Jewish Federation, city controller challenge BDS referendum question

Call it “Referendum 2: The Sequel.”

The Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh and a group of community leaders have filed a legal challenge to an anti-Israel referendum that the group Not On Our Dime — and its fiscal sponsor, the Project for Responsive Democracy — are attempting to have added to the May 20 primary ballot.

City Controller Rachael Heisler filed a separate objection to the referendum.

Get The Jewish Chronicle Weekly Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

It’s a rematch of sorts to a legal battle that took place last August when a similar proposed referendum was challenged by the same parties. That contest was settled without a court fight when No War Crimes on Our Dime withdrew its petition, acknowledging it fell short of the number of valid signatures required to get a referendum on the ballot.

This time, Not On Our Dime seeks to force the city of Pittsburgh to stop doing business with the state of Israel, or any company doing business with the Jewish state.

The proposed ballot question reads:

“Shall the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter be amended to align Pittsburgh’s finances with the City’s moral standards by: (1) establishing a financial policy to divert funds from governments engaged in genocide and apartheid — such as the state of Israel — and corporations doing business with them; (2) implementing investment policies with goals to reduce arms production and promote human dignity; and (3) increasing transparency of City business relationships and investments?”

To qualify for the ballot, Not On Our Dime was required to gather 12,459 signatures — 10% of the number of people from the city of Pittsburgh who voted for the office of governor in the last general election.

The group claimed online that it collected more than 21,300 petition signatures, nearly 9,000 more than required.

That number is disputed by the Federation. While Not On Our Dime initially gathered 21,416 signatures, the Federation alleges that 2,291 of those signatures were crossed out by the petitioner before they were submitted. Another 240 were eliminated after a cursory review by the Allegheny County Elections Division, leaving 18,885 signatures.

The Federation says that another 12,533 signatures must be stricken for being “in contravention of the requirements” of the election code, leaving just 6,352 valid signatures.

Federation includes in its filing several legal issues it says should disqualify the referendum from reaching the ballot, even if all of the signatures are found to be valid.

Legal issues include the allegation that the referendum is not about a subject “upon which referenda have been specifically allowed” and amending the Home Rule Charter to “prohibit the expenditure of public funds with the state of Israel and other governments that purportedly engage in genocide and apartheid and any corporation doing business with those governments” would contravene anti-BDS legislation enacted by both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States Congress.

Home rule charters are limited in their authority, the Federation states, and are only able to grant functions “not denied by the Constitution of Pennsylvania, by statute or by the municipality’s home rule charter.”

The referendum would also violate Home Rule Section 2962(f), which states that a home rule charter “shall not determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations or employers,” according to the Federation’s challenge.

By prohibiting companies from doing business with Israel, the proposed referendum effectively requires businesses to break state and federal anti-BDS laws, the Federation argues.

Moreover, the Federation avers, “no authority exists that grants the city of Pittsburgh the power to regulate businesses within or with a foreign state.”

If the referendum were to pass, according to the challenge, the city would be unable to “keep its residents healthy, safe and protected.” As an example, the city would be unable to equip the Bureau of Police, according to the Federation.

Heisler’s filing argues that the proposed referendum should be set aside because it violates state law; creates an undue burden on the controller’s office and city government; would significantly disrupt city operations; and the ballot question does not present voters with adequate information to understand the full scope and impact that the amendment would have.

“If this proposal were to become law, it would significantly disrupt the City’s ability to provide the essential services that residents rely on — especially when it comes to public health and safety,” according to Heisler. “The City of Pittsburgh is not the appropriate entity for determining and responding to complex issues of international law. It just doesn’t work, and it would be misleading to voters to suggest otherwise by putting this question on the ballot.”

Laura Cherner, director of the Federation’s Community Relations Council, said that the legal arguments in her organization’s filing are “very strong” and that the proposed referendum violates state and federal law. She referred to the ballot question as “broad” and “vague” with “sweeping implications that go far beyond Israel.”

Cherner said that Federation was grateful that Heisler filed her own petition because the referendum would impact “not just the Jewish community but the entire community.”

Federation is partnering with StandWithUs in its legal challenge.

Julie Paris, StandWithUs’ Mid-Atlantic regional director, said she is proud of the organization’s partnership with Federation and the Pittsburgh community that has risen, once again, to a challenge “presented by extremists with a radical agenda that have continually targeted the Jewish community since Oct. 7.”

“This illegal and immoral referendum harms not only the Jewish community but the city of Pittsburgh,” Paris said.

The Beacon Coalition worked with the Federation to review the thousands of ballot signatures. Jeremy Kazzaz, the Beacon Coalition’s executive director, said the work done by volunteers is “a testament to the strength of grassroots activism and the power of strategic coordination.”

“We built a massive petition review process to assist our partners in protecting all Pittsburgh residents, Jewish and non-Jewish, against this latest effort to spread extremist ideologies and to undermine the City of Pittsburgh’s ability to operate,” he said.

Not On Our Dime representative Ben Case said that challenging signatures “is a common tactic we see all over the country in places where people with access to resources want to prevent popular referenda from getting to the voters.”

Case took umbrage with the designation of Not on Our Dime’s referendum as part of the BDS (boycott, divest, sanctions) movement against the Jewish state.

“I think it’s based in a universal principle that applies right now to the state of Israel and that’s the main impetus for it,” Case said.

Ron Hicks, one of three lawyers working with Federation, said the case will be litigated before Judge John McVay Jr., who will issue a case management order soon, telling the parties what he expects from them in regard to the signature challenge and legal arguments.

The judge has not yet ordered a hearing on Federation’s challenge, but it is expected to occur sooner rather than later due to the need to print ballots for the May election.

Heisler’s case is scheduled for a March 7 hearing before McVay. PJC

David Rullo can be reached at drullo@pittsburghjewishchronicle.org.