Bill

This anti-boycott defunding bill penalizes higher education institutions that use state aid to fund or provide funds for membership in or travel to meetings of academic entities that engage in or support academic boycotts. Schools that violate the prohibition will have the funding deducted from future state aid. The bill was introduced following resolutions by the Asian American Studies Association and American Studies Association endorsing the boycott of Israeli academic institutions complicit in Israel’s human rights violations. 

This affirmative bill repeals Kansas’ anti-boycott law, which had been revised in 2018 (HB 2482) after a federal court blocked the implementation of the previous version (HB 2409) on the basis that it would violate the constitution. Kansas law currently prohibits state contracts over $100,000 with entities, excluding sole proprietors, that boycott Israel and territories occupied by Israel.

This anti-boycott bill prohibits state contracts with individuals or companies that boycott Israel or territories occupied by Israel. Contractors are required to sign a written certification that they are not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in a boycott of Israel. The bill also precludes Kansas from adopting policies that have the effect of requiring or inducing others to boycott Israel, a provision aimed at discouraging divestment campaigns at public universities. Related bill: HB 2409.

This anti-boycott bill amends Kansas’ previous law (HB 2409) to remove individuals, sole proprietors, and contracts worth less than $100,000 from the purview of the state contract prohibition. The bill requires contractors to sign a written certification that they are “not currently engaged in a boycott of goods or services from Israel that constitutes an integral part of business conducted or sought to be conducted with the state.” Related legislation: HB 2482 (passed).

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 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 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 requires state entities to consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its examples related to Israel, in determining whether an alleged act of discrimination “was motivated by discriminatory antisemitic intent.” This distorted definition could encompass almost any criticism of Israel, and its adoption thereby encourages censorship of constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights. Related bills: HF 2303.

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires state entities to consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its examples related to Israel, in determining whether an alleged act of discrimination “was motivated by discriminatory antisemitic intent.” This distorted definition could encompass almost any criticism of Israel, and its adoption thereby encourages censorship of constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights. This bill was withdrawn and replaced by the substantially similar bill HF 2504.