Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demographic Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee hears arguments over adding Jewish identity as an ethnicity in state data
Summary
Supporters said SB 1387 would make California demographic data more accurate and help target services; opponents including Jewish Voice for Peace and several rabbis argued Jewish identity is diverse and not uniformly an ethnicity and warned of high costs and social harms. The committee moved the bill with questions about drafting and implementation.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee on June 12 heard competing views on SB 1387, which would allow respondents to report Jewish identity as an ethnic identifier in state demographic data.
Senator Stern's presenter told the committee that the bill would let Californians who understand Jewish identity through ancestry or culture register that identity on surveys, saying accurate data is essential for policy: “If we do not collect accurate information, it becomes more difficult to understand demographic trends, identify disparities, evaluate the impacts of discrimination, and ensure that government programs are effectively serving all Californians,” the presenter said.
Supporters included Jewish California and a long list of local federations and community organizations, which told the committee SB 1387 would improve service delivery and make underserved populations more visible.
Opponents argued the change is legally and practically problematic. Clyde Leland of Jewish Voice for Peace said, “I very strongly identify as a Jewish person, but it is not my ethnicity,” and warned the designation would be unworkable and could cost the state millions. Rabbi Kat Davis said the bill would collapse the extraordinary diversity of Jewish people and risk making some communities invisible.
Committee members pressed both sides on implementation details and the potential effect on existing protected-class frameworks. One member asked whether other states’ recent laws had produced usable cases or evidence; proponents and sponsors said the statutes are new and that the measure is voluntary and narrowly tailored.
The committee placed the bill on call for further consideration and asked the author to continue working on drafting to address concerns about how the new category would be defined and used by state agencies.
