WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 991

Discrimination; adopting certain definition of anti-Semitism; stating purposes for use of certain definition.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Emily Gise and 1 co-sponsor

Defines a standard for anti-Semitism to be used by Oklahoma state entities in evaluating and addressing discrimination and bias.

Approved by Governor 05/06/2025
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 991

Bill Summary – SB 991 (Oklahoma, 2026 Session)

Main purpose and intent

SB 991 adopts a specific definition of anti‑Semitism for use in state contexts and clarifies the purposes for which that definition may be applied. The bill aims to standardize how anti‑Semitism is identified and referenced in state laws, policies, or governmental processes, providing a consistent framework for evaluating conduct or statements that may be discriminatory on the basis of Jewish identity.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definition adoption: The bill adopts a defined standard for what constitutes anti‑Semitism. This definition would guide interpretive and enforcement actions in relevant state programs or statutes constrained by the bill.
  • Purposes for use: The bill states the acceptable purposes for applying the anti‑Semitism definition. This typically includes use in analyzing or addressing discrimination, harassment, or other forms of bias within state institutions, programs, or official actions.
  • Scope of application: The text indicates the definition is intended for use by state government entities, which may include agencies, commissions, schools, or other public bodies when evaluating discriminatory conduct or policy effects.
  • Relationship to existing law: The measure appears to be a formalizing step, aligning Oklahoma’s legal framework with a recognized definition of anti‑Semitism for consistent application across relevant areas. It does not necessarily create new private‑sector duties but focuses on state use.

Who or what would be affected

  • State agencies and official bodies: The definition would guide how anti‑Semitism is assessed in state-relevant matters, including investigations, policy reviews, and enforcement actions where discrimination is a concern.
  • Public policy and programs: Programs administered by the state that encounter discrimination claims or bias related to Jewish identity may reference the adopted definition in their procedures and determinations.
  • Education and public institutions: If applicable to state education or public institutions, the measure could influence how anti‑Semitism is identified in curricular policies, student conduct, or campus climate assessments, consistent with the defined standard.

Significant procedural or timeline aspects

  • Legislative path: The bill advanced through the Oklahoma Legislature in 2025, with multiple readings and committee referrals, including Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight and Civil Judiciary committees.
  • Key actions:
    • February–April 2025: Initial readings, committee reports, and amendments; coauthorship added by several senators and representatives.
    • March 25–30, 2025: House passage on multiple readings and a general order; emergency provisions appear to have been considered but ultimately not enacted.
    • April 30, 2025: House passed the measure; enrolled and sent to the Governor.
    • May 1–6, 2025: Governor signed the bill into law; the measure became effective thereafter following the governor’s approval.
  • Effective date: The bill’s enactment followed gubernatorial action in May 2025, with the implication that the defined anti‑Semitism standard would be implemented in state use after signing.

Practical considerations and potential impact

  • Clarity and consistency: By defining anti‑Semitism and specifying permissible uses, the bill aims to reduce interpretive ambiguity in state actions and ensure a uniform approach to addressing bias against Jewish individuals.
  • Enforcement and policy shaping: Agencies would reference the definition when evaluating discrimination complaints or formulating policies, potentially influencing investigations, reviews, or programmatic decisions.
  • Training and compliance: Public entities may need to train staff on the new standard and adjust internal guidelines to reflect the defined scope and permitted uses.

If you’d like, I can pull the exact statutory language or identify any related implementing rules to show how the definition is framed and where it would be applied in practice.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.