Bill

HB 4674 is an anti-boycott bill that prohibits state contracts with and state investment in companies, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel or persons or entities doing business in Israel or territories it occupies. Contractors must provide written certification that they are not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in such boycotts. The bill also calls for the creation of a blacklist of companies that boycott Israel and requires the state treasurer and state retirement systems to divest from companies on the list. HB 4674 also prohibits public entities from adopting policies that have “the effect of inducing or requiring a person or company to boycott Israel,” in an effort to target divestment or other BDS campaigns at public universities.

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends Virginia’s Human Rights Act to adopt the 2010 US State Department fact sheet definition of antisemitism, including the contemporary examples related to Israel of “demonizing Israel,” “applying a double standard to Israel,” and “delegitimizing Israel.” The bill requires the consideration of this distorted definition when investigating discrimination complaints under the Human Rights Act or in the context of public institutions of higher education, meaning that political speech supportive of Palestinian rights could be deemed unlawful discrimination in the workplace, in public accommodations, and in educational institutions in Virginia.

The introduced version of this anti-boycott bill prohibited state contracts above $10,000 unless the contractor provided written certification that the contractor would not engage in a boycott of Israel for the duration of the contract or hire subcontractors engaged in such boycotts. The bill was later amended and watered down to direct the Secretary of Commerce and Trade to work with the Virginia-Israel Advisory Board to implement practices to “ensure free, fair, open, and consistent business practices” related to BDS. Advocacy and pressure from grassroots activists, including the Freedom2Boycott – Virginia coalition (the predecessor of the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights), helped defeat the bill.

SB 219 is an anti-boycott bill prohibiting public entities from contracting with persons that boycott Israel. Contractors must provide a written certification that they do not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in a boycott of Israel. The bill excludes contracts whose total value is less than $100,000, contractors that have fewer than 10 employees, and those that bid at least 20% less than other bidders. The version that was introduced also applied to boycotts of illegal Israel settlements, language that was deleted in committee.

HB 488 is an anti-boycott bill prohibiting public entities from contracting with companies, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel or Israel’s illegal settlements. This bill requires contractors to sign a written certification stating that they are not currently engaged nor will they engage in boycotts of Israel or territories occupied by Israel for the duration of the contract. It excludes contracts whose total value is less than $100,000, contractors with fewer than 10 employees, and those that bid at least 20% less than other bidders. The bill also prohibits public entities from engaging in such boycotts in an effort to target divestment or other BDS campaigns at public universities. Because HB 488 excludes boycotts based on the specific conduct of a targeted entity and those applied in a nondiscriminatory manner, boycotts for justice fall outside its scope.

This anti-boycott law prohibits state contracts with entities that apply political boycotts in a discriminatory manner. Contractors bidding on or renewing contracts of $100,000 or more must provide written certification that they are in compliance with pre-existing California anti-discrimination laws and that any policy they have against a sovereign nation or peoples, “including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel,” is not used to discriminate in violation of those anti-discrimination laws. Boycotts for Palestinian rights based on an entity’s complicity in Israel’s violations do not discriminate against a protected class and thus fall outside the scope of the bill. However, the lawmakers who put forward these bills have stated their intent to exclude individuals and companies engaged in boycotts for Palestinian rights from state contracts. 

Since it was first introduced, AB 2844 was rewritten several times. Called the “California Combating the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israel Act of 2016,” earlier versions of AB 2844 blacklisted and prohibited state contracts with companies participating in a boycott of Israel. The bill was whittled down following pressure from grassroots activists and after civil rights groups raised concerns that it unconstitutionally punished political speech.

AB 1552 is an anti-boycott bill prohibiting state contracts unless contractors provide a written certification that they are not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in “the boycott of a person or entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with which the state can enjoy open trade.” This bill excludes contracts whose total value is less than $10,000 and those that bid at least 20% less than other bidders. Because AB 1552 only applies to boycotts undertaken on a discriminatory basis, boycotts for Palestinian rights fall outside its scope. Despite this and the fact that Israel is not explicitly referenced, the lawmakers who put forward this bill have stated their intent to exclude individuals and companies engaged in boycotts for Palestinian rights from state contracts. 

AB 1551 is an anti-boycott bill that prohibits the investment of state funds, including state retirement funds, in businesses and financial institutions engaged in “discriminatory business practices in furtherance of or in compliance with” politically-motivated boycotts of Israel or territories occupied by Israel. To identify entities engaged in prohibited boycotts, the bill requires the state to rely on a federal report on BDS activities, but no such report existed at the time this bill was introduced. AB 1551 absolves a financial institution or business from the bill’s investment ban if the entity’’s governing body adopts prescribed language promising not to renew, expand, or engage in prohibited practices. 

HB 793 amends Texas’ 2017 anti-boycott law (HB 89) to exclude sole proprietors, companies with fewer than 10 employees, and contracts worth less than $100,000 from the prohibition on state contracts with companies that boycott Israel or persons or entities doing business in Israel or territories it occupies. A federal court blocked enforcement of HB 89 in April 2019, finding that the law would likely violate the First Amendment. These amendments, which are designed to remove the plaintiffs challenging the law from its reach, may reduce the number of individuals affected by the law, but fail to resolve the underlying constitutional issues.  

The amended law leaves in place the written certification requirement for state contractors as well as the creation of a blacklist of companies in which state retirement plans are prohibited from investing. Related Bill: SB 491.

This anti-boycott bill prohibits state contracts with and state investment in companies, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel or persons or entities doing business in Israel or territories occupied by Israel. The bill requires contractors to sign a written certification that they do not and will not engage in boycotts of Israel. The bill calls for the creation of a blacklist of companies that boycott Israel and prohibits public retirement systems from investing in such companies. 

A federal court blocked enforcement of the law in April 2019, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the law violates their First Amendment rights and that the state’s continued enforcement of it would cause them irreparable harm. Texas amended the law (HB 793) so it no longer applied to individuals like the plaintiffs. The amendments altered the prohibitions related to state contracts, leaving in place those related to state investments. Related bills: SB 29, SB 134.