A proposed ballot question in Pittsburgh, which aimed to halt city business with entities linked to Israel during its military actions in Gaza, will be withdrawn after the parties involved agreed it lacked enough valid signatures. This decision leaves unresolved whether such measures are preempted by Pennsylvania state law.

Israel Boycott Ballot Question To Be Withdrawn : Lacks Sufficient Valid Signatures

In a stipulation reached over the weekend and formalized Monday by Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge John T. McVay, supporters of the ballot question and its challengers, including the city controller's office and the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh, concurred that the petition fell short of the necessary valid signatures. While over 15,000 signatures were submitted earlier this month, only 12,847 were deemed valid — below the threshold needed to place the measure on the November ballot.

"The ballot referendum petition … is set aside because it lacks the requisite number of signatures by qualified, registered electors residing within the City of Pittsburgh," read the court order. Consequently, the proposed question will not appear on the November 5, 2024, ballot.

Legal Challenges and Preemption Issues

The ballot initiative, spearheaded by the organization "No War Crimes on Our Dime," and backed by the Pittsburgh Democratic Socialists of America, sought to amend Pittsburgh's Home Rule Charter. The amendment would have prohibited the city from investing in or granting tax exemptions to entities conducting business with or in Israel until the nation ceased its military operations in Gaza.

Last week, Pittsburgh City Controller Rachael Heisler, the Jewish Federation, and local Jewish leaders challenged the initiative on multiple grounds. In addition to insufficient signatures, they argued that Pennsylvania's Prohibited Contracts Act of 2016 barred such boycott, divest, and sanction measures related to Israel.

Jeff Finkelstein, CEO of the Jewish Federation, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating, "We won on the legal basis that our lawyers had laid out," though he regretted that the broader legal arguments were not heard, as they could have set important precedents.

Israel Boycott Ballot Question To Be Withdrawn : Implications of the Withdrawal

Had the ballot measure passed, it would have required Pittsburgh to terminate several existing contracts, including those for emergency responder medications, fuel for city vehicles, and electricity, all sourced from companies with ties to Israel. The city controller's office had argued that the measure would have posed significant public safety risks and created legal liabilities.

"This is a victory for the City of Pittsburgh," said Heisler in a statement. She emphasized that the referendum, if implemented, would have conflicted with Pennsylvania law, particularly the Home Rule Charter's "business exclusion" provision, which limits municipalities' authority to impose restrictions not authorized by state law.

Future Actions and Legal Costs

The Pittsburgh Democratic Socialists of America and No War Crimes on Our Dime acknowledged the withdrawal of the ballot measure in a statement on X, formerly Twitter. They characterized the withdrawal as a "strategic" move and pledged to revive their efforts in the future.

Meanwhile, the Jewish Federation's legal team indicated that they might seek to recover their legal fees from the supporters of the ballot measure. Judge McVay has granted them 10 days to file a motion for such costs.

Legal Representation

The City of Pittsburgh is represented by Clifford B. Levine, David F. Russey, and Jonathan P. Sion of Dentons Cohen & Grigsby PC. The Jewish Federation and local clergy are represented by Ronald L. Hicks and Carolyn B. McGee of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, alongside Efrem M. Grail of the Grail Law Firm. The ballot initiative supporters are represented by Charles Pascal of the Law Offices of Charles A. Pascal Jr.