Likud Legal Counsel Challenges Election Tribunal Over Voting Rules

Hours before candidate lists were due to close, the Likud party's legal counsel, Ilan Bombach, launched a sharp challenge against the party's internal election tribunal. Bombach demanded the cancellation of a provision allowing for a secret ballot on reserved spots on the party's Knesset list, arguing that the tribunal granted relief that was not requested and altered the voting mechanism unilaterally, giving the Likud only 115 minutes to respond. He asserted that this constitutes an "illegal or unconstitutional shortcut."

Bombach further contended that the tribunal created a new voting mechanism without affording the Likud a full opportunity to argue its case, stating, "Forced silence is not consent." He also sought to establish that the 48-hour notice period for publishing the names of candidates for reserved spots is merely a guideline, not a condition that invalidates the vote or the reserved spots themselves. The Likud's practical point is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to submit his list of reserved candidates the following morning, allowing party secretariat members a few hours to review them before the vote.

In a related matter concerning Israel Katz, the Likud argued that the tribunal had already ruled his reserved spot was special and in addition to Netanyahu's eight reserved slots. The party claimed that David Bitan, who challenged this, waited over a month to contest the decision and that there is no justification to reopen it on the eve of list submissions. The Likud requested a decision from the tribunal that same night.

Netanyahu's immediate struggle, according to the report, is not only over the identity of the reserved candidates but also over the fundamental rules of the secretariat's voting process. The legal counsel's demand to immediately cancel the secret ballot provision for reserved spots without the required 10% signature threshold was framed as relief that was not requested and an "illegal or unconstitutional shortcut."

The tribunal had previously criticized Bombach's conduct, calling it "judicial estoppel and shameful behavior by the movement's legal counsel." The tribunal noted that the legal counsel cannot argue in a district court that the tribunal exceeded its authority when interpreting the movement's constitution, and then ask the same tribunal to approve a reserved spot beyond the quota, citing "the good of the movement."