Supreme Court Rules “Tiberias Law” Will Not Apply in Upcoming Elections
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the controversial “Tiberias Law” will not apply in the upcoming elections. The decision comes after a lengthy five-hour hearing in which the court examined the constitutionality of the law. The head of the committee responsible for implementing the law, Boaz Yosef, will no longer be able to participate.
The “Tiberias Law” was introduced by a local mayor, who claimed that the residents of Tiberias had urged its implementation. However, the ombudsman argued that the law provided an unfair advantage to certain candidates. Judge Noam Solberg, representing the majority opinion of the panel, stated that the law was tailor-made for a specific individual and was not in line with broader legal principles.
The legal adviser to the government, Waves in Harv-Miara, requested a postponement of the law’s implementation, leaving the decision to the court’s discretion. Judge Hayut echoed the sentiment that the law was personal and specifically designed for the elections in Tiberias. She questioned the justification for such a law, especially since it contradicted the principle of equality among candidates.
During the hearing, the ombudsman’s representative, Sharon Rotshanker, clarified that the law’s application should be limited to Tiberias. Foreign applications of the law, such as in the scenario of the committee head running in a different city, would not be permissible.
Attorney Ilan Bombach, representing Boaz Yosef, argued that even if the law was considered personal, it should not be repealed. He pointed out that the court had never struck down a law solely on the grounds of it being personal.
Judge Amit highlighted the law’s violation of the principle of equality and the unfairness of changing the rules of the game, referring to candidates switching roles abruptly. Judge Hayut pushed back against Bombach’s argument, questioning the suddenness of Yosef’s decision to run in the elections after the passage of the law.
In response to the ruling, the Movement for Purity of Morals, led by attorney Shani Iloz, and the Israeli Movement petitioned the High Court. They argued that the law was corrupt and had a detrimental impact on local government. The judges seemed sympathetic to their claims and indicated that they may reject the entire law, not just its application to Yosef.
The legal advisor to the government, Gali Beharev-Miara, expressed her opposition to the “Tiberias Law” as it currently stands. She believes that the law’s passage during an election period and its focus on benefiting a specific candidate are problematic. Beharev-Miara stated that the law should not be applied in the upcoming elections.
This ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding the “Tiberias Law.” While the fate of the law as a whole remains uncertain, it is clear that it will not have an impact on the upcoming elections in Tiberias.