Court fights are brewing over a proposed ballot question that would prohibit the city of Pittsburgh from doing business with entities that have ties to Israel. On Tuesday, foes of that proposal launched a two-pronged legal attack on the effort to put that question before city voters this November.
The Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh and a group of local Jewish clergy filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Tuesday, asking a judge to strike the question from the November ballot.
"The proposed referendum is not only illegal but also a dangerous and insidious attempt to target local entities connected to the State of Israel," said Federation president Jeff Finkelstein in a statement. "This measure will do nothing to impact policy in the Middle East, but it will impose an unreasonable burden on our city and its Jewish institutions.”
The filing argues that the proposal itself is flawed, as were the petitions filed to put it on the ballot.
Some of those arguments were made in a separate court filing by Pittsburgh City Controller Rachael Heisler Tuesday. In a statement of her own, Heisler warned that if the initiative passed, “it could prevent us from carrying out basic city functions” and “severely disrupt the City’s entire contracting process, causing tremendous inefficiency and creating a massive risk of financial waste.”
As WESA reported Monday, the legal fight has been expected since last week, when critics of Israel's war in Gaza from the “No War Crimes on Our Dime” campaign submitted hundreds of pages of petitions containing thousands of signatures from people who said they wanted the question on the ballot.
The ballot question would give voters a chance to prohibit the city of Pittsburgh from “the investment or allocation of public funds, including tax exemptions, to entities that conduct business operations with or in the state of Israel” until the war is resolved and Palestinian aid and autonomy are restored.
Both Heisler’s and the Jewish Federation’s filing argue that the proposal violates state and federal law. In particular, they cite a 2016 state statute, the Prohibited Contracts Act, which bars governmental entities from doing business with firms that boycott Israel.
The ballot question’s “clear intent is to compel businesses to cease doing business with or in the state of Israel — effectively to enter into a boycott or divest their interest” in the country, Heisler’s filing contents. “Entities will be required to decide whether to follow the policy of the Commonwealth or that of the City.”
The complaint also reprises a number of arguments that Heisler previously voiced to WESA: that the city lacks the legal authority to withhold tax exemptions for nonprofits, and that the measure would disrupt the city’s ability to obtain life-saving equipment and contract with the lowest responsible bidder. Heisler, the filing argues, has “genuine concerns [about the] amendment’s negative impact on the ability of the city to provide for the safety and security of all city residents.”
The Federation’s lawsuit raises some of the same arguments. It acknowledges that courts don’t generally weigh in on the validity of a ballot question before it goes before voters, but says that if a ballot question “on its face violates a state statute … then the legality of that question … can be addressed by the courts.”
The Federation filing also challenges the legitimacy of the effort to put the question before voters in the first place.
Under the state’s home rule charter law, organizers needed to gather at least 12,459 signatures — the equivalent of at least 10% of the city votes cast in the 2022 gubernatorial race. In all, more than 15,000 signatures were submitted, but after a facial review county election officials found that less than 12,900 of them were legitimate.
The Federation suit says that in fact, all but 4,866 signatures were flawed, due to a number of defects. Those include signatures that were illegible, or were made by someone who was not registered to vote in the city.
Such challenges are not uncommon and can be time-consuming to adjudicate. It’s not clear that all will succeed: Common Pleas Court Judge John T. McVay is set to hear arguments on the Federation’s objections next Monday.
Ben Case, one of the founders of the initiative, said he was aware of the filings but hadn’t read them in full as of Tuesday afternoon. He said he couldn’t comment except to say that organizers plan to defend the signatures they’ve collected.
