Election Committee Chair Rejects Bid to Block PM Netanyahu's Call with Police Chief
Translated & summarized from JDN by baba
The Chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Judge Noam Sohlberg, rejected a petition to block a call between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Police Commissioner Dani Levy. Sohlberg ruled that while political leaders can receive general public order updates, they cannot instruct the police on election integrity or preparations. He emphasized that these matters fall under the purview of the Elections Committee. The decision came two days before the Knesset elections.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Judge Noam Sohlberg rejected a petition to block a call between PM Netanyahu, Minister Ben-Gvir, and Police Commissioner Levy.
- The call was clarified as a security update, not a discussion on election integrity or preparations.
- Political leaders can receive general public order updates but cannot instruct police on election matters.
- The Elections Committee chairman holds authority over election integrity, management, and execution.
- The petition was filed by the Yesh! party two days before the Knesset elections.
- Sohlberg stressed the importance of all parties not exceeding their authority in election matters.
The Chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Judge Noam Sohlberg, on Sunday rejected a petition by the Yesh! party that sought to prevent a discussion between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Police Commissioner Dani Levy. The decision came after Netanyahu clarified that the planned conversation was a security update call, not a discussion about election integrity or preparations.
Sohlberg, however, set clear boundaries for political figures' authority, stating that Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir may receive general public order updates from the commissioner but are not authorized to instruct him on election integrity or police preparations for the vote. The petition was filed just hours before the scheduled discussion, two days before the Knesset elections, with the petitioner arguing that a meeting involving political figures who had publicly commented on the matter would violate prohibitions against election interference and the use of public resources for campaign purposes.
Netanyahu had stated in his response that the call was intended to receive an update on the police's role in security preparations for election day, given existing threats. He emphasized that this had no bearing on election integrity and that his security responsibilities do not cease due to the proximity of the elections.
The Attorney General's office, however, maintained that the police operate under the direction of the Elections Committee chairman regarding election management and public order during the elections. Therefore, they argued, a meeting concerning election management or matters within the committee chairman's purview should not take place.
Sohlberg ruled that insufficient evidence was presented to support the claim that the discussion itself constituted election interference. He also noted that claims regarding the administrative authorities' discretion in fulfilling their duties are generally not grounds for a petition under the section prohibiting the use of public resources for campaigning. While dismissing the petition, Sohlberg stressed that "election integrity, election management, and their execution are vested in the Central Elections Committee and its chairman, in accordance with their authorities." He reiterated that Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir are permitted to meet with the commissioner on general public order matters, "but the authority to instruct him regarding election integrity, election preparations, and the Israel Police's activities in this regard is not in their hands."
Sohlberg mentioned that he and the acting director-general of the Elections Committee were scheduled to meet with the commissioner that evening to discuss police preparations for the elections, during which decisions and directives would be issued as needed. "I have noted the Prime Minister's declaration that this is a telephone call, and that issues of election preparations and election integrity will not be discussed," he concluded. "All parties are expected to exercise extreme diligence not to exceed their authority in election matters." The petition was dismissed without an order for costs.