Israeli Supreme Court Reviews State Comptroller Michael Regev's Appointment Over Voting Privacy Concerns

The Israeli Supreme Court convened on Sunday to hear petitions challenging the appointment of Michael Regev as State Comptroller. Last week, the court issued a conditional order requiring the Knesset, the Likud party, and Regev to justify why the appointment should not be annulled, citing allegations of breaches in the secrecy of the voting process. The five-justice panel includes Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, Vice President Noam Sohlberg, and Justices Daphne Barak-Erez, Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, and Ruth Ronen.

President Amit outlined the background, noting that the first round of voting in the Knesset ended without a decision, leading to a second round in which Regev was elected. The petitions raised two main issues: violation of voting secrecy and a conflict of interest due to Regev’s role as legal counsel to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in various cases. The court emphasized that the focus should remain on the secrecy of the vote, as a previous suggestion for a new election was rejected.

Attorney Yitzhak Bart, representing the Knesset’s legal advisor, argued that no explicit rule prohibits self-filming behind the voting curtain. Justice Barak-Erez questioned the existence and scope of such norms. Bart explained that the legal advisor’s position at the time was twofold: to avoid interrupting the vote and to instruct members of Knesset not to bring phones into the polling booth. However, the opposition and coalition disagreed on these points, resulting in a compromise.

Justice Ronen raised concerns about a possible social atmosphere pressuring members to record themselves, suggesting that those who did not film might be viewed with suspicion. Kanfi-Steinitz stressed that the voting curtain is essential to maintaining ballot secrecy, and any deviation could undermine this principle. The hearing was briefly disrupted by MK Tali Gottlieb, who was asked to leave after repeated interruptions.

Bart urged the court not to annul Regev’s election, arguing that the law does not clearly prohibit filming and that annulling the vote would be an extreme measure with uncertain outcomes. The court is expected to continue deliberations on the matter.