Who Has the Authority to Investigate Suspected Offenses Regarding Election Integrity?

Following reports of disputes among different authorities over the investigation of suspected offenses regarding election integrity, this explainer lays out how is authority divided between law enforcement agencies and the Central Elections Committee.

Photo by Olivier Fitoussi/POOL

Does the Central Elections Committee have the authority to initiate criminal investigations into offenses affecting election integrity?

Under the Knesset Elections Law, the Central Elections Committee has no authority to initiate criminal investigations. As Justice (ret.) Hanan Melcer, former Deputy President of the Supreme Court and chair of the Central Elections Committee for the 22nd Knesset, previously explained, the Committee is responsible for safeguarding the integrity of elections in the administrative sphere (conducting the electoral process, carrying out procedures to verify the validity of election results, and so forth). Law enforcement authorities, by contrast, are responsible for safeguarding electoral integrity in the criminal sphere, particularly by investigating whether offenses such as electoral bribery have been committed.

In some cases, the Central Elections Committee's administrative checks have uncovered irregularities that raised suspicions of criminal conduct. For example, the number of ballot envelopes in a ballot box may exceed the number of voters recorded as having voted. In such cases, the Committee chair has sometimes decided to exclude the results of the affected polling stations from the official election results. The Committee has also, on occasion, filed complaints with the police, who then pursued the matter through criminal investigations.

Is the Attorney General's approval required to interrogate Members of Knesset?

The law requires the approval of the Attorney General, who heads the criminal prosecution system, before certain officeholders, such as the prime minister and judges, may be investigated. Beyond these cases, it is customary to seek the approval of the State Attorney, and sometimes even the Attorney General, when there is an intention to open a criminal investigation against senior officials in the branches of government, even where there is no explicit statutory requirement to do so.

This is also the practice with respect to investigations involving Members of Knesset. Under police procedures and the Attorney General's guidelines, approval must be obtained from the head of the Israel Police's Investigations and Intelligence Division, and the Attorney General must be notified. In practice, however, her approval is required.

Who generally determines whether an investigation is classified as criminal or security-related?

Under the law, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) has investigative authority over certain offenses, but not over the full range of criminal offenses that the police are authorized to investigate. The Shin Bet's investigative powers concern security-related and nationalist offenses, particularly offenses intended to undermine state security, the democratic system of government, or its institutions.

The powers available to the Shin Bet when investigating security offenses are considerably broader than those available to the police in ordinary criminal investigations. These include more extensive powers of surveillance and information gathering, longer periods of detention and, under certain conditions, the ability to prevent detainees from meeting with legal counsel, as well as other investigative and technological tools that are not available to the police.

During the investigative stage, the Shin Bet generally determines whether the suspected conduct constitutes a security offense falling within its jurisdiction or a “regular” criminal offense. Where the classification is unclear, the decision is made in consultation with the agency's legal advisers. In certain sensitive cases, the State Attorney's Office is also informed and consulted.

However, in cases where opening an investigation requires the Attorney General's approval, either by law or under her guidelines, she may also be the one to determine how the investigation should be classified, since that classification is relevant to the decision on whether to grant such approval.

At the prosecution stage, responsibility for determining the classification of the conduct and the charges rests with the prosecution authorities, headed by the Attorney General in her capacity as head of the public prosecution.

What options are available to the Attorney General when state authorities exceed their legal powers?

Although tensions sometimes arise between state authorities, law enforcement agencies generally operate in coordination with and under the guidance of the Attorney General, recognizing that she is the authoritative interpreter of the law for the executive branch, including the head of the Shin Bet. He must regard her legal opinion as reflecting the law unless a court rules otherwise.

Nevertheless, if a state authority or public official acts in a manner that, in her view, violates the law, she may take the unusual—though not unprecedented—step of petitioning the High Court of Justice.