With a controversial bill to stipulate a definition of antisemitism in Wisconsin law now heading to the desk of Gov. Tony Evers, opponents have stepped up a campaign against the legislation.

The measure, AB 446, would incorporate in state law a definition of antisemitism that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in May 2016.

If enacted, it would require agencies to apply the alliance’s definition when evaluating claims of racial, religious or ethnic discrimination. The definition also would be used in decisions on enhanced penalties for crimes that target people or property based on race, religion, color or national origin.

The Assembly passed the bill Feb. 17 on a vote of 66-33 that split the body’s Democratic caucus.

The state Senate concurred Tuesday in a voice vote with no debate, a day after more than 40 organizations published an open letter urging the body to reject the bill and Evers to veto it. The letter was endorsed by organizations including Citizen Action of Wisconsin, the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, the faith-based social justice group WISDOM and many more, including Muslim groups, Jewish peace groups and an assortment of other organizations.

Proponents have said the legislation is needed to draw a line against an increase in antisemitic incidents. Opponents argued that the bill infringed on free speech by conflating prejudice against Jews with criticism of Israel’s government.

Public hearings in both the Senate and the Assembly drew impassioned testimony both for and against the bill, and critics as well as supporters included prominent Jewish leaders.

The coalition letter sent Monday asserted that “there is overwhelming evidence that codifying IHRA is unconstitutional, reproduces anti-Palestinian racism, and is unnecessary and harmful to public institutions.” Its citations included a brief published by the Center for Security, Race and Rights at Rutgers University Law School in New Jersey.

Both supporters and critics have made their arguments in the context of the attack on Oct. 7, 2023, by the Palestinian political and military organization Hamas and the subsequent Israeli military attacks on the Palestinian territory of Gaza.

Proponents have cited statistics showing a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents across the country, including what they described as antisemitic actions on college campuses during demonstrations opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Opponents have warned that the IHRA definition could be used to criminalize protesters who publicly criticize the Israeli government, and said that examples incorporated in the IHRA definition omit major forms and sources of antisemitism.

Supporters have highlighted language in the bill stating that it may not be construed to infringe on First Amendment rights or to conflict with federal or state antidiscrimination laws. Opponents have dismissed that disclaimer as meaningless and ineffectual, however.

On the day that the Assembly voted on the legislation, its author, Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), amended it with a declaration that “nothing in [the measure] may be construed to create any additional civil or criminal penalty, including for activity protected under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution at any public school in this state or at any University of Wisconsin System institution or technical college.”

The opposition coalition’s letter also dismissed that provision. “When legislation requires an emergency disclaimer clarifying that it is not meant to criminalize students, that alone reveals the inherent danger embedded in the bill’s structure,” the letter declared. “The need for this language underscores what critics have warned all along: the bills were designed to invite punitive enforcement and chill protected speech.”

In an email inquiry sent Thursday morning, the Wisconsin Examiner asked the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, one of the primary advocates for the legislation, about efforts that proponents were making to appeal to Evers to sign the bill.

The federation’s communications director, Jeff Jones, replied Friday, including links to the federation’s FAQ on the legislation as well as its statement on the Senate’s passage of the bill.

“We worked with lawmakers to help develop a bipartisan bill with both parties having consensus and confidence that the governor will sign it into law,” Jones wrote in an email message.

This report has been updated with the response Friday of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation.

The Wisconsin Assembly will vote Tuesday on a bill that would define antisemitism and that has prompted deep divisions — including among Jewish leaders, who are found among both the supporters and opponents of the measure.

Proponents of the legislation contend it is needed to take a stand against a surge in antisemitic actions, on college campuses as well as in other contexts.

Critics, however, argue that the bill would criminalize political speech critical of Israeli actions, most recently in the ongoing conflict in Gaza — which has also divided the Jewish community.

The bill would codify in Wisconsin law a definition of antisemitism that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016.

The definition states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The IHRA has also published a list of bullet points as “contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere…”

The legislation, AB 446, requires local and state governmental agencies to consider the IHRA definition “including its examples” when investigating allegations of racial, religious or ethnic discrimination. Its Senate companion is SB 445.

The definition would also be used to determine “enhanced criminal penalties for criminal offenses” if a defendant is found to target a victim “because of the victim’s or group of victims’ actual or perceived race, religion, color, or national origin.”

The bill “doesn’t create any new criminal penalty or compel any legal proceeding to be initiated,” testified its Assembly author, Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), at public hearings on the measure. “Rather, it provides a standard to be used in evaluating whether an alleged criminal act as provided for under current law was motivated by antisemitism.”

Both the IHRA’s examples and the bill’s criminal penalty language have become key points of criticism for the legislation’s opponents, however. Rabbis have testified both in favor of the legislation and against it.

“Nothing about this bill would prevent me, or anyone else, from rebuking Israel for its actions when conscience demands it,” said Rabbi Noah Chertkoff, who serves a congregation in the Milwaukee suburb of Fox Point, testifying in support of the bill at its Jan. 28 state Senate hearing.

At the same hearing, Rabbi Dena Feingold, the retired leader of a Kenosha congregation, called the IHRA definition “highly controversial and problematic in a number of respects” in her opposition testimony.

“It is far from universally accepted within the Jewish community, and many scholars and leaders have outright rejected it,” Feingold said.

The number of examples offered by the IHRA treating “anti-Israel rhetoric as antisemitism gives the impression that anti-Israel critics and protesters are by far the most likely sources of antisemitism in America,” Feingold added. “On the contrary, I believe that racists and white nationalists are the largest sources of antisemitism in this country.”

The legislation’s sponsor list is heavily Republican. A handful of Democrats in both chambers have signed on, but some have subsequently withdrawn their support.

At both the Assembly public hearing in October and the state Senate hearing in January, witnesses supporting the bill described increased antisemitic violence and actions, particularly since the massacre of more than 1,200 people in an attack on a music festival in Israel by the Palestinian political and military group Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023.

Ari Friedman, executive director of the Jewish Security Network, said at the January hearing that an audit by the Milwaukee Jewish Federation’s Jewish Community Relations Council found a 192% increase in antisemitic incidents in Wisconsin and similarly a national escalation in anti-Jewish hate crimes, according to the FBI.

The legislation “is not about suppressing free speech or political disagreement. Those rights are fundamental,” Friedman said. “But when expression crosses into harassment, intimidation and threats of violence directed at people because they are Jewish, it ceases to be abstract debate and becomes a public safety issue.”

The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism “explicitly does not criminalize speech,” testified the Jewish Community Relations Council’s chair, Jill Plavnick. “It provides clarity; helping schools, workplaces and courts recognize when hate crosses the line into discrimination.”

But Hannah Rosenthal, a former CEO of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation who served as a special envoy on global antisemitism during the Obama administration and also led the national Jewish Council for Public Affairs, testified in opposition to the bill in January, describing it as part of a Trump administration push to target critics of the administration’s Middle East policy.

She said the White House appears intent on using the IHRA definition of antisemitism “to identify individuals or organizations that disagree with the administration’s goal to fight any pro-Palestinian efforts as part of a Hamas network, and therefore antisemitic or even a terrorist.”

The IHRA definition “does include some very important examples of antisemitism,” Rosenthal testified. “But it is silent on conspiracy theories, the great replacement theory, white nationalism, Christian nationalism, deicide, blaming Jews for funding opposition efforts, and the like.”

(The “great replacement theory” is a conspiracy theory that “Jews and some Western elites are conspiring to replace white Americans and Europeans with people of non-European descent,” explained Rodney Coates, a Miami University professor, in a 2024 article for The Conversation.)

Advocates have pointed to language stating that the bill may not be construed to infringe on constitutional rights under the First Amendment or to conflict with federal or state antidiscrimination laws.

“It affirms that nothing in this bill may be used to infringe on free expression,” Chertkoff testified.

But Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, said that the bill incorporates the IHRA definition and its examples into Wisconsin’s antidiscrimination law — making what she called the “First Amendment savings clause” meaningless.

“Although the ACLU of Wisconsin appreciates the sentiment expressed by this provision, it cannot override the bill’s plain terms,” Merkwae said.