Israeli Election Committee Chair Seeks Party Views After Banning Voter Identity App

Following the Likud party's request to overturn Central Election Committee Chair Judge Noam Solberg's decision banning the use of apps like "Elector" to report voter identities on election day, Solberg has now asked all parties for their opinions and alternative voter mobilization methods. On Thursday evening, Solberg instructed that responses should include feasible alternatives to encourage voter turnout while respecting privacy laws. Earlier, Likud revealed plans to promote legislation allowing the use of the "Elector" app despite the ban, arguing it does not violate privacy rights.

Solberg's ruling, issued two days prior, prohibits polling station committee members and party observers from reporting voter identities or voting circumstances via dedicated apps during elections. He ruled that sharing such information violates privacy protections under the Privacy Protection Law and that election laws do not authorize parties to receive this data for political activities without explicit permission. This decision has intensified pressure on Likud and Haredi parties, which heavily relied on such tools.

The ruling mainly impacts larger parties with extensive voter databases and proportional representation in polling committees, who also receive state funding for these activities. Smaller or new parties lack such representation and face greater challenges in voter mobilization. Parties previously using "Elector" include Likud, Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, Shas, United Torah Judaism, and Yisrael Beiteinu. The app enabled field activists to identify supporters and update party databases for targeted campaigns.

On election day, observers used apps to document voters who had cast ballots, facilitating personalized voter encouragement and even attempts to dissuade opponents from voting. Similar apps were used by parties like Yesh Atid and the National Unity Party. Likud's legal advisor Ilan Bombach requested Solberg to reconsider, arguing the decision changes election rules mid-process and that voter privacy and ballot secrecy remain intact under previous practices.

The appeal, supported by multiple parties and the Attorney General, criticized the ruling as unprecedented and harmful to established parties' reliance interests. Solberg's decision reflects a legal interpretation prioritizing privacy over election data use, prompting ongoing political and legal debates ahead of the upcoming elections.