Ra’am, Joint List appeal election bans as petitions target Otzma Yehudit

Ra’am and the Joint List have appealed their exclusion from the October 27 election, while separate High Court petitions filed Tuesday seek to overturn the Central Elections Committee’s decision to allow Otzma Yehudit to run.

Together with the mandatory Supreme Court review of the committee’s decisions to disqualify MK Ofer Cassif and Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh, the filings place the major election-disqualification disputes before the justices.

The cases have reached the court through several legally distinct routes. Ra’am and the Joint List are appealing decisions against entire lists. The decisions against Cassif and Abu Shehadeh were transferred automatically because a committee vote barring an individual candidate cannot take effect without Supreme Court approval.

The Democrats and the Zulat Institute, meanwhile, filed High Court petitions challenging the approval of Otzma Yehudit. The Democrats are also contesting the rejection of their attempt to disqualify National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and MK Tali Gottlieb individually.

Tuesday was the statutory deadline for election appeals. The Supreme Court must deliver its rulings in the ordinary election proceedings by Sunday, October 4. The Otzma petitioners are seeking intervention on the same compressed timetable, although they filed their cases as High Court petitions rather than statutory appeals.

Democrats, Zulat pushed for court intervention following disqualification vote

The Democrats and Zulat asked the High Court to intervene after the committee voted 19-10, with one abstention, against disqualifying Otzma Yehudit.

Both petitions face an immediate procedural obstacle. Under election law, only the attorney-general, the committee chairman or at least one-quarter of the committee’s members may appeal the approval of a list. Neither petitioner secured the required support.

Zulat argues that the High Court should nevertheless exercise its broader constitutional authority to review the committee’s decision.

The Democrats’ petition challenges two separate decisions. It asks the court to require the committee to explain why Otzma Yehudit should not be barred or, alternatively, why Ben-Gvir and Gottlieb should not be individually disqualified.

Sohlberg did not consider the allegations against Ben-Gvir and Gottlieb, ruling that the request could not proceed because it lacked the signatures of one-third of the committee’s members, as required to disqualify an individual candidate.

The petition acknowledges that the Democrats lack both the signatures required to initiate the individual cases and the one-quarter support required to appeal the approval of a list. It argues that the High Court should make an exception because the committee heard the case against the list, the party is represented on the committee, and the allegations rely partly on court decisions and formal positions issued by the attorney-general.

The petition’s central argument is that senior Otzma candidates have used government authority and parliamentary immunity in ways that undermine the rule of law, civil rights and the separation of powers.

Regarding Ben-Gvir, it cites court decisions and attorney-general opinions concerning alleged political interference in police operations, investigations and appointments.

Regarding Gottlieb, it cites her assertion in civil proceedings that court orders did not apply to her because of parliamentary immunity; her call for demonstrators to go to the Beit Lid military base on the day protesters breached its outer barrier; and her refusal to report for questioning over the publication of a Shin Bet employee’s identity. Gottlieb was subsequently indicted over that publication. The charge has not been decided.

The petition’s racism argument cites support by several Otzma candidates for Amiram Ben-Uliel, who was convicted of murdering three members of the Dawabshe family, and alleged identification with the outlawed Kach movement.

It also relies on Otzma’s “Disengagement Plan 710,” which calls for a government ministry to facilitate what the party describes as voluntary migration from Gaza. The petition argues that its numerical targets make it a plan to remove a population defined by nationality and residence.

Otzma Yehudit disqualification opposed by Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara opposed disqualifying Otzma before the committee. She described the evidence as deeply troubling and said it brought the list dangerously close to the prohibited territory, but concluded that it did not amount to the “critical mass” required for disqualification.

Ben-Gvir and Gottlieb have rejected the applications as politically motivated.

Ra’am’s appeal argues that the three applications against it - filed by Otzma Yehudit, Likud and the Choosing Life Forum - relied largely on allegations and evidence considered in previous unsuccessful disqualification proceedings.

The applications sought to link Ra’am with the southern branch of the Islamic Movement, Aid 48 and other associations accused of transferring assistance to entities connected to Hamas. Ra’am argues that these are indirect organizational links and that the applicants did not produce clear evidence that the list itself supports armed struggle.

It also argues that much of the material consisted of media reports and internet publications rather than evidence concerning the current list, its platform or its candidates. Ra’am cited its participation in the Bennett-Lapid coalition and the addition of former police major-general Yoav Segalovich to its slate as evidence of its present political course.

Baharav-Miara opposed Ra’am’s disqualification, saying the evidence did not meet the Supreme Court’s stringent standard. Eighteen committee members nevertheless voted to bar the list, with one abstention.

The Joint List has also appealed after the committee voted 18-5, with one abstention, to disqualify it. The list has called the decision political persecution directed at Arab representation.

The committee voted 19-5, with two abstentions, to bar Cassif on the grounds that he rejects Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and supports armed struggle against it.

Cassif argues that the statements and political activity cited against him, including support for international proceedings and sanctions against Israel, cannot be equated with support for armed violence.

He also alleges a procedural defect, saying Likud improperly combined its request against him with its request against the Joint List. He argues that the committee’s decision to separate the hearings prevented him from answering claims directed at the list rather than at him personally. Baharav-Miara opposed his disqualification.

The court will also review Abu Shehadeh’s disqualification on Thursday. Baharav-Miara and State Attorney Amit Aisman urged the justices on Tuesday to approve it on the ground of support for armed struggle, focusing primarily on an article he wrote on October 8, 2023, while the Hamas attack was still unfolding.

Abu Shehadeh maintains that the article did not endorse the attack and was written before its full scale was known. The committee voted 30-4 to disqualify him, with Sohlberg also supporting the decision, bringing the result to 31-4.

The court will hold two hearings before the same nine-justice panel on Thursday: first reviewing Abu Shehadeh’s disqualification, then considering Cassif’s case together with the Joint List’s appeal. Ra’am’s appeal was not included in the previously announced Thursday schedule.

All the cases arise under Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset, which permits a candidate or list to be barred for rejecting Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, inciting racism, or supporting armed struggle by an enemy state or terrorist organization.

Supreme Court precedent treats disqualification as an exceptional measure requiring clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence of a dominant and sustained objective. The court has not yet decided whether it has met that standard in any of the current cases.