Previous 11 / 12 Next

has defined 5 working days for challenges and the CEC shall issue its decisions within 5 days of the expiration date for objections, in pursuant with article 12. The law has allowed the appealer to appeal or object on his/her registration in the final voters list to the CEC within the relevant electoral district, and since the 11th appealer should have objected and challenged his registration in the final voters’ list within the legal period mentioned above, and then file an objection on the CEC decision at the competent court, but he didn’t and thus he lost his right once the legal period is expired and his request is rejected to be nominated as a candidate. Whereas, referring to the decision, the subject of the objection, about rejecting the whole list “The City for All” which includes the appealers from 1 to 12, when reviewing article 14, paragraph 5 of the local elections law no. 10 for 2005, this paragraph states that the number of the list candidates shall not be less than the majority of the seats of that locality and after studying the attachments of the electoral list nomination submitted by the first appealer, we find out that the electoral list includes 11 candidates and the fact that one of the candidates does not meet all the legal provisions does not disrupt the majority necessary to be part of the elections process in the capacity of electoral list after excluding the 11th appealer for the above mentioned reasons. Hence, the CEC decision not to accept the whole list is considered against the law and what the CEC did in this context is an interpretation not accepted by law. When the law states that dropping an electoral list, it specifies certain cases/circumstance where this is applicable, none of them were mentioned by the CEC among the reasons for not accepting the nomination of the list, moreover, the objection on the candidate’s nomination and not accepting him does not mean or imply to cancel and drop the whole list. What the CEC did in this case is expanding the penalty which the law does not accept. Every Palestinian who meets the conditions has the right to nominate in the local elections in accordance with the Basic Law which is the Palestinian Constitution, and do not enjoy the jurisdiction to confiscate this right from anyone without any legal document or justification, thus this is unacceptable and it is apt for cancellation. Wherefore, based on all that is stated above, the court accepts the appeal presented by the appealers from the second till the twelfth except the eleventh appealer, and

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

City for All List, et. al v. Palestinian Central Election Commission, et. al

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the error in registration on the voter list of one candidate from an independent candidate list should result in rejecting the application of all the candidates on the list, and thus the entire list, from running for election.

Alleged Acts: The plaintiffs allege that the Palestinian Central Elections Committee (CEC) improperly rejected the nomination of the City for All List (“the List”) for the Beituna elections because one of the List’s members, Hasan Issa Hassan Muheisen, was not properly registered on the Beituna’s voters’ list, but rather on the voters’ list in Ramallah. As a result of the rejection, the plaintiffs allege that all the candidates on the City for All List were deprived of their right to run for election.

Procedural history: The CEC rejected the candidates on the City for All List from running in the Beitunia, Ramallah, and Al-Bireh municipal elections due to the ineligibility of one candidate on the list. The City for All List, in conjunction with 11 members of the List as individual candidates on the list, appealed the CEC’s decision to the Electoral Court.

Summary: The plaintiffs are the City for All List and 11 individual applicant-candidates of the List who allege that the CEC improperly barred the List and its members from running in municipal elections because one of the List’s candidates, Hasan Issa Hassan Muheisen, was not registered on the voter roll in Beitunia municipality. Instead, Hassan Muheisen was registered on the voter roll in Ramallah municipality. The CEC refused to register the City for All List, the candidate Muheisen, and all other the member-candidates running on the City for All List because of Muheisen’s lack of registration on the voter roll in the Beitunia municipality, where they wished to compete in the election. The plaintiffs provide a series of reasons for contesting the CEC’s rejection. First, the rejection is generally invalid because the CEC did not address all the issues raised by the plaintiffs in their appeal to the CEC on 9/7/2017. They argued that the List was submitted properly and met all requirements under election law and that, it is the responsibility of the CEC, not the party or the candidates, to “verify and confirm that the nomination applications are complete and meet all the legal requirements.” The plaintiffs also stated that the CEC assumed, without mentioning proof, that the plaintiffs submitted the List in bad faith and for the purpose of getting around the laws regulating the election process. Additionally, candidate Hassan Muheisen is a resident of Beitunia and “was committed to paying all his due fees and taxes” imposed for misregistering on the Ramallah voter roll. They argue that an entire list can only be rejected in instances where withdrawing a candidate(s) causes the total number of candidates on the list to fall below “the majority of the number of seats allocated to the electoral district” in accordance with article 14, paragraph 5 of Local Election Law No. 10 of 2005. Therefore, Hassan Muheisen being kept on or removed from the List will not affect the legal order of the other candidates or the validity of the List at large. And, rejecting the entire List instead of only removing Hassan Muheisen violates Articles 14, 16, 17, 18, and 20 of the Local Elections Law No. 10 of 2005. They added that the rejection of the List violates the rights of the List candidates to participate in political life “in accordance with the principles of equal opportunities.” Finally, the CEC’s rejection does not safeguard the elections process, does not allow for a strong and competent local council and does not restore citizens’ trust in the elections process. In its decision on appeal, the Electoral Court cited Article 14(5) of the Local Elections Law No. 10 of 2005 mandating that the number of candidates on an electoral list could not be less than the majority of seats for the contested locality. Even though candidate Hassan Muheisen had not correctly registered on the voter roll, the Court held that the number of remaining registered candidates on the List did not fall below the required threshold. Therefore, the Court held that the City for All List was still valid and its members are eligible to run in the Beitunia municipal elections. The Court concluded that the CEC’s interpretation of Local Elections Law No. 10 of 2005 was incorrect and its rejection of the List partially violated the law. Consequently, the Electoral Court reversed the CEC ruling for the party and all the party’s members, except for the candidate who did not register correctly.

Conclusion: The CEC decision is reversed for all appellants, except for Hasan Issa Hassan Muheisen, and the registration for the City for All List is accepted to compete in the municipal elections.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Eligibility
Candidate Registration

Applicable Law(s): Article 14, Paragraph 5 of the Local Elections Law No. 10 of 2005

Region: Middle East and North Africa

Country: Palestine

Language of Decision

Arabic

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Apr 23, 2017

Geolocation

Latitude: 31.467569093559153

Longitude: 34.42376471221693

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

ELECTORAL COURT Case 4-2017.pdf
English
Download View

Supporting files

pdf

ELECTORAL COURT Case 4-2017 Dissenting Opinion .pdf70.87 kB

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

City for All List, et. al v. Palestinian Central Election Commission, et. al

Primary Documents

Supporting files

Notifications