In response to a continued rise in hate crimes across the country, the Minnesota House is moving forward with a bill to update the state’s hate crime laws, despite the rejection of several proposed amendments.
House File 1691 attempts to improve the reach of existing anti-hate crime legislation by expanding certain legal definitions, updating law enforcement training, increasing public reporting capabilities, and more.
House File 1691 offers a multi-faceted approach
The bill aims to increase both proactive and reactive responses to hate crimes in several ways. The main components of the bill include:
- Codifying graffiti targeting any protected class as a hate crime
- Updated training for law enforcement regarding hate crime response
- Classifying gender identity and expression as a protected class
- Allowing community organizations to report hate crimes on behalf of victims.
Community organizations have long requested the ability to act as a type of intermediary between hate crime victims and law enforcement. Many victims of hate crimes, especially traditionally marginalized individuals such as minorities and members of the LGBTQ community, don’t always feel comfortable contacting the police. Additionally, many victims find navigating the criminal justice system difficult.
Community organizations often have a pre-existing relationship with these individuals, as well as a familiarity with law enforcement. Allowing them to report crimes on victims’ behalf should hopefully encourage more victims to come forward, ultimately providing more accurate data on hate crimes throughout Minnesota.
Several proposed amendments rejected
The bill recently passed the public safety committee by a vote of 10 to eight and the judiciary committee by a vote of 11 to five. During debate in both committees, two amendments were introduced, but both were voted down.
Rep. Matt Grossell (R-Clearbrook) introduced an amendment to add law enforcement as a protected class, making perpetrators of crimes against law enforcement subject to hate crime laws. However, typically a protected class is based on what are called immutable characteristics, such as race, sexuality, religion, and gender. Additionally, Minnesota’s existing laws already add enhanced penalties for crimes against law enforcement officers.
The second proposed amendment, introduced by Rep. Eric Lucero (R-Dayton), attempted to remove the classification of gender identity as a protected class. He argued that a person’s gender could only be either biologically male or female.
The path forward into law
After passing both committees, House File 1691 then moved to the House Ways and Means Committee. If passed by the committee, the bill would then progress to the House floor for a final vote.
Although the bill has yet to be enacted into law, community organizers say they’ve already seen a positive effect, as members of the community feel increasingly comfortable reporting incidents to their organizations directly. For example, the Coalition of Asian American Leaders has seen a recent, dramatic uptick in requests for help. “Hate crimes serve no purpose in our community,” says Kristian Kircher, attorney and co-founder of BK Law Group. “It is important we all do our part to make this a safe and comfortable place for all.”
Hate crimes continue to increase throughout the United States, with particularly violent acts targeting Asian Americans specifically. The recent series of shootings throughout Atlanta targeting Asian women has caused a shockwave of fear felt throughout Asian-American communities across the country, including in Minnesota.
While two members of the House did attempt to introduce fairly narrow amendments, the general components of the bill face no particularly significant or organized opposition from either side of the aisle. As the bill moves forward through the Minnesota House and possibly into the Senate, additional changes could be proposed, but the core idea of reducing hate in the state does seem to garner a broad coalition of support.
Share
Contributors
