Ballot questions that could block Israel divestment effort advance in Pittsburgh City Council

Two new voter referendum questions are a step closer to being added to Pittsburgh’s May primary ballot, after City Council gave them preliminary approval on Wednesday. The vote sets the table for a public hearing next week — a discussion that will involve the painful Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Council members said the two ballot questions are intended to block efforts by a local activist organization to bar the city from contracting with firms tied to Israel — even as activists maintain that council’s measures don’t conflict with their own.

Not On Our Dime has been collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to divert funds away from “governments engaged in genocide and apartheid — such as the state of Israel — and corporations doing business with them.” The stated goal of the measure, which the group hopes to put before voters on the May 20 ballot, is to “reduce arms production and promote human dignity” while increasing the transparency of city business dealings. But city officials have expressed concern that the Not On Our Dime measure defines “doing business” so loosely that any company whose products or services are sold in countries accused of human rights abuses could be caught in the ban.



And that would make it difficult to purchase goods and services the city needs itself. The first ballot question introduced by Council asks voters to amend the city’s home rule charter to prohibit discrimination “on the basis of race, religion, national origin or association or affiliation with any nation or foreign state in conducting business of the City.” The second ballot question would block any ballot initiative that could “add duties or obligations beyond the lawful scope of the city's authority.

" The measures are in “direct response to what I see as a threat to our ability as public servants to be able to fulfill the tasks that the public expects of us,” said the effort’s sponsor, Councilor Erika Strassburger. “The intention of this bill was to draw attention to the fact that we believe that the proposal being put forth ..

. would inadvertently force the city to discriminate in a way that we don't believe that it should. “I do respect the desire to keep taxpayer money from supporting human rights abuses,” Strassburger said.

“I believe that these proposals that we’ve seen from the Not On Our Dime are fraught with what I consider ill-defined standards and unreasonably sweeping reaches.” She and other council members want to ensure as well that the city doesn’t conflict with existing state and federal rules against boycotts. Council did make changes to one of the bills Wednesday, adding a number of other categories to the list of characteristics voters would be protecting from discrimination.

Those include: ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, gender identity or expression, disability, and place of birth. Strassburger said the amendment would make the ballot question more closely match the city’s existing nondiscrimination policies. Not On Our Dime said in a statement that their referendum and Council’s referendums “don’t conflict with one another” and could all appear on the ballot in May.

“We are happy to see that the City Council is interested in implementing stronger anti-discrimination policy,” the statement said. “We too are opposed to discrimination, not only in our city but across the world. We are trying to keep our tax dollars from funding countries that take discrimination to extremes like apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

“We are glad to see the City Council giving voters more opportunities to participate in policymaking, and we look forward to voters getting to decide on Council’s referred referendums as well as our citizen-led referendum this May.” Council took a preliminary vote on both ballot questions Wednesday. The first received unanimous preliminary approval, while the second was approved with 6 votes after councilors Barb Warwick, Deb Gross and Khari Mosley abstained.

Warwick said she worried that the measure could “limit our powers” to weigh in on crucial matters in the face of potential discriminatory policies at the federal level. Strassburger noted that the ordinance applied only to ballot questions, and would not prevent Council from passing its own bills. Mosley said he hoped for further conversation on how to bring together people with different perspectives on those concerns.

The bills are set for discussion at a public hearing Monday, with a final vote to put them on the ballot slated for Tuesday..