Court rejects bid to let Likud MKs run in district slots, in setback for Netanyahu

Judge Yaakov Shaked nevertheless sided with Abed on a central issue in the dispute, ruling that the Likud’s top internal court had exceeded its authority when it found that allowing incumbent politicians to compete in district races violated the party’s principle of equality.

The lawsuit ultimately failed for a separate reason: Shaked declined to interfere with the party tribunal’s finding that irregularities in the July 27 vote were serious enough to invalidate the result.

Shaked found that deciding whether MKs and ministers should be allowed to run in the districts was a matter of party policy for Likud members themselves, not its judicial body.

But, he ruled that civil courts should generally refrain from second-guessing an internal party tribunal’s assessment of problems in the conduct and counting of an election.

As a result, Abed’s lawsuit and his request for temporary relief were both rejected. The court did not order either side to pay legal costs because Abed succeeded on the broader equality argument even though he lost the case over the voting irregularities.

Ahead of each election, the party adopts regulations determining how those positions will be filled.

Under the framework in place before this year’s convention, serving and former MKs, ministers and deputy ministers were barred from competing through the district route, which has traditionally provided a path onto the list for local party activists.

On July 27, the Likud convention voted to allow serving and former lawmakers and ministers to compete for district positions. The proposal passed by just five votes out of roughly 3,500 cast.

Challenges followed almost immediately.

Petitioners before the Likud Supreme Court, the party’s highest internal judicial body, argued both that the change unfairly advantaged established politicians and that serious irregularities had occurred during the vote.

Among the problems raised were five missing envelopes at a Rishon Lezion polling station, discrepancies between recorded voters and counted ballots elsewhere, delays in placing election observers, and a text message sent by the party’s acting director-general encouraging members to support the proposal.

With the entire vote decided by five ballots, those irregularities became particularly significant.

The Likud tribunal ultimately ruled that serving and former MKs and ministers could not compete in the district races.

Abed then went to the District Court, arguing that the tribunal had effectively replaced the decision of Likud members with its own view of how the party should structure its primaries.

Section 126 of the Likud constitution states that the tribunal’s powers do not give it a role in setting party policy or deciding matters left to the discretion of the party’s institutions.

Shaked ruled that whether incumbent and former politicians may compete in district races falls squarely within that category.

The convention had chosen to allow them to run, he wrote, and the party tribunal exceeded its authority when it overturned that policy choice on the basis of equality.

Shaked also rejected the tribunal’s reasoning that allowing incumbent politicians into district races inherently violated equality.

There was no question, he said, that an MK or minister may enter a primary with greater name recognition, resources or political infrastructure than a newcomer. But political candidates routinely begin races from different positions.

A mayor, former general or other well-known candidate may likewise enjoy advantages over an unknown activist, Shaked noted. Such differences do not in themselves amount to unlawful inequality.

He also found that Section 139 of the Likud constitution, which requires elections to be equal, refers to equality in voting rather than requiring every candidate to have the same level of publicity, funding or political infrastructure.

Crucially, Shaked found no provision in the Likud constitution expressly barring serving or former MKs and ministers from district races. The constitution instead leaves the rules governing district elections to party institutions, he said.

That meant the Likud convention was entitled to change the party’s longstanding practice of keeping incumbent politicians out of the districts.

But that did not resolve whether the convention had validly done so on July 27.

On that issue, Shaked ruled against Abed.

Shaked found that at least three members of the Likud tribunal had concluded that irregularities in the voting and counting justified invalidating the result. After Monday’s hearing, tribunal president Michael Kleiner and David Elbaz also clarified that they had rejected the vote primarily because of those irregularities.

That meant there was a majority basis for the tribunal’s decision independent of its equality argument.

Shaked stressed that civil courts do not ordinarily sit as appellate courts over internal party tribunals and intervene only in exceptional circumstances.

He found no such basis to reopen the tribunal’s factual assessment of the election problems, particularly when the number of missing envelopes alone matched the five-vote margin by which the proposal had passed.

There was no way to know how the missing ballots had been cast, Shaked noted, but the exceptionally narrow margin strengthened the case against judicial intervention.

Abed had also asked the court, as an alternative, to exempt him personally from the tribunal’s ruling so that he could compete in the Galilee and Valleys district. That request fell with the dismissal of the lawsuit.

The practical result is unchanged: current and former MKs, ministers and deputy ministers remain barred from competing in the district races under the disputed July 27 vote.

Shaked nevertheless rejected the broader principle underlying part of the Likud tribunal’s ruling, finding that the decision over who may compete in the districts belongs to the party’s political institutions. Abed said he intends to appeal to the Supreme Court.