For chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Deputy Chief Justice Hanan Melcer, neither the political system nor Knesset elections are anything new. Before he was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2007, he served as legal counsel to Channel 2 and other Israeli media outlets and argued cases before Justice Dorit Benisch and the late Mishael Cheshin when they served as heads of the Central Elections Committee. The experience he gained in those years is certainly helping him navigate the current campaign. He is well-versed is all aspects of campaign law and has even opened all the committee's meetings to the media.
When he sat down with Israel Hayom this week, shortly after the Supreme Court gave Ofer Cassif of Hadash the green light to run for the Knesset while barring Michael Ben-Ari of Otzma Yehudit, I asked him if these rulings didn't make the Central Elections Committee – which had spent hours discussing petitions to allow or disqualify certain parties or candidates – somewhat superfluous.
"The answer is no," Melcer says decidedly.
"First of all, because the law gives the Central Elections Committee that authority. Secondly, I can say with caution that a few members of the committee changed their minds after the discussion. There is an interesting combination of two systems here, the Central Elections Committee, which is headed by a judge, and the Supreme Court, which serves as a framework for appeals."
The controversy surrounding the possible rejection of candidates from both ends of the political spectrum is characteristic of a campaign that is taking place in a tense atmosphere, with a lot of bad blood.
Q: Are you disturbed by the verbal violence and the loaded discourse?
"My colleagues on the Supreme Court who have served in this position [on the elections committee] as well as other people who were here, tell me that they don't remember such a volatile campaign in the past 20 years. It definitely disturbs and worries me, and as far as it's in my hands, I've tried to ensure that the discussions in the committee help calm things down. I've asked representatives of the parties to send a calming message. I've been told that in the past, the committee saw very harsh outbursts, which have been almost nonexistent this time. Sometimes, by taking things easy and with a little humor, you can achieve that."
The Elections Law states that no election propaganda will be broadcast in the 60 days prior to an election, but the public is exposed to propaganda on every channel, all the time, and in an era of social media, it seems like it might be time to refresh the regulations to keep up with the times. Melcer agrees.
"There is room to revise the Election Law, which is an old law from 1959, which has been amended. After the last election, a report was submitted that included some very good recommendations about the issue, but for various reasons, they were never moved forward."
Q: Three judges who formerly served as chairs of the Central Elections Committee told me that there is no justification for giving parties free air time to broadcast campaign ads, and that they should use campaign funds to pay for ads. What is your position?
"I hold a different opinion. I don't think that the ads should be cancelled because not every sector, and certainly not older people, has access to social media. Moreover, the ads allow the smaller, less well-endowed parties to present themselves. If we move to a system of buying air time, the bigger, wealthier parties will have an advantage. That system works in the U.S. but has a lot of critics, who say it favors the rich."
Q: Are you getting ready to watch the campaign ads every day and reject the ones that appear crude or inappropriate?
"I have no choice – the law requires me to. If the ads are high-quality, the job would be a prize, not a punishment."
The late Justice Mishael Cheshin, when he was head of the Central Elections Committee in 2003, stopped a speech by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon the evening before the election, explaining that he was using it for election propaganda. Do you behave differently because the step he took seems wrong to you?
"As a devotee of freedom of the press, I know that the law gives me the authority to stop a broadcast, but I prefer to leave it to the editors' discretion. I told them that I interpret the article forbidding election propaganda in the 60 days before an election liberally. If a speech includes content about news events, it can air, but propaganda can't – and sometimes, it's a very thin line. The moment an interviewee's remarks slide into propaganda, it's the editor or reporter's job to stop them. If he [the candidate] ignores them and keeps exploiting the platform, they need to tell him he won't be invited back until after the election. It's important to make it clear that if all hope is lost and I see that editors don't enforce that and politicians' appearances are used for propaganda purposes, I'll intervene."
Q: 43 parties will be running in this election, an unprecedented number. According to current assessments, at least 30 will fail to make it past the minimum threshold. Does the law make it too easy to set up parties?
"In my opinion, the current law is too liberal, and the phenomenon of people 'trading' in defunct parties should indeed be addressed. In my final summation after the election, I intend to recommend that the law be changed and that the conditions for founding new parties should be made more stringent. There are parties that are running just to enjoy their free seven minutes of TV time in the campaign ads."
As chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Melcer decided to make some major changes to how the results of election polls are announced. Among other things, he required TV and radio stations to note after every poll how and when it was conducted: whether it was conducted by telephone on via the Internet; how many people participated; and how many were approached by pollsters.
"The polls have a lot of influence on public opinion. I decided to create order and prevent manipulations. In recent polls, it turned out that 8,000 people were contacted but only 500 actually too part, because people aren't interested in participating in polls."
Q: How did you conclude that the polls have such influence on public opinion?
"Parties complained that when polls were published, they didn't include details about who would not make it past the minimum threshold, only stating that they would win zero seats – even though in fact they would win a few percent of the vote. In the next polls, they'd get fewer votes because the public thought there was no point in supporting them."
Q: Do you enjoy the role of head of the elections committee and leaving the Supreme Court behind for a few months?
"First of all, I'm not leaving it behind, I spend one day a week in deliberations. The activity of the Central Elections Committee is definitely a refreshing change. It takes me out of my routine and allows me to meet with politicians and all sorts of people as Knesset lists are submitted, and I certainly enjoy it. It's a great burden but there is a sense of responsibility and satisfaction. First of all, it's very important that the election be held correctly and fairly. As far as the results – they're not my responsibility."
