Petitions filed to High Court against law overhauling judicial selection process

Three petitions have been immediately filed to the High Court of Justice against the government’s controversial law, passed this morning, to overhaul the judicial selection process.

All of the appeals argue that the legislation politicizes the appointment of judges and will, therefore, undermine judicial independence, which is a key component of Israel’s form of democratic government.

The petitions are filed by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), and the Yesh Atid party, and argue that the law, an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, in that it violates what the petitioners assert are the basic democratic values of the State of Israel as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

“The amendment exceeds the authority of the Knesset as the constituent authority since it is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, which does severe damage to the core components of the State of Israel as a democratic state, to the rule of law, to the independence and impartiality of the judicial branch, and the separation of powers,” writes the Movement for Quality Government in its petition.

“This change will allow politicians almost complete control over the identity of judges at all levels, create a dangerous dependence of judges on political figures, and cause judges to constantly fear that their independent rulings could harm their chances for promotion,” ACRI writes in announcing its petition.

“The Supreme Court is the last and only barrier against majority tyranny. The politicization of judicial appointments will lead to a situation where every judge, from the lowest ranks to the Supreme Court, will depend on politicians’ favor for promotion and will fear ruling against government positions,” ACRI adds.

Yesh Atid MK Karine Elharrar says that judges “must be appointed according to professional considerations, not political ones alone. They are supposed to serve the public, not the regime, to work in accordance with the law, not in accordance with the government’s authority.”