Court ruling9/17/2026

High Court of Justice Prohibited Parties from Receiving Data on Whether Specific Voters Had Voted

The High Court of Justice overturned the decision of the Central Elections Committee plenum, which allowed party representatives at polling stations to report in real time who had arrived to vote. The prohibition was intended to protect voters’ privacy.

Key facts

•Court: High Court of Justice
•Date: September 17, 2026
•The decision of the Central Elections Committee plenum was overturned
•The transfer of data on whether specific voters had voted was prohibited
•The case number is not stated in the source
•No monetary sums or statute names were specified

What the Elections Committee Allowed

The Central Elections Committee plenum allowed party representatives at polling stations to provide their parties with details about the identities of voters who had arrived. This enabled the parties to know who had already voted and who had not yet arrived at the polling station.

What the High Court of Justice Ruled

On September 17, 2026, the High Court of Justice overturned the committee’s decision. As a result, party representatives were prohibited from reporting to the parties in real time which specific voters had already voted and which had not yet arrived.

Why the Dispute Arose

The plenum’s original decision contradicted the position of its chair, Justice Noam Sohlberg. He prohibited the transfer of such data because of the infringement of privacy. The source does not state the case number, the composition of the court, the names of the parties to the proceeding, or more detailed legal reasoning for the High Court of Justice’s decision.

What this means for you

Parties will not be able to receive ongoing information from polling stations about whether a specific person has voted. For the ordinary voter, this means greater protection for information about whether they did or did not arrive at the polling station; the decision does not concern the content of the vote.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings