A political fight over how Wisconsin defines antisemitism has landed squarely on Gov. Tony Evers’ desk, as a coalition of more than 40 civil-rights, faith, labor and community organizations presses him to veto a bill that would write a controversial definition into state law. The measure, AB 446, would fold the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism into state guidance and tell agencies to use it when weighing discriminatory intent and deciding whether to seek enhanced criminal penalties. The Assembly approved the bill 66-33 on Feb. 17, the Senate signed off in a voice vote on March 17, and it now awaits the governor’s signature or veto, as reported by WisPolitics.
What the bill would do
AB 446 directs every state agency and local governmental unit to consider the IHRA working definition, including its contemporary illustrative examples, whenever they evaluate evidence of discrimination under laws, ordinances or policies, and when they decide whether a hate-crime enhancer should apply. An Assembly substitute amendment added language that says nothing in the bill may be read to weaken First Amendment rights or to create new civil or criminal penalties, including at public schools or within the University of Wisconsin system. Those provisions appear in the legislative substitute amendment and bill text, according to Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 (PDF).
Who is pushing back
The opposition is organized and vocal. A coalition that includes Citizen Action of Wisconsin, Voces de la Frontera and WISDOM released an open letter warning that the bill would reproduce anti-Palestinian racism, chill protected political speech and invite punitive enforcement. The letter, signed by more than 40 groups from around the state, urges senators to reject AB 446 and calls on Gov. Evers to veto it if it reaches his desk. The coalition’s statement and the full letter are posted online, according to WisPolitics.
Supporters say it’s needed
Backers, including local Jewish organizations and national advocacy groups, argue AB 446 is a needed tool to help officials recognize and track antisemitic incidents and to respond to what they describe as a documented rise in antisemitic actions. Supporters say the bill supplies clarity and guidance for agencies while stopping short of restricting legitimate protest or academic debate. Those supportive statements and local reactions were reported by the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle.
Free-speech and legal questions
Opponents and civil-liberties advocates counter that the IHRA definition’s examples blur the line between protected political speech and unlawful discrimination, raising the risk that sharp criticism of Israeli government policy could be treated as antisemitic conduct. The ACLU of Wisconsin calls the definition overbroad and points to a federal case, Students for Justice in Palestine v. Abbott, in which a court found that applying IHRA-style rules to campus policy likely amounted to viewpoint discrimination. Those constitutional concerns, the ACLU argues, make the measure vulnerable to legal challenges and threaten to chill protected expression, according to the ACLU of Wisconsin.
Where it goes next
With the Senate concurring, AB 446 now heads to Gov. Evers, who must decide whether to sign or veto the measure. Supporters highlight the Assembly substitute amendment’s free-speech language and say it confirms that the bill does not create new penalties or censor protests. Opponents dismiss that language as largely cosmetic and insist that the way agencies use the definition in practice is what will matter. Those competing arguments, and the efforts to sway the governor’s office, were detailed in reporting on the vote. For background and coverage of the coalition’s push, see Urban Milwaukee and the legislative text referenced above.
Legal implications
Because AB 446 tells agencies and prosecutors to "consider" a definition rather than creating a brand-new criminal offense, much will depend on how state and local officials choose to apply the guidance. Critics say that opens the door to selective enforcement and future lawsuits. Courts have already signaled concern when IHRA-style frameworks are used to regulate campus speech, and civil-liberties groups warn that any punitive use of the definition would likely trigger constitutional challenges. The coalition opposing the bill has emphasized those legal risks in public statements tied to the measure’s advance, according to the coalition letter noted above.
.jpg){kind=link}