The Likud and Religious Zionist Party (RZP) approved on Monday evening a "softened" version of the bill to change the Judicial Appointments Committee, which enables the coalition to appoint two High Court justices per Knesset term without the approval of the opposition, the parties announced in statements on Monday evening.
According to the new proposal, which was first presented by Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee chairman MK Simcha Rothman on Sunday evening and adapted by all of the coalition leaders late Sunday night, the Judicial Appointments Committee will include 11 members instead of the current nine, while six out of the eleven will come from coalition parties – three ministers and three Knesset members.
The remaining five are two opposition Knesset members and three judges, one of whom is the Chief Justice.
For appointments to the High Court, the other two justices would also be High Court judges, but for lower courts, the two would be replaced by a district court president and a magistrate’s court president. Appointments for lower courts require a majority of seven out of eleven, but High Court appointments would require a simple majority of six.
This gives the coalition an automatic majority, but the coalition will only be able to choose two High Court Justices per term without the approval of the opposition. A third appointment in a given Knesset term requires the approval of an opposition MK, and a fourth appointment also requires the approval of one of the judges.
Current Israeli judicial law
According to Israeli Law, High Court judges retire automatically when they turn 70. Two judges, Chief Justice Esther Hayut and Justice Anat Baron, are scheduled to retire in October. The coalition will thus control the appointments to both vacancies. The next vacancy is scheduled a year later, in October 2024.
The new proposal will be voted on in the Constitution committee as early as Tuesday. It then will need to pass second and third reading on the Knesset floor, after which it will become law.
The Likud said in a statement following the vote, which passed "overwhelmingly, that the "return the balance to the Judicial Appointments Committee and cancels the undemocratic situation where the judges appoint themselves."
"This method, in which public representatives choose the judges, is used in nearly every democracy in the world. The claim that cancelling the mechanism whereby judges appoint themselves is 'the end of democracy' – is baseless," the Likud said in a statement after its vote on Monday night.
"The law does not allow for the takeover of the court by the coalition or opposition, but rather promises that the makeup of the judges will be varied," the Likud said.
Contrary to the statement, judges in Israel do not appoint themselves. Since 2008, High Court appointments, for example, require a majority of seven out of nine committee members. There are only three judges on the committee. The rest is made up of two ministers, two Knesset members and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association. The judges thus have veto power over appointments to the High Court, but no judges can be appointed to the High Court without the politician's support.
RZP said in a statement that the amendment would "bring real change responsibly, and vary the makeup of the High Court such that there will be representation for all sectors of Israeli society."
Vote passes despite criticism
The Likud vote passed despite criticism from a number of MKs earlier on Monday, as it still left an opening for the courts and opposition to enjoy veto power from the third judge appointed in one Knesset term and onwards.
Likud Ministers and MKs to make this argument publicly or on social media included May Golan, David Amsalem, Moshe Sa'ada, Tali Gottliv, Hanoch Milvetsky and others. Golan even threatened that she would not vote to support the bill if it remained based on the new proposal.
MKs from Otzma Yehudit, including MK Almog Cohen and Yizhak Kroyzer, and Noam MK Avi Maoz also criticized the new proposal. Maoz announced that in the coming week he would not commit to coalition discipline, and would vote as he saw fit. He explained his decision as coming both because of the new proposal and what he argued was the government's insufficient response to recent terror attacks.