High-profile case9/6/2026

Israel's Central Elections Committee Permitted Parties to Use the Elector System in Elections

Israel's Central Elections Committee voted by a majority to permit the use of Elector—a system that allows real-time information about citizens who have not voted to be provided to political parties. The decision was made following the intervention of the High Court of Justice, which ruled that the committee's plenary must discuss the issue.

Key facts

•The decision was made by Israel's Central Elections Committee.
•Nineteen voted in favor of using Elector, and 11 voted against.
•The petitioner to the High Court of Justice was the Likud party.
•The previous decision was made by Justice Noam Sohlberg.
•The case number and exact date are not specified in the source.
•The precise name of the applicable law is not specified in the source.

How the Dispute Arose

The chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Justice Noam Sohlberg, had previously accepted the petition and ruled that providing political parties with real-time information about citizens' participation in voting infringes the right to privacy and is contrary to the law. The Likud party petitioned the High Court of Justice, arguing that Sohlberg did not have the authority to make such a decision alone, without all the committee members. Likud also disputed the substance of the ban itself.

What the High Court of Justice Decided

The justices accepted Likud's argument regarding the lack of authority to make a unilateral decision and proposed that the parties return the issue for renewed consideration by the plenary of the Central Elections Committee. Accordingly, at this stage, the High Court of Justice considered first and foremost the question of who was authorized to make the decision, and did not issue a final ruling on the legality of collecting and transferring the information.

The Elections Committee's Decision

After a lengthy discussion, the committee permitted the use of Elector: 19 members voted in favor and 11 against. The tool makes it possible to document voter-participation data and report to political parties in real time which citizens have not voted. The source does not specify any additional conditions or restrictions imposed by the committee.

The Dispute Over the Right to Privacy

Opponents of the decision may petition the High Court of Justice again. In that case, the court will likely be required to consider the substantive question: whether providing political parties with information about citizens who did not participate in the voting at all is lawful. During the previous hearing, Justice Vilner noted that there was a basis for the claim of an infringement of privacy because a person might not wish to disclose the very fact of their participation or nonparticipation in the elections.

What this means for you

Political parties will be able to use Elector to receive up-to-date information about citizens who have not yet voted and use that data as part of their activities involving voters. However, no final legal ruling has yet been issued regarding this practice: another petition to the High Court of Justice may lead to an examination of its compatibility with the right to privacy.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings