High Court urges new, clean vote on Michael Ravivlo’s state comptroller bid

The High Court of Justice heard petitions on the appointment of attorney Michael Ravivlo as state comptroller and suggested that the Knesset hold a new, clean vote. Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, writing for Justices Gila Kanfi-Steinitz and Ruth Ronen, said there was an “unwanted cloud and a bitter taste,” adding that lawmakers had acted against the Knesset legal adviser’s position by creating a new rule allowing cameras to be used during the concealed ballot. The Knesset must respond by Sunday.

The court is also weighing an alternative order nisi focused only on the secrecy of the vote and related issues, not on the conflict-of-interest claim raised in some petitions. The text argues that the basic question is straightforward, namely that the prime minister’s private lawyer cannot be state comptroller, but that legal analysis may still leave Ravivlo in office.

Three main issues were discussed. First, whether lawmakers were effectively instructed to switch their votes from the first round, won by Justice Yossef Elron, to the second round, won by Ravivlo. The justices said such instruction would be unlawful and could invalidate the election, but the factual basis was not clear enough to prove improper interference, and Ravivlo’s lawyer, Ilan Bombach, suggested other explanations, including lawmakers wanting to impress their base on social media.

Second, the court examined whether the ballot’s secrecy under the Basic Law: State Comptroller was breached by allowing cameras behind the curtain, and whether a voter can waive secrecy or whether it is a binding constitutional requirement. Petitioners argued that self-filming creates evidence and invites improper pressure from superiors. Third, they addressed Ravivlo’s conflict of interest, which the judges appeared less interested in pursuing, saying such conflicts can be regulated, while the petitions describe his ties to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as extremely broad. The article says the court’s proposed order would leave only the secrecy questions on the table.