Even though Congress is poised to pass a federal hate crimes law for "protected categories" — including sexual orientation — Utah should not adopt a similar bill, some lawmakers say.
Instead, state Sen. James Evans, R-Salt Lake, says legislators should pass his proposal that shuns "protected classes" and simply says if a crime against a person or his property is committed because of "bias or prejudice" then it is a hate crime and the perpetrator should get a stiffer prison term.
But Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, says Evans' approach won't work. Litvack, author of the 2003 hate crimes bill that barely failed in the House, will reintroduce his hate crimes bill in the 2004 Legislature. His proposal will again identify sexual orientation as one of the protected categories along with race, religion, ethnicity and other areas.
In general, hate crimes laws increase penalties for crimes committed against people because of their race, religion, ethnicity and so on.
The bill before Congress, which has the support of U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, allows local federal prosecutors to prosecute a serious crime as a "hate crime" under certain circumstances, including if the state doesn't have a hate crimes law or has an inadequate law.
Local prosecutors agree Utah's current hate crimes statute is so vague it is gutless, and no one has been charged under the law in 10 years. But with a federal law, would Utah need a stronger state hate crimes statute?
"Absolutely, we need one," says Litvack. "Do Utahns want the federal Congress to basically be setting local prosecutions? I don't think so. Secondly, the federal bill doesn't cover all the areas we need covered. But, overall, we need to take responsibility for what is happening in our own state."
And Evans agrees Utah would be better off with its own, viable statute, especially since the federal bill is wrong-headed.
Evans, the only black member of the Legislature, calls the approach by Congress and Litvack discriminatory.
"It picks people out by their race, sexual orientation or whatever," Evans said.
Evans said his bill is similar to a new Georgia law, now being tested in the courts.
"It is simple: If you attack someone or their property because of bias or prejudice, you get an enhancement" on your sentence. It's up to local prosecutors to find that motive and use it in the conviction at trial, Evans said.
But Litvack said that kind of law just doesn't work. And he personally will oppose any hate crimes bill that doesn't include groups that historically have been singled out for "vicious attacks" because of who they are.
In the 2003 Legislature, Litvack's bill passed the House in the most heated and emotional debate of the session, only to be recalled the next day and killed. Several years ago, the late Sen. Pete Suazo, D-Salt Lake, got a hate crimes bill through the state Senate. But the House refused to consider it.
Rep. Chad Bennion, R-Murray, who led the opposition to Litvack's bill last session, said neither Congress nor Utah should pass hate crimes legislation.
"No, it's still bad law," Bennion said.
He said any bill or law that carries different punishments for "certain categories of people" should be opposed because it sets a bad precedent.
"We want justice to be blind. But (hate crimes law based on categories) seems the reverse of that," Bennion said.
Litvack says his new bill will again include sexual orientation because gays or lesbians face "attacks that are more frequent and vicious in our society today." But he notes his bill is all-inclusive.
"If I was attacked specifically because I was a heterosexual, that would be covered as well," said Litvack.
But adding sexual orientation to the bill raises "a red flag" to some conservative lawmakers, Litvack acknowledges.
"I think some people's interpretation of their own faith provides a moral, religious overtone" against protecting gays and lesbians in law, he said.
More than 80 percent of the Legislature belongs to the LDS Church, which considers homosexuality a sin and opposes same-sex marriage. However, Litvack points out, "last year the LDS Church issued a statement saying it did not oppose my bill, which had sexual orientation in it." And many other faiths and pastors support hate crimes law, he said.
Hatch, R-Utah, has done an about-face and now supports a federal hate crimes bill. Hatch says he and other longtime hate crimes law opponents didn't have the votes to kill the measure in the U.S. Senate, and so he jumped on board to get some "bad parts" of the bill removed. While the bill may not pass this year, he believes it will next year.
But Bennion said while Hatch's backing of the proposed federal hate crimes law may change the dynamics of the debate, it won't turn the tide in the state Legislature.
Rep. Jim Ferrin, R-Orem, who co-sponsored Litvack's bill last year, said he doesn't think anything has changed in lawmakers' attitudes — and so Litvack's attempts again at a category-based bill will fail. Ferrin said he hopes "Sen. Evans, myself and Rep. Litvack can agree on a bill that will work and pass." Will Hatch's support of a hate crimes bill that includes sexual orientation hurt him politically in conservative Utah? Ultimately, no, said Greg Hawkins, a conservative Republican who challenged Hatch in the senator's 2000 re-election.
"In the short term, yes, some Republicans will be upset" with Hatch over support of hate crimes law, said Hawkins, who plans to run against Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, in the 3rd District next year.
"But Hatch will run again in 2006 and Utahns have shown they just won't replace a sitting U.S. senator unless he makes some kind of heinous decision."
And support of hate crimes laws doesn't rise to that level, Hawkins said.
E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com