Combine hate crimes laws

Could there be room for compromise in the often acrimonious (dare we say, sometimes hateful?) discussion over competing hate crimes legislation on Utah's Capitol Hill?

We certainly hope so, and the debate held earlier this week between sponsors of both bills lends itself to that hope.

This page has long stood for the need to pass a strong hate-crimes bill in Utah. We have supported Rep. David Litvack's version, which would enumerate a specific list of such crimes, ranging from those committed against a person because of race or religious belief to their sexual orientation. Legal experts, including Utah's own attorney general, have said it is far easier to enforce a law that includes specifics than one that is general and vague.

In addition, Litvack's version is based on other laws that already have been judged constitutional. The competing bill, by Sen. James Evans, is based on a more vaguely worded Georgia law that has survived an early court challenge but is still wending its way through appeals.

But the attacks against Evans so far in this legislative session have been troubling. People have questioned his motives, accusing him of not really wanting a hate-crimes law at all. Others say his bill is a thinly veiled attempt to keep gays and lesbians from being protected when they are victims of hate. Many have drawn these conclusions without listening to his reasons.

When Evans speaks, he makes an eloquent argument about the need to add special penalties for all types of hate crimes, including against groups (obese or bald people, for instance) who are not included in Litvack's bill. Clearly, there is a big difference between Evans' feelings on the subject and the feelings of those in the Legislature who oppose any sort of hate crimes bill on principle.

So why not find a compromise? Why not pass a bill that lists the groups in Litvack's version, then adds a phrase that says it is not intended to exclude any other groups?

Things seemed to be headed in that direction during the debate this week at the Salt Lake County Government Center — a debate that began in an atmosphere of tension and ended with applause from the people on hand. We encourage more such discussion. Frankly, getting any sort of a hate-crimes bill through the Legislature this year will be tough enough without two bills dividing loyalties.