Israel’s ballot-access disputes: what Supreme Court review can change

For Israeli voters who want to choose Ra’am or the Joint List on October 27, the stakes are immediate: whether their preferred list will appear on the ballot. The Central Elections Committee voted to exclude both Arab-led lists on September 23. Both have appealed, The Jerusalem Post reported on September 29.

Two individual candidates face a different process: their exclusions require Supreme Court approval. Meanwhile, the Democrats have reportedly petitioned the Court to overturn Otzma Yehudit’s clearance. These five disputes explain why a committee vote or court filing does not, by itself, settle the ballot. The September 29 reports establish requested outcomes, rather than final judicial decisions.

What the law allows

Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset permits exclusion for rejecting Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state, inciting racism, or supporting an enemy state’s or terrorist organization’s armed struggle against Israel. The Israel Democracy Institute’s explanation describes a demanding evidence standard because exclusion restricts the fundamental rights to vote and stand for election.

A barred list may appeal to the Supreme Court. An individual candidate’s exclusion automatically requires the Court’s approval. Challenging a list that the committee cleared is another route; filing that challenge establishes neither its admissibility nor its outcome.

For voters, the distinction is concrete. Excluding an entire list removes that electoral option. Excluding one candidate concerns that person’s eligibility and requires a separate decision, even when their list is also under challenge.

Five selected ballot-access disputes

The committee voted for the four exclusions below on September 23 and rejected the applications against Otzma Yehudit on September 24, according to Knesset Channel’s hearing summary.

Adalah represented the affected lists and candidates. Its defense arguments are those of their legal counsel, rather than independent corroboration. Adalah supplies the Ra’am, Joint List and Abu Shehadeh tallies below; Knesset Channel supplies the Cassif and Otzma Yehudit tallies.

The Cassif tally remains discrepant: Adalah reports 18–5, while Knesset Channel reports 19–5 with two abstentions. Both report a vote for exclusion.

The attorney general’s positions at the September 23–24 committee hearings

At the September 23 hearings, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara opposed excluding Ra’am, the Joint List and Cassif, finding the evidence insufficient, according to Knesset Channel.

Her September 23 position on Abu Shehadeh was different: she urged the committee to consider exclusion seriously without expressly recommending it. That qualified hearing position does not establish what she subsequently argued in court.

At the September 24 hearing on Otzma Yehudit, she opposed exclusion while assessing the party as dangerously close to the prohibited line. The evidence nevertheless fell short of the demanding threshold, Knesset Channel reports. These assessments were advice presented to the committee, rather than court rulings deciding eligibility.

What past rulings show

A Supreme Court justice chairs the committee, but its membership largely consists of party representatives allocated according to the outgoing parliament’s composition. Court review provides a separate assessment of the legal grounds and evidence.

The Israel Democracy Institute’s historical review records reversals of committee bans on Ra’am-Balad and Cassif in 2019, and Balad in 2022. Review has also worked in the opposite direction: in 2019, the Court excluded Michael Ben Ari, then Baruch Marzel and Bentzi Gopstein, after the committee had approved their candidacies.

Those examples illustrate what review can change without predicting these cases. A successful list appeal would restore that electoral option but would not automatically resolve a separate candidate exclusion. Cassif’s and Abu Shehadeh’s exclusions need judicial approval. Otzma Yehudit was cleared by the committee, and the Democrats’ reported petition seeks to reverse that decision. For voters, the consequential developments will be rulings on those distinct questions.