BySARAH BEN-NUN

JUNE 18, 2026 15:24

Updated: JUNE 18, 2026 16:45

The High Court of Justice directed the Knesset on Thursday to prepare for a fresh vote on attorney Michael Rabello's selection as state comptroller because earlier rounds had drawn serious objections.

Deputy Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg observed that several ballots appeared questionable from the outset and that lawmakers had disregarded guidance from the Knesset legal adviser by introducing a new allowance for filming.

The bench suggested a straightforward fix: repeat the process under clear and orderly conditions. Responses from the parties are expected by Sunday.

During the session the justices questioned petitioners, Knesset representatives, and counsel for Likud and the prime minister about whether the contested ballot that installed Rabello violated the mandatory secret-vote rule.

The panel, consisting of Deputy President Noam Sohlberg together with Justices Gila Canfy-Steinitz and Ruth Ronnen, is considering seven petitions that seek to nullify the outcome and require another round of voting.

Rabello, Netanyahu's longtime personal attorney, prevailed on June 3 after two rounds of balloting. Retired justice Yosef Elron led the first round with 60 votes to Rabello's 57, short of the 61 needed. In the restarted second round, opposition members charged that coalition lawmakers had been told to record their choices despite the secrecy requirement.

Once restarted, the second round produced a 61-57 victory for Rabello over Elron.

The petitions maintain that the recording of votes compromised the secrecy essential for independent decision-making. Additional arguments assert that Rabello's extensive professional connections to Netanyahu, Likud, the Prime Minister's Office, and ministers subject to possible audit render him unsuitable for the post.

Elron filed a brief supporting the claims of voting irregularities but stopped short of seeking the office for himself, instead endorsing the call for a new election.

Rabello state comptroller election faces High Court legal challenge

Sohlberg opened the hearing by stressing that the core question was whether any breach of ballot secrecy had influenced the result. He also noted the unusual circumstance of a recently retired justice appearing as a respondent, adding that the court could still proceed because a panel was required to hear the matter.

The justices expressed doubt about an automatic nullification rule for any instance of ballot photography, with Ronnen warning that such a standard might invite deliberate disruption.

At the same time the court pressed the Knesset side on whether the atmosphere in the second round could have discouraged lawmakers from breaking party lines.

Canfy-Steinitz observed that if the speaker had effectively created a new permission to document votes, the court must assess whether that step altered outcomes by discouraging independent choices.

She further noted that the envelopes themselves are meant to remain sealed and that any display of marked ballots outside the voting booth effectively removed the intended privacy barrier.

Petitioners' counsel described the filming as turning the second round into a test of allegiance.

Attorney Eliram Bakal of Yesh Atid pointed to vote shifts between rounds and questioned the sudden appearance of self-documentation. Ronnen countered that a second round inherently contemplates possible changes of mind.

Attorney Eliad Shraga of the Movement for Quality Government in Israel cited aggressive pressure that eroded Elron's support and framed the documentation as an improper loyalty check.

Knesset counsel Yitzhak Bart urged dismissal of the petitions, arguing that no proof existed of an order to record votes and that any such directive would itself be unlawful.

Bart added that the Knesset had checked with those involved and received denials. Ronnen pressed on the timing of seven instances of documentation that occurred only in the second round.

Attorney Ilan Bombach, representing Netanyahu and Likud, likewise found no evidence of improper instructions or pressure sufficient to change the result, attributing vote shifts to ordinary political movement.

On conflict-of-interest claims the justices appeared reluctant to disqualify Rabello outright before any mitigation plan had been reviewed.

Petitioners' attorney Amit Mor listed 55 matters in which Rabello had represented Netanyahu and noted additional ties to Likud and the Prime Minister's Office, contending that an arrangement would not suffice.

Canfy-Steinitz suggested waiting to examine any proposed arrangement, noting that conflicts are commonly managed through such measures and that outright disqualification on conflict grounds alone is rare.

Ronnen asked why Rabello could not simply be recused from specific matters rather than barred from the entire role.

The hearing was interrupted several times by Likud MK Tally Gotliv, who was eventually removed after repeated warnings. Rabello's preliminary filing maintains there is no legal ground to overturn the election, that his background was known beforehand, and that any conflict can be addressed by standard procedures after he assumes office.

The Knesset, Netanyahu, Likud, and Rabello all asked the court to reject the petitions.

The case centers on one of Israel's key oversight positions, as the incoming comptroller is expected to examine shortcomings related to October 7 and the ensuing war as well as ongoing disputes over prior audit attempts.