CASH FOR NOT VOTING? Israel’s Election Chief Says Satmar-Linked Pledges Are Legally Worthless
Israel’s top election official has ruled that anyone who received money or another material benefit in exchange for promising not to vote is legally free to disregard that promise and cast a ballot, following allegations that money was distributed to avreichim in Israel who agreed not to participate in the upcoming Knesset election.
Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, chairman of Israel’s Central Elections Committee, issued the ruling Thursday in response to a petition alleging that a Satmar-affiliated organization distributed funds to individuals who committed themselves to staying away from the polls.
According to the Central Elections Committee, the organization responsible for distributing the money informed officials that the distribution had already concluded on the same day the petition was filed. The organization did not clarify, however, whether the payments were actually conditioned on recipients promising not to vote.
That timing became central to Sohlberg’s decision. Because the distribution had already taken place, he determined that the matter involved a completed act and that he no longer had authority within the proceeding before him to issue an order preventing it.
The Central Elections Committee operates a special judicial mechanism for disputes involving elections, campaign activity and election integrity, but its chairman’s authority in such proceedings is focused on stopping or preventing prohibited conduct rather than investigating completed acts after the fact.
Sohlberg therefore did not rule on whether the alleged distribution of money constituted an election offense.
At the same time, however, Sohlberg used the case to issue an unequivocal legal clarification regarding anyone who may have accepted money in exchange for agreeing not to vote.
“לאור חשיבותה הרבה של זכות היסוד לבחור, כל התחייבות להימנע מהצבעה, בעד כסף או תמורה חומרית אחרת – מבחינה משפטית הריהי בטלה ומבוטלת, לא שרירה ולא קיימת”, Sohlberg wrote.
“In light of the great importance of the fundamental right to vote, any commitment to refrain from voting in exchange for money or other material consideration is, from a legal standpoint, null and void, invalid and nonexistent.”
In other words, even someone who accepted money and explicitly agreed not to participate in the election is not legally bound by that promise.
Sohlberg made that point even more explicitly in his decision.
“It is not a commitment and it is not a promise. The person who ‘committed’ is permitted to vote in the election.”
The ruling means that anyone who allegedly received funds under such an arrangement remains fully entitled to appear at a polling station and exercise his right to vote, regardless of any pledge he may have made when receiving the money.
Sohlberg’s decision did not, however, end the broader question of whether the distribution itself may have violated the law.
The judge instructed the legal adviser of the Central Elections Committee to transfer the details of the case to the Israel Police for examination.
The matter could therefore move from the election committee to law-enforcement authorities, who can examine what actually occurred, whether payments were conditioned on recipients agreeing not to vote, and whether any criminal or election-law violations were committed.
The controversy comes during the campaign for Israel’s 26th Knesset, as election officials deal with a range of questions involving election integrity, voting rights and attempts to improperly influence participation in the democratic process.
Satmar has long maintained a stringent ideological opposition to participation in Israeli elections, and members of the community have traditionally been urged not to vote. The current controversy, however, centers on the separate legal question of whether money or other material benefits may be connected to an individual’s commitment to abstain from voting.
While Sohlberg left the legality of the alleged payments for law-enforcement authorities to examine, he was unequivocal about the voters themselves: accepting money and promising not to vote does not legally surrender a person’s right to cast a ballot.
{Matzav.com}
