Public divided as Pittsburgh council hears testimony on two charter-amendment ordinances targeting discrimination and referendum limits

Pittsburgh City Council heard more than 20 registered speakers Feb. 3 at a public hearing on two ordinances—Bill 14-25 and Bill 14-26—that would place competing Home Rule Charter amendments before voters in the May 2025 primary. Bill 14-25 would add a new section (105) to Article I to bar discrimination in city business on the basis of race, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation, age, gender identity or expression, disability, place of birth, national origin or association or affiliation with any nation or foreign state. Bill 14-26 would prohibit use of the charter‑amendment process to add duties or obligations beyond the city’s lawful authority.

Supporters and opponents framed the measures as responses to a separate citizen petition seeking its own amendment (the “No War Crimes on Our Dime” initiative). Proponents of Bills 14-25 and 14-26 argued the ordinances would protect the city from divisive, targeted referendums and from discrimination against protected groups; many urged council to place the measures on the ballot. Opponents said the council measures could be used to blunt grassroots initiatives and raised questions about ambiguity, procurement impacts and compliance with federal law.

What proponents said: Jeremy Kazaz, a Squirrel Hill resident, urged passage and described both ordinances as “safeguards” against efforts that would use the charter-amendment process to harm communities and impair city governance. Marjorie Mann, also of Squirrel Hill, called the measures necessary to “strengthen the legal function” of local governance and prevent “deeply flawed and biased referendum questions.” Several Jewish community leaders—including Rabbi Jeffrey Myers and Rabbi Chaim Ganak—spoke in favor of the bills, saying the ordinances would help protect Jewish residents from antisemitism and keep city government focused on core services.

What opponents and skeptics said: Ben Case, an organizer with the Not on Our Dime campaign, and other speakers said the council ordinances looked intended to counter their petition and cautioned that the language might be used to block legitimate advocacy. Speakers including Addie Lord and Aparna Nigam raised questions about the novel protected class language “affiliation with any nation or foreign state” and how that could affect city procurement, union-preference policies or decisions about foreign contractors and software vendors. Several speakers emphasized the constitutional and operational complexity of ordering city departments to compile lists of companies with foreign ties.

Council discussion and legal concerns: Councilwoman Strasburger outlined the legal and procedural conflict she and City Hall lawyers have identified: if both the council’s proposed nondiscrimination provision (Section 105) and the No War Crimes on Our Dime amendment (proposed new Section 1102) were adopted, the provisions could be irreconcilable. Strasburger read the competing texts and warned that a charter prohibition on discriminating against persons or entities connected to foreign states would conflict directly with a charter policy requiring the city “to divert spending and contracts away from any government actively engaging in or facilitating genocide, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid.” She listed many major global corporations whose operations in Israel and other countries could complicate procurement if the citizen amendment passed, and asked who at city government would determine what is “feasible” for the city to implement.

Council and procedural notes: Council members present included Councilwoman Strasburger, Councilwoman Deborah Gross and Councilwoman Barb Warwick; Councilman Bobby Charles Wilson spoke in favor of placing the council ordinances on the ballot. Several speakers and speakers’ organizations asked council to vote 9–0 to submit the measures to voters. No final vote was taken at this hearing; council members said final votes would be scheduled at subsequent meetings and that placement on the ballot ultimately leaves the decision to voters.

Next steps: Council indicated it planned further consideration and potentially a final vote at an upcoming meeting; if passed by council, the measures would appear on the May 2025 primary ballot for voters to ratify or reject. Legal uncertainty over conflicting charter provisions and procurement implications was a recurring theme of the hearing.