The Likud Court on Saturday night rejected a proposed clause that would have allowed the party to cancel its primaries during a security emergency, ahead of Monday’s Likud convention.
The court ruled that postponing the primaries should be the preferred option during an emergency and that the party should also prepare for electronic voting. It also approved allowing a candidate elected in the primaries to be moved to a reserved spot and authorized the placement of a New Hope candidate on the party list.
The Likud Court published its rulings on Saturday night on petitions challenging the party’s election regulations, ahead of the party's convention on Monday.
The court’s main decision was to reject a clause that would have allowed the primaries to be canceled because of the security situation.
'Likud is not a one-man party'
“There is no place to open in advance even the smallest door to canceling the primaries,” the ruling said. “This is not the way of the Likud movement. Likud is not a one-man party, and it will lose its vitality if it becomes one.”
The court ruled that selecting Likud candidates through primaries remains the proper procedure. The existing regulations already allow the election committee to change the voting date under special circumstances, and an emergency could justify such a change. The court therefore determined that postponing the elections should be the first and preferred option.
The court also ruled that the possibility of an emergency is foreseeable, even if it is impossible to know when one might occur. The Likud director general is therefore expected to account for such a possibility in advance when signing agreements with service providers and venue owners.
The party must also prepare for electronic voting if an emergency prevents voting at polling stations, the court ruled.
Although the Likud constitution does not currently permit electronic voting, such an option would be “a thousand times” preferable to not holding a vote at all, the court said. The panel stressed that the party must exhaust every possible means of holding the primaries. Should an unforeseen situation arise, the court would rule on the matter.
The decision noted that the Likud constitution constitutes a contract between the party and its members, as well as among the members themselves. Failing to hold primaries would therefore constitute a blatant breach of that contract.
Because an emergency is a possibility that can be anticipated, the court ruled that the conditions for invoking the frustration defense under contract law had not been met.
Regarding reserved spots on the party list, the court rejected attorney Nissan Benita’s petition challenging the authority of the Likud chairman to move a candidate elected in the primaries to a reserved position.
The court found no reason to restrict the chairman’s discretion, particularly when he seeks to give preference to a candidate who faced voters in the primaries over an appointed candidate. It also rejected a request to limit this authority to a single case.
The court clarified that the Likud chairman may partially or fully relinquish reserved spots and allow candidates elected in the primaries to move up the list, in accordance with the regulations and without triggering further changes to other candidates’ positions.
It also approved a clause authorizing the Likud chairman, in consultation with the party’s legal adviser, to determine the placement of a New Hope candidate on a joint list for the 26th Knesset.
The decision was issued even though New Hope remains a separate political party and Knesset faction. The approval was conditioned on the placement securing approval of the joint list and on every possible measure being taken to minimize harm to Likud candidates elected in the primaries.
The court also approved the addition of a clause that had been omitted from the original version of the regulations. Under the clause, the list of candidates selected by the Likud chairman for reserved spots must be submitted to the Likud Secretariat for approval.
The Secretariat must approve the list of reserved candidates
The ruling meant that the Secretariat must approve the list of reserved candidates.
The court also ruled by a majority that the temporary provision allowing the reserved spots could be put to a vote together with the election regulations.
Several additional petitions were rejected. These included a request to elect a convention presidium before approving the regulations, a demand to postpone approval of the regulations and hold the vote within 14 days of the Constitution Committee hearing, and a request to separate the Judea and Samaria district from the joint district that also includes Jerusalem and the Shfela region.
The court also rejected a petition to move the Haifa and northern district to the position assigned to it under the 2022 regulations. However, it again recommended that the Constitution Committee move the district several places higher on the list, at its discretion.
The court ultimately left most of the regulations intact and approved specific provisions concerning reserved spots and the placement of candidates on the party list. However, it ruled unequivocally that the regulations should not create an opening in advance for canceling the primaries because of the security situation.