Court ruling10/22/2026

High Court of Justice Bars Parties From Receiving Real-Time Voting Data From Polling Stations

The High Court of Justice, by a two-to-one majority, granted the petition filed by the Israeli Democracy Guard. Polling committee members and observers were prohibited from using digital means to count the number of voters at a particular polling station and transmitting that information to political parties during Election Day.

Key facts

•High Court of Justice decision dated October 22, 2026
•Majority opinion: Khaled Kabub and Ruth Ronen
•Dissenting opinion: David Mintz
•Petitioner: Israeli Democracy Guard
•The case number is not specified in the source
•No monetary sums or specific statute were specified

What Happened

The petition was filed against a decision by the acting director general of the Central Elections Committee, Dean Livne. His directive allowed polling committee members and observers to digitally report to their parties how many voters had arrived at the polling station. The data were quantitative only, without identifying the voters.

What the Court Ruled

Justices Khaled Kabub and Ruth Ronen made the relevant part of the order nisi absolute and prohibited this practice. Justice David Mintz dissented. The prohibition applies both to digitally counting those who actually voted at a particular polling station and to transmitting those data in real time to a party or candidate list.

The Parties’ Positions

The Israeli Democracy Guard argued that polling station workers perform a public governmental role, and that collecting the data creates a sense of surveillance, makes it more difficult to prevent individual reporting, and could undermine equality among the lists. The state countered that the directive permitted only the transmission of the total number of voters and did not allow the collection of personal information, photography, or recording. Likud also opposed the petition, maintaining that the quantitative count is a means of safeguarding election integrity, detecting violations, and mobilizing voters.

The Legal Basis of the Dispute

The petitioner relied on the principle of administrative legality, decisions by the chair of the Central Elections Committee, and an earlier High Court of Justice ruling in the Elector case. The majority justices revoked permission for digital reporting even when the information does not make it possible to identify voters. However, the report does not provide the judges’ full reasoning and does not identify a specific statute that was applied.

What this means for you

Political parties will not be able to receive digital reports from their representatives at polling stations about the current number of voters and use them for ongoing activity on Election Day. For ordinary voters, this means a stricter separation between the work of the polling committee and party campaigning, even if the data that would have been transmitted were anonymous.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings