Between Ignorance and Capitulation
The opinion of the Knesset’s legal adviser, Sagit Apik, on the validity of the election of the state comptroller is embarrassing at best, and at worst it reflects capitulation. Apik was asked to rule that the vote for state comptroller was invalid and should be held again, due to the breach of ballot secrecy. In the first round, Supreme Court Justice emeritus Yosef Elron defeated Michael Ravillo, winning 60 votes to Ravillo’s 57. However, because neither received a majority of Knesset members, a second round was held in which the result was reversed, Ravillo won 61 votes and Elron 57.
Between the two rounds, heavy pressure was applied against Knesset members suspected of “defecting” from the coalition camp. They were summoned to the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where it was apparently made clear to them what would happen if they defied him. At the same time, during the vote, the claim was raised that Knesset members from coalition parties were required to photograph the way they voted on their mobile phones in order to prove they had followed the prime minister’s instructions. In light of this, Knesset members from opposition factions demanded that the vote be halted and held again. In the opinion she sent to Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana through the legal adviser to the Knesset plenum, Apik determined that the vote could continue, but that phones should not be allowed into the ballot box area.
1 View gallery (Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun)
Contrary to her instruction, Ohana ruled that “there is absolutely no validity to the instruction to photograph the vote... but of course, anyone has the right... to photograph themselves... because secrecy belongs to the voter.” And indeed, Knesset members suspected of disloyalty made sure to photograph how they voted in order to prove publicly that they acted in accordance with the instructions they received. Then Apik reversed her position. Contrary to her original view, she now ruled that the Knesset speaker’s instruction did not conflict with the law. To support her conclusion, she pointed to the fact that the speaker’s decision was made without protest from the opposition, and perhaps even with its tacit agreement.
Ballot secrecy is not a privilege of the Knesset member, nor a matter for negotiation between the coalition and the opposition. Secrecy is a clear public interest. It is hard to accept Apik’s determination. Ballot secrecy is not a privilege of the Knesset member, nor a matter for negotiation between the coalition and the opposition. Secrecy is a clear public interest. The state comptroller is one of three officeholders whose election by Knesset members the law requires to be secret. In explaining why, the Supreme Court noted: “The reason for this is the importance the legislature attributes to ensuring the independence of the Knesset members’ discretion in these elections. Secret elections are intended to ensure the political independence of Knesset members when they come to vote.” This is so that Knesset members will be “free to choose according to their best judgment and conscience.”
How carefully secrecy must be protected can be learned from the Elections Law, which for the Knesset states that a mark on the ballot paper or envelope that may identify the voter renders the vote invalid. In her legal opinion, the legal adviser states: “I do not believe that the difference between the results of the first vote and the results of the second vote alone necessarily indicates improper influence exerted on Knesset members.” At least she has a sense of humor.
