Arizona

Originally a bill about the right to a jury trial, this antisemitism redefinition bill requires the use of a distorted definition of antisemitism in hate crimes reporting and sentencing. Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights could be used as evidence of a hate crime or result in more severe sentences. 

The bill amends Arizona law to include antisemitism as one of the categories of discrimination for which the state must collect bias crime statistics, but adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its problematic contemporary examples, which include “[a]pplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The bill requires courts to consider criticism of Israel that falls within the IHRA definition as an aggravating factor for sentencing in criminal convictions.

This bill is nearly identical to previous versions, HB 2683 and SB 1143, which failed to pass in 2020 after civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech. The governor signed HB 2675 in April 2022, and it went into effect in September 2022. Related bills: SB 1713.

SB 1250 amends Arizona’s anti-boycott law (HB 2617 as amended by SB 1167) to include public universities and community colleges in the definition of “public entities,” that are  prohibited from investing in or entering into contracts with companies that boycott Israel or territories occupied by Israel. A federal court blocked enforcement of HB 2617 in September 2018, finding that the law would likely violate the First Amendment. Subsequent amendments removed the plaintiffs challenging the law from its reach by limiting its scope to entities with more than 10 employees and contracts more than $100,000. The law continues to require a written certification for state contractors as well as the creation of a blacklist of companies in which state retirement plans and public entities are prohibited from investing.  According to Mark Swenson, the Deputy State Treasurer of Arizona, who testified when the bill was introduced, the amendment was prompted by Ben and Jerry’s 2021 announcement that it would end sales of its ice cream in Occupied Palestinian Territory. In response to Ben and Jerry’s announcement, relying on the state’s anti-boycott law, Arizona withdrew $143 million worth of state investments from Unilever, Ben and Jerry’s parent company. Elected officials sought to close a “gap in public policy” by requiring public universities to be subject to the same anti-boycott law. The governor signed the bill in March 2022, and it went into effect in September 2022. 

This anti-boycott law amends Arizona’s 2016 law (HB 2617) 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 territories occupied by Israel. A federal court blocked enforcement of HB 2617 in September 2018, 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.  

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends provisions of the state’s education law to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill requires public schools, universities, and community colleges to treat antisemitic discrimination in the same way as race discrimination, but defines antisemitism to include criticism of Israel, including: “Applying a double standard to the State of Israel by requiring behavior of the State of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on the State of Israel.”

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires the use of a distorted definition of antisemitism in hate crimes reporting and sentencing. Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights could be used as evidence of a hate crime or result in more severe sentences. 

The bill amends Arizona law to include antisemitism as one of the categories of discrimination for which the state must collect bias crime statistics, but adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its problematic contemporary examples, which include “[a]pplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The bill requires courts to consider criticism of Israel that falls within the IHRA definition as an aggravating factor for sentencing in criminal convictions.

This bill is nearly identical to previous versions, HB 2683 and SB 1143, which were defeated in 2020. Civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech, and the bill failed to pass. A related bill (HB 2675) passed in April 2022.

Originally a bill about small business assistance, HB 2282 was amended in the Senate to become an antisemitism redefinition bill that requires public schools to use the distorted IHRA definition and its problematic examples of antisemitism when teaching students about the Holocaust. The IHRA definition would encompass nearly all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech. The definition includes examples that conflate criticism with Israel with antisemitism, such as “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” The amended version passed in the Senate, but failed to move forward in the House.

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires the use of a distorted definition of antisemitism in hate crimes reporting and sentencing. Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights could be used as evidence of a hate crime or result in more severe sentences. 

The bill amends Arizona law to include antisemitism as one of the categories of discrimination for which the state must collect bias crime statistics, but adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its problematic contemporary examples, which include “[a]pplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The bill requires courts to consider criticism of Israel that falls within the IHRA definition as an aggravating factor for sentencing in criminal convictions. Civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech, and the bill failed to pass both houses before the end of the session. Related bill: SB 1143.

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires the use of a distorted definition of antisemitism in hate crimes reporting and sentencing. Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights could be used as evidence of a hate crime or result in more severe sentences. 

The bill amends Arizona law to include antisemitism as one of the categories of discrimination for which the state must collect bias crime statistics, but adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its problematic contemporary examples, which include “[a]pplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The bill requires courts to consider criticism of Israel that falls within the IHRA definition as an aggravating factor for sentencing in criminal convictions. Civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech, and the bill failed to pass both houses before the end of the session. Related bill: HB 2683.

This anti-boycott bill prohibits state contracts with and state investment in entities, including sole proprietorships and non-profits, that boycott 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. It excludes contracts worth less than $1,000 or contractors who bid at least 20% less than other bidders. The bill calls for the creation of a blacklist of companies that boycott Israel and prohibits public retirement systems from investing in these companies. It also prohibits Arizona public entities from boycotting Israel, a provision aimed at discouraging divestment campaigns at public universities.

A federal court blocked enforcement of the law in September 2018, finding the plaintiff was likely to succeed in showing that the law violates his First Amendment rights and that the state’s continued enforcement of it would cause him irreparable harm. In 2019, Arizona amended the law (SB 1167) so it no longer applied to individuals like the plaintiff. The amendments altered the prohibitions related to state contracts, leaving in place those related to state investments.

This non-binding resolution targets UN-related accountability efforts with regard to Israel’s ongoing violations of international law, repeating Israel’s claim that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 will lead to increased BDS efforts and “will provide a ‘tailwind for terror.’”UN Security Council Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that Israel’s illegal settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The US broke from its practice of blocking UN accountability measures focused on Israel and abstained rather than vetoing the resolution, causing consternation among pro-Israel groups.