The Knesset is expected to tell the High Court of Justice on Sunday that it will not accept the justices’ proposal to hold a repeat vote on the next state comptroller, effectively sending the issue back to the court. Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana does not agree to rerun the vote, rejecting the compromise floated by the judges.
The dispute has placed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a political bind. Senior figures around him said the Haredi parties would not support the coalition “for free” and would demand something in return, while Netanyahu has told top party officials to keep the bloc together at all costs. At the same time, he faces public anger over what even some in Likud view as Haredi extortion.
On Thursday, the High Court heard petitions seeking to void the election of attorney Micha Ravilo as state comptroller. The petitions argue that Likud lawmakers were required to record how they voted behind the curtain, undermining the secrecy of the ballot, and that Ravilo has a conflict of interest because he is also Netanyahu’s lawyer. The hearing ended in drama, with the judges suggesting a new vote and asking for the Knesset’s response by Sunday. Justice Noam Sohlberg said the panel intended to issue an order nisi on the secrecy issue, while the conflict-of-interest claims were rejected at this stage.
The justices focused on claims that Likud lawmakers were photographed with their ballots during the second round, which Ravilo won after losing the first round to retired justice Yosef Elron. Sohlberg said there was an “unwanted cloud” and that some of the votes appeared, “on their face, problematic.” He said MKs acted against the guidance of the Knesset legal adviser after Ohana set a new rule allowing photography. The petitioners said the filming turned the vote into a kind of “loyalty test” and defeated the purpose of secret voting.
The court pressed the petitioners on what remedy they wanted and what rule should apply going forward. Justice Ruth Ronen warned that annulling elections over such a violation could encourage attempts to disrupt future votes. The Knesset and Likud said there is no proof that lawmakers were instructed to film their votes, while a Knesset legal representative said those questioned denied it. A Likud representative added that if there had been such an instruction, dozens of MKs would have filmed themselves, not just seven. On the conflict-of-interest claim, the judges indicated they are not inclined to intervene now and suggested it may be handled through a conflict-of-interest arrangement.
