Opposition MKs filed an unprecedented number of over 70,000 reservations to a controversial bill proposal to change the makeup of the committee responsible for appointing judges, which the coalition intends to pass into law in the coming weeks.

The exact number of reservations, 71,023, which can be construed as 7/10/23 or October 7, 2023, is intended to “illustrate the absurdity of promoting controversial legislation during a war, while hostages are still in Hamas captivity,” the MKs said.

The MKs were Gilad Kariv from The Democrats and Karine Elharrar and Yoav Segalovitz from Yesh Atid.

The Knesset Constitution Committee is set to begin voting on the bill. Once approved by the committee, it will head to the Knesset plenum for a final vote, after which it will become law. The coalition hopes to pass it into law before the Knesset heads for its Passover recess, which begins on April 2.
The committee must vote on all reservations, but the committee’s legal team will likely enable them to be grouped together to save time. Still, the voting could take days, and the opposition’s goal is to delay the bill as much as possible.
MK Gilad Kariv attends a National Security committee meeting at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament on October 15, 2024. (credit: Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
MK Gilad Kariv attends a National Security committee meeting at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament on October 15, 2024. (credit: Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
The proposal is a watered-down version of a highly contentious bill at the heart of the judicial reforms in 2023. The watered-down version was first presented on January 9 as a “compromise” between Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and earned the support of two bereaved fathers, former minister Izhar Shay and former Fire and Rescue Service head Dedi Simchi. Last week, Shay reneged on his support for the bill.
The Judicial Selection Committee’s makeup, since the foundation of the state, included nine members – three High Court judges, two ministers, two MKs (traditionally one from the coalition and one from the opposition), and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association. Under the new proposal, the two IBA members will be replaced by two lawyers, one appointed by the coalition and the other by the opposition.
In addition, according to the proposal, the majority necessary for High Court appointments will revert back to 5-4 instead of the current 7-2. However, each appointment will require the agreement of at least one representative from the opposition and one from the coalition. Appointments to all other judicial brackets will require the approval of one member of the coalition, one from the opposition, and one of the judges.
The proposal also includes a mechanism to prevent a deadlock in High Court appointments. If a year passes with at least two vacancies, the coalition and opposition will each propose three candidates, out of which the other side must choose one (along with the judges). Finally, the law will only apply beginning with the next Knesset.
Proponents of the bill argued that it was a good compromise since it did not give the coalition total power over judicial appointments and would only apply in the next Knesset.
However, its detractors, including the opposition, the Attorney-General’s Office, and a wide array of civil society organizations, argued that increasing political involvement in the judicial selection process will negatively affect the court’s independence, as judicial appointments will become part of political negotiations.
Additionally, they argued that the “deadlock” mechanism incentivizes the government to delay appointments to eventually force the opposition to choose one of its candidates and that the proposal unnecessarily gave politicians veto power over appointments to lower courts, which could delay appointments and prefer political alignment over professionalism.
Moreover, they argued that now was not the time to return to the judicial reforms.
Kariv said, “The proposed law to change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee is at the heart of the judicial overhaul.
Kariv claimed that Levin, Sa’ar, and Constitution Committee chair Simcha Rothman had “deceived the public when they talked about legislation by broad consensus.

'An extreme and unbalanced legistlation'

“In practice, it is extreme and unbalanced legislation that poses a real threat to the independence of the courts and grants the justice minister dramatic control over the selection of judges,” Kariv continued.
“We will continue to use all parliamentary tools at our disposal to delay and disrupt this dangerous legislation and send a clear message that even in the midst of the war, the judicial overhaul will face fierce opposition.”
In a letter to three MKs later on Tuesday, Knesset Legal Adviser Sagit Afik rejected an argument they made on Monday that the bill had not been prepared adequately and not all of the issues in it were sufficiently addressed.
She wrote that while the preferred option would have been for the legislative process to be longer and more comprehensive, the process was still adequate, and the bill could proceed.
Afik also wrote that out of the over 70,000 reservations, 46 were “substantial” and that she would recommend that Rothman address them appropriately.