by Joshua N. Lief

In the high-stakes environment of the Virginia General Assembly, debate is expected to be vigorous. Whatever the topic, we rely on elected officials to weigh arguments based on facts, economics, and fairness. However, when a delegate bypasses the substance of a bill and instead targets the identity of one of its proponents, the integrity of the entire process is called into question.

During discussions this past session about legislation seeking fairness for charities a disturbing moment occurred. The leading opponent of the bill, a member of the house of delegates, when pressed on his continued opposition, reportedly responded to a question by referring to one of the bill’s proponents as the “man in a yarmulke.”

Using a religious garment as shorthand for a person’s identity in a professional setting isn’t just a lapse in decorum; it is a classic antisemitic trope – that a Jewish person’s involvement in policy must be driven by a hidden, insular agenda rather than the public good. At a time when antisemitic acts and violence against Jews are both increasing rapidly in the United States, we must demand more from our elected officials.

The history of legalized gambling in the Commonwealth is relatively short, and for nearly 50 years, charities were the only entities that could host gaming. Starting in 1971, nonprofits were authorized to host bingo and raffles. For decades, this was the primary way charities funded their community missions. The lottery was added in 1988. Then in 2020, casino gambling became legal in Virginia. Other types of legal gaming in Virginia include fantasy gaming, horse wagering and this past session iGaming was approved. This wide array of gaming in the Commonwealth makes more perplexing why charities are prevented from hosting poker the same way it’s played everywhere else in the world, unless there is something besides policy driving decisions.

Texas Hold ‘Em is the most popular poker game. The most popular form of Texas Hold ‘Em is called a “cash game,” where players can play for any amount of time and the chips have cash value. In contrast, there are poker tournaments, where a player pays an entry fee, the chips have no cash value, and you must play for many hours to possibly place high enough to win. Charites are only allowed to host the less popular poker tournaments. Despite the massive expansion of gaming and the decrease in bingo revenues, charities have repeatedly been rebuffed in their efforts to host cash Texas Hold ‘Em games.

In the context of the poker legislation, and the history leading up to it, the delegate’s remark was particularly revealing. This past session, SB765 would have provided fairness to Virginia charities by allowing them to host cash games, so that they would be able to use poker to help fund community programs that were historically funded by bingo. By reducing the proponent to a “man in a yarmulke,” the delegate showed he was not focused on policy concerns as much as he was on his apparent bias towards the identity of one of the leaders of charitable gaming.

The failure of the legislation this past session is not isolated. It aligns with a broader, multi-year pattern in which fair policy considerations have been obstructed by the delegate who made the “yarmulke” remark. By way of example,

· Charites were told by this delegate to return to the General Assembly if the tournament games were inadequate. Tournament games have proven to be inadequate, but the same delegate is the one who killed SB765 this past session;

· During the 2025 session, charities were told by the same delegate to not to have witnesses testify before committee but to work it out and come back in 2026. However, the delegate did not seek to work anything out and instead killed SB765;

· Charities were told they would be able to present to the Joint Subcommittee to Study the Feasibility of Establishing the Virginia Gaming Commission, but that did not happen;

· This year, SB765 passed the Senate with a large majority. Yet once it reached the House, it was denied any opportunity to be heard and was killed procedurally.

Taken together, these actions suggest more than a policy disagreement. They point to a pattern in which bias is shaping which voices are heard and which policies are allowed to advance.

It is one thing to lose a policy debate on the merits. It is quite another to see a bill fail where religious bias seems to be impacting decision-making. Antisemitism, whether overt or subtle, has no place in our institutions. Public policy must be guided by fairness, evidence, and equal respect for all individuals, regardless of their religious identity. We must demand that our leaders see past the attire of the advocates and focus on the communities they represent.

Josh Lief is a former Deputy and Secretary of Commerce and Trade and Senior Assistant Attorney General. He is counsel to the Virginia Charitable Gaming Association.