Court ruling10/27/2026

“Degel HaTorah” Instructed Representatives to Transfer Voting Data Contrary to a High Court of Justice Ruling

According to Ynet, “Degel HaTorah” representatives at polling stations were instructed to report voting data throughout the day. The Central Elections Committee and the High Court of Justice had previously prohibited this practice after determining that it infringed voters’ privacy.

Key facts

•Participants: “Degel HaTorah” and party representatives at polling stations
•Bodies: the Central Elections Committee and the High Court of Justice
•Basis for the prohibition: protection of privacy
•The case number is not stated in the source
•The exact date of the ruling is not stated in the source
•No monetary sums

What Happened

“Degel HaTorah” — the Lithuanian faction of the “United Torah Judaism” party — intended to receive real-time information on voter turnout. The data was intended to show voting rates in communities, Hasidic groups and certain areas, so that activists could mobilize supporters in places where the number of voters was low.

Why a Legal Dispute Arose

According to a Ynet report, the Central Elections Committee and the High Court of Justice determined that the transfer of voting data by members of polling station committees is an improper practice that infringes the right to privacy. Despite the prohibition, according to the report, some party representatives at polling stations were expected to continue transferring information throughout the day. The case number, the date of the High Court of Justice ruling and the specific statute applied are not stated in the source.

Collecting Information Through Alternative Means

The party also recruited hundreds of activists, who were instructed to document information about those who had voted and transfer it to local campaign headquarters for entry into a computerized system. In “Agudat Yisrael,” the party’s Hasidic faction, voters were asked to call after leaving the polling station, while activists near polling stations in religious areas marked down those who arrived. Ynet notes that the telephone reports could have been inaccurate because this method could not verify that a vote had actually been cast.

What the Source Does Not Report

The material provided contains no information about an interim order issued by Central Elections Committee Chairman Noam Sohlberg, and there is no final procedural decision regarding this incident. Therefore, it cannot be determined from this source that Sohlberg issued a separate directive.

What this means for you

For the ordinary voter, this means that the transfer by a polling station committee member of information about the voter’s participation in the election to party campaign headquarters was deemed improper. However, the report describes alternative methods used by activists outside the committee to collect information, but does not state whether those methods were separately prohibited or recognized as lawful.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings