ability to bring their supporters to the polls, and thereby attempt to bring down the right-wing government through blatant interference in the electoral process. This is exactly why the State of Israel needs strong judicial reform and a strong right wing to lead it. The Supreme Court will not choose in place of the public. We will reach every voter, bring the national camp to the polls, and win."
Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Yariv Levin responded: “The Supreme Court justices know that the election is about the question of who will appoint ten Supreme Court justices in the next government - me as justice minister in Netanyahu’s government, or the justice minister in a Yair Golan-Abbas-Tibi government. They are trying to stop the wheels of the change that has begun and prevent us from completing the reform. As far as they are concerned, all means are legitimate to tilt the election results."
He added: “In a desperate move, they are changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game, contrary to all their previous rulings in other cases. They are undermining the integrity of the elections and inventing new rules that have never existed, with the aim of suppressing voter turnout and trying to regain control of the country. We must not let them succeed. The right wing will turn out in massive numbers. We will vote and win. We will complete the reform and put an end to the takeover of our lives by a handful of judges."
Likud responded: “The Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the Elections Committee’s decision is a deliberate political attack on the ability of right-wing parties to bring their voters to the polls. This is a danger to democracy. Sohlberg, who argued that ‘the rules of the game must not be changed in the middle of the game,’ is doing exactly that - acting as a political player in order to harm the right-wing camp about a month before the election."
It added: “They know that the next government will have to appoint ten Supreme Court justices, and they are doing everything in their power to bring down the right-wing government. Democracy means government by the people. The Supreme Court will not decide for you. Come and vote."