votes

No clear winner has emerged from Israel’s election, with nearly 90 percent of ballots counted and both major political blocs falling short of the 61 seats needed to form a government.

The Israeli Central Elections Committee said on Wednesday that it had counted more than five million votes as of 9pm local time (19:00 GMT). Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc is on course to win 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot is expected to secure 48 seats.

Projections from Tuesday’s voting also showed that the Arab parties – the Joint List and Ra’am – could hold a record combined 19 seats.

Final election results could come as early as Thursday evening, though no clear winner is expected to emerge.

More than 500,000 special double-envelope ballots remain to be counted, potentially changing the seat distribution. These include votes cast by soldiers, diplomats and others voting away from their registered polling stations.

The vote – the first since the October 7, 2023, attacks and the Gaza genocide – was widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s premiership. The 77-year-old appears far from defeated, despite lacking a clear majority.

Netanyahu will remain caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed. President Isaac Herzog will begin consulting party leaders about forming a new administration next week, once the official election results are released.

Herzog has urged all parties to avoid another vote that would stall the formation of a government. But coalition building is the norm in Israel, and no party has ever won an outright majority in the country’s history.

Ahead of the vote, Eisenkot ruled out forming a minority government with Arab-led parties. Netanyahu has also rejected such a prospect.

As Netanyahu’s bloc is set to be the largest, analysts predict that he will form a unity government that could include Eisenkot. However, such an outcome is far from certain.

Eisenkot said in a post on X on Wednesday that his opposition alliance was now focused on the “heavy task entrusted to us – bringing change to Israel and establishing a Zionist mobilisation government”.

“This is the will of the people who expressed no confidence in the government of October 7th and the shirking, and in the bloc of shirkers in general. A bloc that is at the low point of two decades.”

Amid record turnout among Arab voters, Netanyahu’s Likud party accused Arab parties of stealing the election.

“The elections in the State of Israel were stolen by Arab parties that support terrorism and the elimination of the Jewish state through serious criminal offences of bribery, threats, violence, forgeries, and the use of prohibited software to mobilise voters,” the party said in a statement.

“The Likud party is transferring to the police, the Shin Bet, and the Central Elections Committee hundreds of testimonies and pieces of evidence regarding election theft in many Arab polling stations,” it said.

Israel’s predominantly Arab Joint List political alliance said in a statement published late on Wednesday by Turkish news agency Anadolu that preliminary figures showed Arab voter turnout played a decisive role in keeping Netanyahu and his coalition short of a parliamentary majority, while cautioning that the final results were yet to be announced.

Voters answered incitement and intimidation at the ballot box, it said, rejecting a “government of butchers” and its policies of home demolitions, racism and war crimes.

The Joint List said its electoral support reflected demands for political unity and a force capable of defending Arab citizens’ rights without concessions.

It pledged to work to remove Netanyahu’s government and prevent its return, saying it was ready to cooperate towards an alternative government.

Joint List leader Yousef Jabareen said the alliance could back an anti-Netanyahu government from outside, but would not join it.

A federal judge on Tuesday seemed skeptical of a Trump administration request to immediately block California officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the administration questions, but said he would not issue a ruling until Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter questioned how the administration had derived its list of suspect voters, worried about disenfranchising eligible voters, said the demands would represent a “monumental change” to California elections and suggested federal prosecutors bringing the case had other means of holding illegal voters accountable.

But just one day after a federal appeals court rejected the same request, Carter said at the conclusion of a 3½-hour hearing in Los Angeles that he needed more time to rule — except on one related issue.

“This court believes it would be wise — that it would be wise — that any threats to state and county elected employees cease immediately,” he said — a clear reference to federal authorities threatening elections officials with criminal penalties if they count any of the flagged ballots.

After the hearing, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, said he had made it “abundantly clear that American voters are being disenfranchised in real time,” and that the administration will wait to see what Carter says Wednesday but was likely to appeal the matter back up to the appellate court.

He also denied threatening state officials, despite the Justice Department having sent formal letters to election officials statewide last week warning them of criminal punishments, and Essayli reiterated that position Tuesday.

Carter’s hearing came after Monday’s decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — the reverse of what’s normal — because Justice Department attorneys had tried to go over Carter’s head after he didn’t acquiesce to a deadline they’d set for him to rule on their request for a temporary restraining order against the state last week.

However, when the three-judge appellate panel — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 Monday that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case given Carter hadn’t yet had the chance, the case returned to Carter’s courtroom.

And there, Carter — an appointee of President Clinton — seemed loath to rush to judgment, despite the Trump administration’s claims of urgency. He said the administration’s method for arriving at its list of potential noncitizen voters was unclear and that he would like to develop the record further, including by bringing in an expert for the court.

“What are these systems? What are the algorithms? How was this derived?” he said.

He also seemed unmoved by the Justice Department’s argument that the ballots must be segregated immediately to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted, and more focused on whether noncitizens who illegally vote can be identified and held accountable while avoiding disenfranchising legitimate voters in the process.

For those who do vote illegally, “you’ve got a remedy, for goodness sakes,” he told Essayli. “Go out and indict.”

The Justice Department sued California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter gave Weber and Logan 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters, whom McCotter described as “likely noncitizens.”

During the hearing, Essayli argued on behalf of the Trump administration that its demands on California and L.A. County were not onerous, could be complied with easily and did not call for ballots to go uncounted. Essayli said the federal government was in court “on a very narrow request for an injunction to separate ballots of those suspected of being noncitizens” only until the state can prove their citizenship.

He argued that the “reliability and credibility” of the federal government process for flagging the 20,000 voters is unquestionable — while also telling Carter, “We’re never going to stand here and tell you that everything is 100%.” He said every vote counts, as some elections “are decided by a handful of votes,” and that the federal government is simply asking California not to break existing federal law barring noncitizens from voting.

“We’re not telling California what they have to do. We’re telling them what they can’t do, which is just count these ballots without doing more to ensure whether they’re citizens or not,” Essayli said.

Essayli — who has aggressively sparred with California officials on social media for weeks — also argued to the court that the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since first asking the state to segregate the ballots, and that he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials have been on the issue.

Attorneys for Weber and the state said the Trump administration’s demand on the state “distorts several legal doctrines beyond recognition” and is clearly illegal, particularly during an ongoing election. They said the administration has provided no evidence that the 20,000 voters aren’t citizens, and has used “data and methods known to be unreliable.”

Michael Cohen, a deputy attorney general for the state, said the Trump administration questions California law that allows voters to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, while ignoring the fact that standard was set not by the state but by Congress.

Anne Bellows, another deputy attorney general, said California has an established framework for running elections, and the Trump administration is trying to “sweep it off the table and replace it with a new, unclear procedure in which the federal government can issue a list and require California to change the way a subset of its voters’ ballots are received, and whether or not they are tabulated,” which she said was illegal and a “recipe for disenfranchisement” of thousands of legitimate voters.

“The stakes here are enormous,” she said.

Attorneys for Logan said the Trump administration has made its demands “without any credible argument” as to how it is legal, that the “proposed remedy” it is demanding from the state is “vague and unworkable,” and that if it wants to question California’s existing processes, “the proper audience for that argument” is Congress — not the federal court.

Several attorneys for voting and civil rights groups also argued against the Trump administration during the hearing, including by arguing that its reliance on third-party data sets — including from Lexis Nexis — was not a trustworthy way of identifying whether voters are citizens.

The litigation is just one part of a much wider battle by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections nationwide, and particularly in California, including on the notion that state elections have insufficient guardrails to prevent noncitizens from voting. Elections experts say such fraud occurs, but is exceedingly rare.

While the 9th Circuit panel’s unsigned ruling Monday rejected the Trump administration’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, both judges in the majority — Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — wrote independently to make clear that they would have rejected the case on its merits too.

They said it ran afoul of federal law barring interventions in voting in the immediate lead-up to elections, and the U.S. Constitution, which reserves control of elections for the states and oversight for Congress, not the executive branch.

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, also wrote independently in dissent — arguing the federal government must “have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections.”

Carter previously rejected an administration lawsuit demanding California’s unredacted voter rolls as “unprecedented and illegal” — a decision similar to those made by dozens of other federal judges in other states. Federal prosecutors recently charged 28 lawful permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote. Some of those charged expressed confusion, said they had no recollection of registering or had never voted.

There are more than 23 million registered voters in California.

Last week, Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials in counties across California demanding they sequester any flagged ballots in their jurisdictions, and warning them that they could face criminal penalties if they don’t. State officials denounced the letters as a legally baseless intimidation tactic.

Federal judges also have slapped back executive orders in which President Trump demanded new nationwide voter ID and citizenship requirements, and blocked a Trump administration plan to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots for the first time.

Beyond the courts, Democrats and voting rights groups have been strategizing for months on how to prevent the Trump administration from interfering in the midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress. The Trump administration has said it is merely trying to enforce the law and ensure that noncitizens do not illegally vote and negate the ballots of U.S. citizen voters.

Polls show populist leader Aleksandar Vucic in a tight race against the anticorruption and anti-authoritarian movement.

Serbians are voting in parliamentary elections amid a mass student protest ⁠movement that seeks to oust longtime populist leader Aleksandar Vucic, who has held power as prime minister and then president for more than a decade.

The snap elections, called by Vucic in September, follow almost two years of student-led demonstrations against perceived corruption ⁠and creeping authoritarianism, triggered by the deaths of 16 people when a train station canopy collapsed in the city of Novi Sad in 2024.

The students have since gained widespread support.

A loss for Vucic ⁠would mark a profound political shift in the Balkan country of some 6 million people, reminiscent of the defeat of Hungary’s Viktor Orban in April.

But Vucic, who resigned as president in September to run again for prime minister, is a strong incumbent. Many voters thank him for pulling Serbia out of economic obscurity and ‌orchestrating a period of sustained modernisation.

“The Serbian election ⁠is shaping up to be a watershed moment for the country as the Student List mounts the biggest challenge against Vucic yet,” Mario Bikarski, senior Europe analyst at risk consultancy Verisk Maplecroft, told the Reuters news agency.

During the campaign, Vucic has promised higher pensions and public sector salaries, investment in state healthcare, and subsidies for young couples. He has balanced closer ties with China, a major investor, and Russia, Serbia’s traditional ally and principal supplier of natural gas, while leaving the door open to joining the European Union.

But relations with the EU have frayed under his leadership, with the bloc growing increasingly frustrated over a lack of reforms addressing the judiciary, the rule of law and corruption.

The Student List movement’s agenda focuses on rooting out corruption and improving schooling, while saying little about their international ambitions.

Their roster of 250 largely unfamiliar candidates, including university professors, actors and farmers, is led by cardiologist Ilija Srdanovic.

Opinion polls are predicting a tight race.

An Ipsos poll published on Thursday gives Vucic’s Serbian Progressive Party 47 percent ⁠of the vote to the students’ 40 percent, though other polls have put the students ahead.

Rights groups and activists say repression has worsened since the deadly train station canopy collapse, which was widely blamed on government corruption and sparked the student demonstrations.

About 150,000 supporters of the student movement rallied in central Belgrade on Thursday.

Vucic and his party have repeatedly denied accusations of repression, corruption and spying on their opponents.

The former president claims the students are funded by foreign agents in Croatia and Montenegro, a charge the students deny.

Close race expected as left-wing Lula seeks fourth non-consecutive term against right-wing Flavio Bolsonaro, son of convicted former president.

Polls have opened in Brazil’s presidential election, once again pitting left-wing incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva against a right-wing candidate from the Bolsonaro family – Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Some 160 million registered voters are eligible to cast ballots in Sunday’s elections, which will elect lawmakers, governors and senators.

If no presidential candidate wins more than 50 percent of valid votes, the top two contenders will proceed to a run-off on October 25.

Most opinion polls ahead of the vote showed a close contest, with Lula holding a marginal advantage over Bolsonaro that tightens further in a potential second round.

Lula, of the Workers’ Party, is seeking a fourth nonconsecutive term. The 80-year-old, who previously served as president from 2003 to 2010, wants to continue his series of social programmes aimed at addressing inequality.

Bolsonaro, of the Liberal Party, has promised a hard stance on crime and insecurity. The 45-year-old has also pledged close collaboration with the United States under President Donald Trump.

His father is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence over his role in a coup plot following his election loss to Lula by 1.8 percentage points in 2022. The far-right leader’s conviction and that of several military officers raised questions about the strength of Brazilian democracy, reviving past traumas of the 21-year-long period during which Brazil was ruled by a US-backed military dictatorship.

The presidential election has been dominated by issues such as crime, insecurity and the high cost of living. Corruption and concerns about US intervention in the country’s domestic affairs have also loomed over the campaign.

A recent survey by Quaest says violence was cited as the biggest concern by 31 percent of respondents, followed by corruption (20 percent), economy (19 percent) and healthcare (12 percent).

“The stakes of this election are incredibly stark because the candidates stand for such opposing visions about what Brazil’s recent history means,” Andre Pagliarini, an assistant professor of history and international studies at Louisiana State University and the author of a book on Lula, told Al Jazeera.

He added that while Lula embodies the “consolidation of Brazilian democracy since the end of the dictatorship”, the Bolsonaro family argues that “the institutions that Brazilian democracy has erected since the end of dictatorship are either rotten and unresponsive”.

With reporting by Brian Osgood

Voters cast their ballots for a dizzying number of officials across multiple tiers of government.

Polls have opened in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a general election to choose new leaders at the national and regional levels, in a vote that could affect the country’s European Union membership bid.

On Saturday, about 3.4 million voters are choosing the three members of the country’s multiethnic presidency, lawmakers for the national Parliament and heads of institutions for the country’s two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and Republika Srpska, which is dominated by ethnic Serbs.

Bosnia’s complex web of governing institutions was created by a United States-brokered peace agreement in 1995 in an effort to manage the ethnic divisions between Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats that gave rise to the 1992-95 war.

The major parties’ repeated focus on war-era rhetoric and division was frustrating for some voters, activist Adi Selman of the Karton Revolucija protest group told the AFP news agency.

“I don’t think these new elections in Bosnia will change anything,” the 34-year-old said in the northern Bosnian town of Tuzla, ahead of the vote.

“The choice is limited to political parties that have already been around for 30 years and basically pick up votes by harping on about war, tensions, divisions and the past.”

“Bosnia and Herzegovina is dead; it is an impossible country,” Republika Srpska’s former president, Milorad Dodik, told the final rally of his right-wing Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) in the entity’s capital Banja Luka late on Friday.

EU membership bid

In the FBiH, Bosniak parties are pushing for a stronger central state, with incumbent Bosniak presidency member Denis Becirovic pledging a renewed path to the EU and NATO.

The EU granted Bosnia candidate status in December 2022, but accession negotiations scheduled for 2024 were delayed as Brussels demanded the country pass stronger anticorruption laws and reform its judicial system.

Croat nationalist parties are also pushing for electoral reform, demanding a greater say in choosing the Croat member of the presidency in the entity they share with the more numerous Bosniaks.

Meanwhile, Russia is accused of slowing down the country’s path towards joining the EU, while also holding close ties with the SNSD, which favours secession for Republika Srpska.

This general election is the first in the country in which new electronic tools are being used to scan ballot papers and carry out biometric fingerprint verification in a move to reduce fraud during the election.

Polls close at 7pm (17:00 GMT) and first results are expected later on Sunday.