Israeli Court Upholds Likud Ban on MKs Running in District Primaries Despite Procedural Flaws

The Tel Aviv District Court rejected a petition by Likud MK Afif Abed challenging the party's Supreme Court decision barring current and former Knesset members, ministers, and deputy ministers from running in district primaries. Judge Yaakov Shaked ruled that while the Likud Supreme Court overstepped its authority by basing the ban on equality principles, procedural irregularities in the party's voting process justified upholding the decision.

The ruling means that in the upcoming Likud primaries, sitting and former parliamentarians and ministers cannot compete in district races. Abed announced plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. Shaked criticized the party court's reasoning that allowing elected officials to run in districts violates equality, stating this is a matter of party policy, not judicial review. He also dismissed claims that incumbents have unfair advantages, noting such benefits exist in national list races as well.

Despite this principled critique, the court upheld the Likud Supreme Court's ruling due to multiple voting irregularities during the party conference vote, which passed the ban by a narrow margin of five votes. These included missing envelopes at a polling station in Rishon Lezion, discrepancies between voter counts and ballots, improper vote recording, delays in appointing observers, and a text message from the acting Likud CEO urging support for the ban.

Judge Shaked emphasized that three Likud Supreme Court members believed these flaws could have influenced the vote outcome, and the court should not interfere with internal party judicial decisions except in exceptional cases. He noted the slim margin and missing ballots reinforced the decision to leave the party ruling intact.

Abed argued the party court exceeded its authority and sought exemption to run in the Galilee and Valleys district, claiming his recent entry to the Knesset in January 2025 meant he lacked the usual incumbency advantage. Likud supported his position on the court overreach claim. Respondents maintained the vote irregularities justified the ban. The court dismissed the petition and interim relief request but ordered each side to bear its own costs due to the mixed ruling.