2 bills on hate crimes to meld?

A week after a public debate about hate-crimes legislation forged a conversation of compromise, draft language for a new bill is still being hammered out.

Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, and Sen. James Evans, R-Rose Park, had dueling hate-crimes bills — HB68 and SB41. But as of Tuesday, the two were working on changes to HB68 that would include both a defined list of group classifications and spell out that no unlisted group would be excluded.

In a draft obtained by the Deseret Morning News, the revised portion now reads, " . . . the perceived or actual attributes of race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, gender or membership in any particular social group."

The new portion of the bill is the last phrase, "membership in any particular social group." Litvack said he and legislative attorneys borrowed the language from a federal refugee act, thinking that it would be standard legal language that has already been tested in court.

"What I'm trying to do is add language to HB68 that would address Sen. Evans' concerns that as it is written, HB68 is exclusive and discriminatory," said Litvack. "So I've given him some language and I'm waiting for feedback."

It's close but not quite right, Evans said late Tuesday.

The language from the refugee act is probably designed to work internationally and doesn't quite get at what Evans intended. He also said the reference to "social group" could be misconstrued to be a community service group.

"We're still working. The language that was offered doesn't really do it. I think what we're trying to get at is to make sure that no group is excluded," he said. "So we're trying to come up with different phrases and options and give them to Legislative Research and see, you know . . . let the lawyers tell us if that will work."

Evans disputes the idea that the retooled HB68 is a "compromise" between himself and Litvack. Rather, he said, Litvack is addressing Evans' historical opposition to hate-crime laws in general.

That opposition is — and always has been — that the group classifications are exclusionary and discriminatory. That's why in SB41 Evans opted to use the phrase "not to exclude any groups," which he believes offers broader protections for victims of bias crimes. "If the lawyers agree it will work, that could be language that gets used," Evans said.