Last-minute cancellation of anti-Semitism definition vote sparks anger

Democratic Assembly leaders quietly decided last week that there would be no committee vote on a divisive bill to define anti-Semitism, angering the advocates and legislators who weren’t informed before Monday morning and potentially pushing off an already-tense political issue for even longer.

When the announcement was made late last week that the Assembly Community Development and Women’s Affairs Committee would hold a hearing on legislation that would codify a controversial definition of anti-Semitism, advocates around the state jumped into action, expecting a vote. By the time Monday morning rolled around, dozens of members of the public had arrived in Trenton to testify (many of whom rearranged work schedules to attend), demonstrators protested outside the statehouse in remarkable heat, and the bill’s sponsors were ready to finally see a vote after more than a year of inaction.

Instead, committee chair Shavonda Sumter (D-North Haledon) surprised the audience when she announced there would not be a vote on the legislation, further driving a wedge between Democratic lawmakers and some Jewish communities that could prove consequential in an election year.

Assemblyman Gary Schaer (D-Passaic), the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee on Monday that he believes there has been “ample time for members to debate the merits as well as the disadvantages of this bill or any other bill.” He told the New Jersey Globe that he didn’t know why a vote was not held.

“I’m a bit taken aback by the decision of the chairwoman and the speaker to hold the bill for discussion only,” Schaer told the panel. “As prime sponsor of this bill, it would seem to me that such a decision on behalf of our leadership would have included discussion with us, rather than showing up Monday morning to discover what it is.”

Sources speaking on the condition of anonymity said Speaker Craig Coughlin’s office had told some Assembly members that there would not be a vote on the bill on Friday. But several committee members, as well as the bill’s sponsors, only learned of that decision Monday morning.

Assemblyman Mike Inganamort (R-Chester Twp), the primary GOP sponsor on the bill, expressed similar disappointment.

“There was nothing today that was not known last week when the bill on anti-Semitism, for which I am a prime sponsor, was scheduled for a vote,” Inganamort wrote in a social media post. “To make the public and legislators travel to Trenton, and then cancel the vote in real time, is a slap in the face to everyone who worked on this issue, those who support it, and even those who oppose it.”

While opponents of the bill were relieved not to see the legislation pass, some still felt miffed by the decision not to hold a vote. Selaedin Maksut, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-New Jersey, the Garden State’s chapter of the country’s largest Islamic advocacy group, said he hoped to see the committee vote down the bill instead of delaying it.

“I find it amusing that those in support of the bill were disappointed and frustrated that the vote was postponed, because we’re also frustrated that the vote was postponed,” Maksut told the New Jersey Globe. “In fact, we’ve been fighting this bill and different versions and renditions of it for the past five years. There’s always new tweaks and different versions popping up, and we’re constantly coming to Trenton to fight for it.”

If passed, the bill would implement the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism into state law and require officials to consider it when determining whether a crime or other potential violations of the law were motivated by bias. More than a dozen municipalities in New Jersey have adopted the definition, as well as 35 other states plus D.C., according to the American Jewish Committee.

The legislation received tweaks before the Monday hearing, including the removal of a $100,000 public awareness campaign to train the public on identifying and reporting bias crimes.

Proponents of the legislation say the specific definition is needed to help state officials more effectively combat incidents of anti-Semitism, especially in the wake of the war between Israel and Hamas. Critics argue IHRA’s definition unjustly conflates anti-Zionism or critiques of Israel with anti-Semitism. Many argued that the country is committing genocide and apartheid against Palestinians, and they worry their speech could be chilled if the bill is signed into law.

Democrats, who hope to include the diverse state’s Jewish and Muslim voters in their coalition, have struggled with the issue. The bill was a divisive issue in the recent gubernatorial primary: Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, who is Jewish and descended from Holocaust survivors, said he thought the bill was not in the best interest of Jewish New Jerseyans and could harm freedom of speech in the state. Fulop’s comments drew disagreement not just from primary competitor Rep. Josh Gottheimer (who said the mayor’s comments displayed “ignorance”), but also from one of his own Assembly running mates.

In a social media post Monday afternoon, Fulop said Democratic lawmakers “dangle” the bill in front of the state’s Jewish communities: “All that the pandering does [is undermine] trust from both the Jewish and Muslim communities,” he wrote.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, the ultimate victor in this month’s primary, told Jewish Insider earlier this year that she would sign the bill if elected governor. The congresswoman voted for similar legislation in the U.S. House. Former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, the Republican nominee for governor, has also said he would support the legislation.

But even with support from some of the state’s top Democrats and co-sponsorship from 56 of the chamber’s 80 members, the bill has languished, alienating some Jewish community members who hope to see the bill passed from the Democratic lawmakers who haven’t cleared the way.

That disapproval manifested into action Monday morning, when more than a dozen proponents of the bill walked out of the hearing in dismay after the announcement that there would be no vote. The first testifier, Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey CEO Jason Shames, led the walkout, saying they would return when a vote was actually conducted.

“I am no longer going to read the remarks that I prepared, given the last-minute change to go from vote to discussion,” Shames told the panel. “I will express my complete frustration and feelings of disrespect regarding the fact that this process has not moved forward. You know the statistics, you know exactly what’s happening with Jews being harassed on the street all over the place just for being Jewish, not just for support of Israel.”

With that, a couple of dozen attendees stood to leave, including a couple who were seated at microphones and prepared to testify.

The walkout meant the hearing belonged largely to advocates protesting the legislation, including leaders of CAIR, local imams and Orthodox Jewish rabbis, Palestinian Americans, several Jewish activists, and a leader from the ACLU of New Jersey. A handful of supporters stayed despite the walkout and testified during the nearly three-hour hearing, which remained civil throughout the morning.

Despite also being on the docket Monday, the committee did not discuss a similar bill that would implement a state definition of Islamophobia for civil and criminal purposes. Maksut, the executive director of CAIR-NJ, said the Islamophobia bill is being used as a token, and he’d rather neither bill pass than both of them.

“It’s nice that they consider it, we appreciate the consideration of combating Islamophobia, it’s very valuable, but the way it’s being used as a total token to bargain is not acceptable, and we will turn that down,” he said.

For now, no further action is scheduled for either bill. And with a monthslong break planned for after the passage of a budget that’s due next week, it’s not clear when the legislation might be considered next. Members of the Assembly, all of whom are up for election in November, might be especially wary of taking a controversial vote in the fall, and very well might wait until the lame-duck session to take any potential next steps.

“It’s unfortunate that it did not get its day in court, so to speak,” Schaer said.