Ovations, not jeers, for hate-crimes bill
Litvack's new approach to divisive issue pays off
The warm atmosphere of praise in the House of Representatives last Thursday was a departure from past debates, as longtime sponsor Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, was given a standing ovation after a 67-5 vote for a substitute version of HB90.
HB90, which the Senate could take up today, is also a departure from past versions of hate-crimes legislation.
There are no protected groups. Rather than stepping up the charge, this version is an aggravating factor that won't be considered until sentencing. And, the bill looks at the effect of the crime, not the motivation.
Ask Litvack if he's happy with the compromise bill that's headed to the Senate, and his reply is, "Absolutely."
"What I can very strongly state is what we did not compromise on," Litvack said. "We did not compromise on our ideal that all victims be protected. . . . We were able to work with those who were traditionally opposed to this legislation to find the kind of language that works for everyone."
Litvack said he came into this session with a new approach that came after months of work with prosecutors, legal scholars and others.
In the past, he said, "we were headed into the session butting heads." That wasn't the case this year, when Litvack started out with an olive branch, which led to a different path this session. That path started with pre-session dialogue with Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Senate President John Valentine and House Speaker Greg Curtis.
And then there was work during the session, including a last-minute overhaul last week, during which Litvack and other supporters worked out a compromise with Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, and other staunch opponents to hate-crimes legislation.
The effort has paid off for supporters of legislation to punish hate crimes and be accountable to victims.
In 2003, Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, had voted against hate-crimes legislation, after expressing concerns that the listed groups could exclude those that are harder to define.
Last week, Hughes said the version he voted for focuses on the "ripple effect" of fear that some crimes can cause throughout an entire community.
"It talked about the effect of a particular crime," Hughes said. "It didn't say who was entitled" to protection.
You can be the first to comment on this story.