The High Court of Justice questioned petitioners, Knesset representatives, and lawyers for the Likud and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday regarding whether the contested ballot that chose attorney Michael Rabello as state comptroller violated rules for a secret vote.

The session, continuing into Thursday afternoon, took place before Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg along with Justices Gila Canfy-Steinitz and Ruth Ronnen. They are considering seven petitions that seek to nullify Rabello's selection and require a fresh ballot.

Rabello, Netanyahu's longtime personal attorney, won the position on June 3 after an intense two-round Knesset process. In the opening round, former Supreme Court justice Yosef Elron obtained 60 votes while Rabello received 57, leaving both below the 61 needed for election as state comptroller. A second round followed, during which opposition members claimed coalition lawmakers received directions to record their choices behind the screen, contrary to the legal mandate for a secret ballot.

Once the second round restarted, Rabello prevailed over Elron by 61 to 57.

The petitions contend the ballot was not only politically charged but legally flawed, since recording votes undermined the confidentiality meant to let MKs choose freely according to their own judgment. Several petitions further assert that Rabello is unfit for the comptroller role due to his extended professional connections to Netanyahu, the Likud, the Prime Minister's Office, and ministers whose actions the comptroller might need to review.

Elron, defeated by Rabello in the second round, submitted a brief statement supporting the petitioners' claims about the alleged illegality of the second ballot. He did not request the court to name him comptroller but endorsed the call to void the election.

Rabello state comptroller election faces High Court legal challenge

Sohlberg stated at the outset that the main question for the court was the secrecy of the Knesset ballot and whether any breach influenced the outcome. He also noted the unusual situation of Elron, a recently retired Supreme Court justice, serving as a respondent, observing that the justices have friendly ties and prior work with him, yet someone must still hear the matter where potential conflicts exist across the bench.

The justices at times expressed doubt about the broad remedy sought by petitioners, especially the idea that any recording of a ballot should automatically void the election. Ronnen inquired whether such a standard might allow individuals to disrupt votes by filming their own choice and then demanding invalidation.

At the same time, the bench pressed the Knesset and respondents on whether events in the second round might have discouraged MKs who wished to break from party lines.

Canfy-Steinitz observed that if the Knesset speaker established a new practice by permitting MKs to record their votes, the court must assess whether this influenced the result in a way that could deter members who might have wished to depart from the expected position.

She added that the matter extended beyond actions behind the screen, pointing out that vote envelopes are intended to remain sealed. Where MKs displayed their choices outside the screen, she said, the situation effectively removes the screen itself, describing this as a more fundamental issue than self-recording.

Petitioners' attorneys maintained that the recording transformed the second round into a test of allegiance.

Attorney Eliram Bakal, speaking for Yesh Atid, noted that MKs altered their votes between rounds and that no account explained the sudden wave of self-documentation in the second round if it were truly unplanned. Ronnen replied that the existence of a second round itself implies some members might shift their positions.

Attorney Eliad Shraga, representing the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, stated that intense pressure caused the drop in support for Elron and that the recording created an improper loyalty check toward the prime minister. He likened MKs consenting to photograph their votes to agreeing that running a red light is acceptable.

The Knesset's legal stance, presented by attorney Yitzhak Bart, held that the petitions should be rejected because no proof existed that MKs were directed to record their votes. Bart acknowledged that a request or order from someone in a position to pressure an MK to document a secret ballot would be unlawful, yet argued no such directive had been demonstrated.

He added that the difference between the two rounds did not establish that an order was issued, and that the Knesset had consulted relevant parties who denied the claims. Ronnen questioned him on why seven MKs recorded their votes solely in the second round, asking if this suggested something had been communicated to them.

Attorney Ilan Bombach, representing Netanyahu and the Likud, likewise argued there was no evidence of an order to record votes or of improper pressure that altered the outcome. When Sohlberg asked why four MKs switched their votes in the second round, Bombach replied that such shifts can occur.

Regarding conflict-of-interest claims, the justices appeared more reluctant to accept that Rabello's professional links to Netanyahu demand automatic disqualification before any conflict arrangement is completed.

Attorney Amit Mor, one of the petitioners' counsel, noted that Rabello had represented Netanyahu in 55 cases, including civil matters and High Court petitions, and had also acted for the Likud, the Prime Minister's Office, and several ministers. He argued that a conflict arrangement would not suffice.

Canfy-Steinitz suggested the court might first await the arrangement, noting the common view that conflicts can be managed through such measures and that no individual has been barred from office solely due to a conflict, regardless of its scope.

Ronnen similarly asked why Rabello should be excluded from the full role if he could be restricted from specific matters.

Thursday's hearing featured repeated interruptions by Likud MK Tally Gotliv, who received a warning from Sohlberg before removal after another outburst. Rabello has stated in his initial response that no legal ground exists to cancel the election, that his professional history was known to MKs ahead of the vote, and that any conflict can be addressed via a standard arrangement after he assumes office.

The Knesset, Netanyahu, Likud, and Rabello have all urged the court to dismiss the petitions.

The case positions the court at the heart of one of Israel's most sensitive institutional appointments: choosing the state comptroller, who audits the government, public entities, and administration. The position carries added weight as the incoming comptroller is expected to address issues tied to the October 7 failures and the war, along with the ongoing legal dispute over the outgoing comptroller's efforts to examine those failures.