Hate crime consolidation bill put forth by CT Gov. Lamont gets support and opposition in legislature

CT Insider – Monday, March 10, 2025
By Ken Dixon

A proposal by Gov. Ned Lamont aimed at revising, expanding and consolidating the state’s hate crime laws was the target of mixed reviews on Monday, with prosecutors and police supporting the move, while social activists claimed it might interfere with free-speech or potentially weaponize law enforcement against political dissent.

Supporters including police chiefs, members of the state’s Hate Crimes Advisory Council and Ronnell Higgins, who as commissioner of the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection heads the State Police, said the state’s statutes are far-flung and need to be combined to expedite criminal cases.

“The fragmentation of these laws across 21 sections of the General Statutes has created confusion, making it more difficult for law enforcement and prosecutors to hold offenders responsible,” Higgins told the legislative Judiciary Committee. “We have seen nearly a 50% rise in hate crimes in Connecticut since 2021. One hundred and thirty hate crimes were committed in the first three quarters of 2024. The anger, the anxiety and the vulnerability ricochets across our neighborhoods and our entire communities.”

The proposed statute includes provisions for mandatory minimum prison sentences, which state Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, committee co-chairman, singled out with skepticism. “It takes away discretion from judges,” Stafstrom said. “It doesn’t allow a judge to look at the individual circumstances of a case.”

Higgins said that criminal investigators would have to defend their findings on intent in order to trigger mandatory sentences. Law enforcement officials have complained that proving an alleged offender acted “maliciously” is difficult, so the governor’s proposal instead adopts terminology from other states.

State Rep. Craig Fishbein of Wallingford, a ranking Republican on the law-writing committee, said that a new hate crime involving domestic partners or roommate could be problematic. He offered the hypothetical argument between neighbors that turns into a misdemeanor third-degree assault that could elevate to a felony if racial remarks occur. Higgins said that an example of two college roommate fighting with racial, gender or sexual orientation issues included would be an occurrence of hate that could be prosecuted.

Opponents of the bill including Eamon Ormseth of Hartford, a political activist, warned that religious or political extremists could use the law as currently written to stifle dissent. “It would allow for an increased police presence among marginalized communities,” he said.

“I’m concerned that the bill’s vague language around religious objects and symbols will infringe on freedom of speech. The bill does not clearly define what a religious object or symbol is,” Ormseth said in virtual testimony. “For example, if far-right extremists decide to start using the Christian cross as a symbol of advancing Trump’s far-right agenda, and folks take the Christian cross and some of this political branding and throw it in a trash can to express their opposition to Trump’s agenda, as I read this bill, such an act could be penalized. I think this bill will chill freedom of speech and freedom of worship.”

Adam Bulmash of Farmington, who said he is a Jewish member of a pro-Palstinian organization, said such a new law could be used to repress protests against social injustice. “This bill will create a chilling effect on political activism and free expression by allowing those in power to claim persecution when criticized,” he said. Others opposed to the bill warned that it could also criminalize wearing masks in public.

Gary Jones, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council for the United Jewish Foundation of Stamford, New Canaan and Darien, favored the legislation because it improves current law. He noted that Connecticut was one of the first states to adopt such laws and punishment for crimes committed because of hatred or bias based on race, religion or other designated groups.

“This bill recognizes that crimes targeting people for their gender identity or expression should also be considered as potential hate crimes,” said Jones, adding he was also testifying for the United Jewish Foundation of Hartford. “Our current laws do not allow perpetrators of some of Connecticut’s more-serious crimes to be charged with violation of our hate crimes law. This bill would correct that limitation.”

Prepared testimony provided to the committee by Monday afternoon included 17 in favor of the bill and 22 opposed. The Judiciary Committee has an April 11 deadline to vote on the bill.

In a written statement to the committee, Lamont said that the current laws have inconsistent terms for protected classes.

“Hate crimes are intended to induce fear and terrorize entire groups of people. That is why the prosecution of crimes involving acts of hate must also include enhanced penalties,” Lamont wrote, adding that reporthate.ct.gov has made it easier for residents to tell state law enforcement about incidents of bias.

“Consolidation of all of Connecticut’s hate crimes laws into one act, with the goal of creating one hate crimes chapter in the General Statutes, will simplify our statutes and make it easier for police and prosecutors to charge and prosecute these crimes,” Lamont said. “Modifying the intent standard to align more closely with the hate crimes laws used in other states by removing the element that a defendant must have acted ‘maliciously’ will remove onerous intent requirements that are exceedingly difficult for prosecutors to charge and prove.”

But Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, director of legal counsel for the state Office of the Chief Public Defender, said the current proposal exceeds merely reorganizing hate crime sections and putting them together.

“It dissects the elements of the current statute as it divides them into two separate offences, adds mandatory minimum sentences” and substantially enhances sentences to the statutory schemes, Sullivan wrote in submitted testimony. In addition to First Amendment concerns, the public defenders office believes the bill would have unintended consequences, especially on youth, she added.

Access this article at its original source.