Affidavit Submitted to the High Court of Justice Regarding Possible Surveillance Through a Likud App

Who Applied and on What Matter

On the morning of October 18, 2026, the chairman of the Democracy Watch organization, attorney Yuval Yoaz, submitted Rechter’s affidavit to the High Court of Justice and the Attorney General. In November 2022, Rechter served as a volunteer at Likud headquarters, where he was responsible for computer systems, voter mobilization and the “Elector” system. The legal case number is not specified in the source.

What Is the Concern?

According to Rechter, the phone of a party representative at a polling station can passively listen as the chair of the polling committee reads aloud the voter’s name and serial number. Because the parties know the polling-station number, the identity of their representative and the representative’s phone number, this information allegedly makes it possible to determine who voted and when. The affidavit’s author believes the data could be used for targeted mobilization of supporters who have not yet arrived to vote.

What Have the Court and the Central Elections Committee Already Decided?

On September 17, the High Court of Justice prohibited the transmission, by any means, of information about voters’ identities and the time of their arrival at the polling station. The Central Elections Committee permitted the use of phones solely for quantitative counting, subject to four conditions: no identification of individuals, no documentation of separate events or voting times, no disruption of voting, and no photography or audio recording. The committee’s legal adviser, Yifat Siminovsky, had previously rejected attorney Shahar Ben Meir’s request for a complete ban on the use of phones because the suspicions presented at the time were insufficiently substantiated and relied on a confidential affidavit by an anonymous person.

What Remains to Be Decided?

The new public affidavit is intended to provide the required factual basis. The article states that covert recording, identification, and the transmission of names or identifying details could violate the law and might even constitute prohibited wiretapping. The source does not report whether the High Court of Justice accepted the affidavit for review, issued a new injunction or made another decision; Likud’s response had also not been provided by the time of publication.

Latest legal news

• 170 rabbis file complaint against Rabbi Dov Lior over olive-harvest ruling
• School transport driver convicted of sex offenses against 15-year-old
• Supreme Court sets rules for clauses restricting will challenges
• Man convicted of Tel Aviv murder committed while posing as Wolt courier