An Allegheny County judge has signed off on a move to strike a ballot question that would have prohibited the City of Pittsburgh from doing business with entities that have ties to Israel. But supporters of the effort say they plan to bring the question before voters in a future election.
“This grassroots coalition came together in a matter of weeks this summer on the energy of Pittsburghers who felt this was something we could actually do to support the people of Palestine,” said Ben Case, one of the founders of the effort, in a Monday-morning press conference. “Pittsburghers have a right to vote on where our tax dollars go.”
City Controller Rachael Heisler, who was a leading opponent of the proposal, called the move a “victory for Pittsburgh.”
“The proposed referendum would have been impossible to implement, a threat to public safety, and a significant legal liability,” she said in a statement. “I’m proud to have been a voice of reason challenging and defeating this proposal on behalf of City residents.”
After a brief hearing Monday, Common Pleas Court Judge John McVay signed off on a consent order, agreed to by both sides, withdrawing the measure. By that point, as WESA was the first to report, organizers from the “No War Crimes on Our Dime” campaign had already announced they would withdraw the petitions in the face of challenges about whether they had the number of valid signatures required to place the question on the ballot this fall.
They did so in the face of legal challenges, which McVay was set to hear Monday morning, filed by Heisler as well as by local Jewish leaders and the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh.
The opponents argued that roughly two-thirds of the signatures on the petitions were deficient, which would have left the effort well short of the nearly 12,500 signatures it needed. The opponents argued that the measure was antisemitic, and could pose a major threat to the city’s day-to-day functions if passed by voters.
Supporters of the ballot question challenged that, noting that some of their own members are Jewish. Case maintained that the referendum could be implemented in a “responsible and reasonable” way had it been approved.
“We're trying to make sure the city's public resources were not going to companies that are funding war crimes and apartheid,” Case said.
He noted that other cities, such as Hamtramck, Michigan, have banned the purchase of goods from Israeli companies targeted as part of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. That law has yet to be enforced, however, and it’s unclear whether it is in violation of a state law opposing divestment from Israel.
Case said organizers withdrew because they lacked the resources for the legal fight. But organizers said they’ll take this time to regroup and strategize about how to get divestment on the ballot in the future. And McVay’s order makes clear that the measure was being withdrawn because its petitions were deficient — a move that means the underlying legality of the measure itself has not been decided.
“We may have been pushed off the ballot today, but we're not going anywhere,” Case said. “We'll be back, we'll be stronger and will use every avenue available to us to fight for peace, equality and justice from Pittsburgh to Palestine.”
In a press release, organizers said the "sheer number" of challenges "added to the insurmountability of the court defense for the referendum."
They added that it "also enabled the doxing of public employees who had signed the petition." A small group of staffers to Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey, including communications director Maria Montaño, were among the signatories. Montaño resigned her position last week.
The Jewish Federation hailed the outcome, but its leadership sounded a note of caution as well.
“We won. That's the most important thing,” Federation president Jeff Finkelstein said after the hearing. Still, he added, “I really wish the other arguments could have been heard because they were so strong and I think would have set good precedent for the future. And we are worried about what the future could bring.”
