Myths vs. facts
Claims about this referendum travel fast and there is a lot of misinformation out there. Here's what the record shows.
| "This is about free speech. The 2015 law is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment right to boycott." | This is false. The 2015 law only governs where Illinois pension funds invest. It doesn't limit anyone's right to speak, protest, or boycott. Even Palestine Legal, which opposed the law, said so when it was signed: the law "does not affect your constitutionally-protected right to engage in human rights boycotts or to advocate for boycotts of Israel." In the eleven years since, no one has filed a lawsuit claiming the law is unconstitutional. |
| "The ACLU supports repeal." | The ACLU of Illinois has never sued over this law. Its list of legislative priorities does not include House Bill 2723 or Senate Bill 2462, the two current Illinois bills calling for repeal. |
| "37 other state legislators support repeal." | While this is true, there are 177 legislators in the general assembly. This debate belongs in Springfield, where the bills are already pending. It does not belong on our municipal ballot. |
| "The law singles out Israel, and only Israel, for protection from boycott." | This law was passed in 2015 because Israel was and remains the only sovereign nation that is subject to a boycott movement. Illinois pension law already restricts investment for other reasons. Illinois funds can't invest in companies tied to state sponsors of terror like Iran and Sudan, or in companies on federal sanctions lists tied to Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. A separate state law bars pension investment in for-profit companies that contract to shelter migrant children (HB 3428, 101st General Assembly). |
| "The law costs Illinois pension funds money." | This is false. There is zero evidence of lost income tied to the law, despite repeated requests to repeal supporters to demonstrate their claims. Most companies on the restricted list are foreign, privately held (and therefore not relevant for pension fund investment), and don't publish audited financials, so determining how an investment in these companies would have performed is impossible. |
| "This campaign is not related to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement." | This is false. The BDS movement opposes almost all peace-making efforts between Israel and Palestine and supports discrimination against Israeli institutions. The local leaders supporting passage of the referendum have advocated in support of BDS for decades. The law in question prevents Illinois from investing in companies that ascribe to this anti-peace, discriminatory philosophy. You can learn more about the BDS movement here. |
Other claims you may hear
| "Voting no means you support the Israeli government or the war." | A no vote takes no position on the war. Neighbors with very different views on the Middle East agree on two things: this question doesn't belong on Oak Park's ballot, and it singles people out by national origin in violation of our Welcoming Village Ordinance. |
| "It's about a government, not about people." | Of every country in the world, the question names one. The boycott campaign behind it targets Israeli universities, cultural institutions, and businesses, which reaches Israelis regardless of their politics. When a ceasefire resolution came before the Village Board in April 2024, the meeting grew so heated that a trustee told the audience, "You will stop heckling our Jewish residents." (Wednesday Journal, April 11, 2024) |
| "The referendum has Jewish supporters, so it can't be discriminatory." | No one person speaks for any community, and a sponsor's identity doesn't change what the question does. Oak Park's Jewish community holds a range of views on Israel, but we've heard from hundreds of Jewish neighbors telling us this referendum is shaking their sense of belonging in Oak Park. |
| "The April township vote didn't reflect what Oak Park thinks." | Turnout was so large that the first meeting had to be canceled for overflow. At the rescheduled meeting, nearly 500 people came, and the measure failed 352 to 134, better than 2 to 1. The same organizers then came back under a new name to try again. |
Want the full argument, not just the rebuttals? Read why we're voting no.