Wisconsin Doesn’t Need AB446
On Friday, September 19th, 2025, Assembly Bill 446 was introduced by Republican Representatives Ron Tusler, Alex Dallman, Barbara Dittrich, Bob Donovan, Rick Gundrum, Nate Gustafson, Dan Knodl, Rob Kreibich, David Murphy, Jerry O'Connor, and Chuck Wichgers and Co-Sponsored by Republican Senators Senators Rob Hutton, Rachel Cabral-Guevara, Jesse James, Patrick Testin, Van Wanggaard and Robert Wirch. Democratic Representatives Jodi Emerson, Sylvia Ortiz-Velez, and Lisa Subeck, and Senators Diane Hesselbein, Brad Pfaff, Melissa Ratcliff, and Jamie Wall have also signed on to this legislation. The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
What is AB446?
Brought to Wisconsin legislators by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and strongly supported by the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, an organization that supports genocide and that clearly does not represent all Jewish people in Wisconsin (see also the principled opposition by Jewish Voice for Peace), the bill is an attempt to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. Specifically (emphasis ours):
“This bill provides that each state agency or other body in state government, each local governmental unit, and each employee or official of the state or a local governmental unit must consider the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26, 2016, including its examples, when evaluating evidence of discriminatory intent for any law, ordinance, or policy in Wisconsin that prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin or that provides for enhanced criminal penalties for criminal offenses when the defendant intentionally selects the victim or group of victims or selects the property that is damaged or otherwise affected by the crime because of the victim's or group of victims' actual or perceived race, religion, color, or national origin. The bill specifies that nothing in the bill may be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution or to conflict with federal or state antidiscrimination laws.”
(Side note: the proposal would amend the state statutes to add this provision as 20.932, right below statute 20.931, which prohibits boycotts. This is notable because of the specific boycotts that are prohibited. Which boycotts are those, you may ask: the only codified prohibition of boycotts in Wisconsin, a state in the United States of America, specifically prohibits boycotts involving the state of Israel.)
Why is IHRA-based legislation bad?
Antisemitism, defined clearly in the Jerusalem Declaration (other examples include the Nexus Document and NOIHRANJ), is “discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” And while there should be no place in society for any discrimination, prejudice, hostility, or violence based on the inviolable identities individuals hold, there is clear value in society recognizing and naming institutionalized hate of specific groups. So just as slavery, anti-Black racism, Japanese-American internment, Islamophobia, the genocide of Indigenous people, and more here in the US will continue to require intentional work and must be named, the historical persecution of Jewish people and specifically the Holocaust require antisemitism to be defined to help identify and root it out.
But the IHRA legislation conflates antisemitism with the state of Israel. Seven of its 11 examples of “antisemitism” specifically reference Israel. And while the Federation claims that the definition does not limit free speech, in truth there are real life examples we can point to where it is being used to penalize individuals calling out Israel for the genocide it is committing. And in Wisconsin, the crime of Disorderly Conduct does not require threats, vandalism, or assault. All it requires is engaging in "unreasonably loud" or "otherwise disorderly" behavior to "cause or provoke a disturbance." That behavior is perhaps the minimal form of protest on issues of human rights. If this bill passes, Wisconsin individuals involved in protesting genocide, especially in an environment where any unequivocal assertion that Palestinian human life has equal value to an Israeli life remains somehow politically controversial, could face enhanced criminal charges.
There are many, many, many, many nuanced arguments against codifying the IHRA definition into legislation. The ACLU is against it . Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East (UUJME) oppose it. Kenneth Stern, who helped draft the language that became the IHRA definition, is opposed to its use in this way. At this point, one might ask who is for it: that seems to be conservative Christians and the Heritage Foundation.
And, fun fact, Wisconsin already has a hate crime statute that it can enforce if it wants to.
How can we stop this bill?
Some Wisconsin Democrats have already signed on, and more may do so. This is not the right thing to do, nor is a good thing politically. US public opinion has shifted towards Palestinians amongst Democrats and independents, and away from Israel. To ease fears of losing Jewish votes, let’s point to Zohran winning 43% of them. Polling data is what it is, but whatever it is, it suggests naming genocide is acceptable (for fuck’s sake) and that a strong majority of Democrats sympathize with Palestinians.
Let’s help these Dems understand what’s at stake here.
(If you’re up for an additional challenge, you may be able to convince some Republicans as well. There’s a reason Congress has yet to pass IHRA legislation, and free speech arguments may reach some ears as well.)
Call WI State Assembly Dem Minority Leader Greta Neubauer: (608) 237-9166
Call WI State Senate Dem Minority Leader Diane Hesselbein: (608) 266-6670
Call WI Governor Tony Evers: Madison - (608) 266-1212 / Milwaukee - (414) 227-4344
Example script (please try to modify it into your own words!)
“Please vote no on making the IHRA definition law. It wrongly equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, threatening free speech—especially on campuses and in advocacy. Where adopted, it has silenced pro-Palestinian voices and harmed academic freedom. Many scholars, legal experts, Jewish groups, and the ACLU oppose it. It is part of a broader push from the far right to label Palestinian rights activism as extremist. Politically, this could alienate young and progressive voters in key states like Wisconsin. A better alternative is the Jerusalem Declaration, which more clearly separates antisemitism from political criticism.”