Likud Slams Supreme Court Over Election Data Ban
The Likud party has vehemently criticized a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a Central Elections Committee decision, prohibiting the real-time transfer of voter information from polling stations to party headquarters. The party declared the ruling a "deliberate political blow" to democracy and an attempt to undermine the right-wing government just a month before elections.
In a sharp statement, Likud accused the Supreme Court of blatant and improper interference in the democratic process. The party asserted that the ruling specifically targets the ability of national camp parties to mobilize their voters, calling it a "danger to democracy."
Likud also directed criticism at the composition of the court and its leadership, specifically naming Justice Noam Sohlberg. They accused Sohlberg of hypocrisy for previously stating that "rules should not be changed mid-game" while now acting as a "political player" to harm the right-wing bloc. The party suggested the court's actions are motivated by the upcoming government's need to appoint ten Supreme Court justices, aiming to prevent a right-wing government from taking power.
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision, made by Justices Yael Willner, Alex Stein, and Khaled Kabub, found that the use of applications for transferring voter data lacked legal authorization and severely infringed upon the right to privacy. The court's ruling rescinded the Central Elections Committee's decision, which had previously reversed an initial ban by Chairman Sohlberg.
The controversy began when Sohlberg initially banned the data transfer, citing concerns for election integrity and privacy. This sparked outrage within Likud and other parties, who argued it was a change in the rules of the game. After heated debates, the Elections Committee narrowly approved the use of reporting systems, a decision now completely nullified by the Supreme Court, forcing parties to revise their election day strategies without real-time digital voter tracking.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.