[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6643513,"mediaKeyId","2532006-11862ca53dba90cf34724c62fc31177b","parentId",2532006,"title","Connecticut judiciary hearing draws wide public comment on proposed hate-crime consolidation bill","audioSeconds",7368,"startMs",447000,"endMs",7815000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2532006-11862ca53dba90cf34724c62fc31177b&start=447&end=7815","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2532006-11862ca53dba90cf34724c62fc31177b/thumbnail_447000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6643513/Connecticut/Connecticut-judiciary-hearing-draws-wide-public-comment-on-proposed-hate-crime-consolidation-bill","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6643513-fc8e752dd8b6116acc36e905b36f715a/orig.mp4?Expires=1774914042&Signature=HEkq7cUw1XrPKrHaAd4sI7fj6c6CCc3LvpUbip~F1VzBlPvdfd2LRMK47BzTFEDZeh6hbGMuOz-wHKZCAXV4t-hSi5MYHDfGTqA1vE-4e3YlBmIb3PQ1L9SHDQo1PHz-~gNXBi4ZDzntr6gmf1jIhf8Z018s4mr1lvbmRDxG~cv-XzoQ8FG5Cwle0WCRqN2Q8JhUxg5uAHJa2BmqS6YT5f~5-PfNY92nt5ETrIW6qkYHehWxyJ3VUTE1jHSQlUFp4XIUFx0ZlTM-zCFbuZ5H6PxYLRhH1PbTX3jOFA3dZPeqCwfNNPa9ORDbvj4LiUcckueapvfQWA~mX7sI0~0SHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature - Judiciary","date","2025-03-10T18:57:57.17Z","article","Hartford ' Lawmakers and members of the public spent a full hearing on March 10 discussing the governor's bill (HB 68 72) to consolidate Connecticut's scattered hate-crime statutes into a single chapter and to add penalty enhancements for bias-motivated offenses. The bill drew support from state prosecutors and public-safety officials and pushed back hard from advocates, community members and civil liberties groups who warned vague language could chill protest and free speech.

Catherine Baer, executive assistant state's attorney and director of policy development at the Division of Criminal Justice, told the committee the state's current hate-crime laws are fragmented across more than 20 statutory sections and lack uniformity. \"A comprehensive review and consolidation of our hate crime statutes into 1 chapter where they're actually called hate crimes with the inclusion of a penalty enhancement, a meaningful penalty enhancement, particularly with respect to our class a and b felonies, is long overdue,\" Baer said.

Ronnell Higgins, commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, said consolidation would help law enforcement and that Connecticut has seen an increase in reported bias incidents in recent years. \"This bill will consolidate and strengthen the state's existing hate crime statutes,\" Higgins said, noting an increase in reported incidents since 2021.

Public commenters were divided. Several residents and activists urged caution and asked lawmakers to tighten definitions and remove or rework language they said could be used to suppress dissent, particularly in the context of protests related to the Israel'Palestine conflict. Suhail Locanwalla, who said he had testified in opposition, warned the measure could be used to punish certain political expression and \"criminalize the urging and advocating of individuals that commit violence,\" arguing some provisions were too vague.

Others, including speakers identifying as members of the Jewish community, expressed concern about conflating political criticism of Israel with antisemitism and urged clear definitions to protect legitimate criticism. Jonathan Mann, a member of the Hartford Jewish Organizing Collective, said the law must make clear that criticism of a nation or political ideology is distinct from hate crimes against Jewish people.

Opponents also flagged the bill's mask language, which would increase penalties when a bias-motivated crime is committed while the perpetrator's face is concealed. Several speakers said the provision could chill public-health mask use and anonymous participation in protests. Testimony from people such as Leora Madison described personal reasons for mask use tied to disability or health concerns; others pointed to a risk of selective enforcement.

Supporters emphasized practical problems prosecutors and police face under the current statutory scheme. Professor Sashwin Pandya, who worked on drafting the consolidated bill as part of the Hate Crimes Advisory Council, said consolidation would put all hate-crime provisions in one place so police and prosecutors can find and apply them. \"If you put all the hate crimes in 1 place in the penal code, they'll be easier to find,\" he told the committee.

Several attorneys, public defenders and constitutional law observers questioned aspects of the draft'particularly mandatory minimums and the precise wording of motive standards such as \"motivated in whole or substantial part.\" Committee members asked how the proposed language would be applied to borderline cases (for example, whether a single insult tied to a victim's age would meet the standard) and whether mandatory enhancements could have the unintended effect of encouraging plea bargaining that would avoid the enhanced charge.

The hearing included many other speakers who urged the committee to send the bill back for amendment rather than advance the measure in its current form. Civil rights organizations and individuals urged clarifying definitions for protected categories, limiting use of mask-based enhancements, and adding training and oversight components for law enforcement to reduce the risk of selective enforcement.

No committee vote occurred at the hearing. Multiple witnesses suggested modest, targeted edits (for example, clarifying the mask provision to focus on intent to conceal identity, or specifying which property and objects the desecration provisions address) to reduce constitutional risk while preserving the bill's aim to make hate-crime law clearer and available for serious offenses.

The hearing made clear that supporters and opponents largely share a goal of reducing bias-motivated violence but disagree about whether the proposed consolidation as drafted best achieves that goal.

Many witnesses recommended further drafting work and cross-agency discussion before a committee decision; committee leadership said those conversations would continue as the bill moved through the process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judiciary Committee Public Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers and public witnesses sparred over the governor's proposal to consolidate Connecticut's hate-crime statutes, debating whether the rewrite would help prosecutors or chill protected speech.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",15631,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6643502,"State marshals, restraining-order advocates back bill to let attorneys and agencies email process for service",0,12385000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2532006-11862ca53dba90cf34724c62fc31177b&start=12385&end=12385","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2532006-11862ca53dba90cf34724c62fc31177b/thumbnail_12385000.jpg","/articles/6643502/Connecticut/State-marshals-restraining-order-advocates-back-bill-to-let-attorneys-and-agencies-email-process-for-service","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6643502-ae53e2534d5fa609368b6dd05afd30ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1774914042&Signature=Mdeq7WNHNsUqg5854w4PBix9YxwhPvlK7e7qmm8QPRslmD1gaJAifliwiIVCwGemJ3i8sNsP0YregXdy~omjkMwxhf3FGzapRMZmcSbB-6OHhFna-KT0xygksJNERkEKlAGsCNe-7drKNtVVE~4zIJ1jxqCL5~hPqLAj0ke5mKYZpzqNZTopvQ5EeHtQPevK2WB7rtOc9QlsDzusp5hy0WbC5Qal7OOFAx9idId71KRI-t~SZqczliGdkzbG92qBsbH~HzICjAGbI0nkOuMYJrgR2mkMnPPDjTut3zP2T~OrutIVAjCOBbMWZ~hXUC3FgxkXNoE8FPmBPX-jT3XMxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hartford ' State marshals and advocates pressed the Judiciary Committee to approve language allowing attorneys and public agencies to electronically transmit documents to state marshals for service, and they asked technical edits to ensure that victims seeking restraining orders do not pick up transmission or printing fees.

Brian Mezick, president of the State Marshals Association, testified that current law does not explicitly permit attorneys or agencies to email process and that the proposed changes would modernize service of process while preserving current safeguards. \"We're acutely aware that there are situations where attorneys need papers served with a quick turnaround,\" Mezick said. The bill would allow a marshal to receive an emailed PDF, print it and serve it; the bill sets a modest fee to compensate the marshal for the extra administrative task, he said.

Liza Andrews of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence supported electronic service in concept but asked the committee to clarify that any fees for electronic transmission or printing are not charged to domestic-violence victims. She pointed to federal STOP grant conditions that require states not to shift filing or service costs to victims. \"We just don't want a situation where there's anything that would lead the applicant to have to have an attorney to do electronic transmission,\" Andrews said.

Committee members pressed for technical clarifications and asked marshals and judicial-branch staff to coordinate on final drafting to ensure the change helps pro se applicants as well as practitioners. The bill maker and marshals said they would work with judicial branch staff to reconcile language on who may transmit documents and when marshals must accept electronic service.

No vote was recorded at the hearing; the marshals and advocates asked the committee for minor drafting changes to prevent unintended costs for survivors and to ensure marshals can accept emailed process from private parties where appropriate.","State marshals and shelter advocates supported a bill to let attorneys and public agencies electronically transmit documents to state marshals for service; advocates asked clarifying edits to ensure victims of domestic violence are not charged for electronic transmission or printing costs.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6643507,"CHRO, employers and business groups debate expanding \"employer's agent\" definition and process changes",407,2952000,3359000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2532006-11862ca53dba90cf34724c62fc31177b&start=2952&end=3359","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2532006-11862ca53dba90cf34724c62fc31177b/thumbnail_2952000.jpg","/articles/6643507/Connecticut/CHRO-employers-and-business-groups-debate-expanding-employers-agent-definition-and-process-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6643507-93e433629a3a59b2f2fba8af714645c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1774914042&Signature=dQd6girRqTJjE2a5MjM7yYtwwnDZD2zn7C-cgrGQi3--~FblX7QLR1E36swHtPratTvWXFAg6rR1D-NUuypD50bl~nCNi0jAxGwae6xxgN07Yumcm3P77F5Oy1i-2ylcVX95HL39uHhMn2mTx8FJlfYRUC-BUjNg8piE-DRiRGyuWUotCpko6vmRdek6u-YxG2z3sekf6~sneD8IBPse8uaAuXj0nqcwI19sFVZiaT76fZacD8b8XHEcbSxgagt9M4RdMrCID4Aus87CGYFEbzlAsBkKrTIB9sDZjgKrEwgM4uxBv4uYjZIy42UjgBcNmh-On9ZaN6Y~OIVCy8vEpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hartford ' The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) urged lawmakers to pass SB 1442 to broaden the statutory definition of \"employer's agent\" and to clarify several CHRO procedural time limits, while business groups and some legislators raised concerns about expanded liability.

Tanya Hughes, executive director of CHRO, told the panel the measure amends Connecticut General Statutes Section 46a-51 to reinstate CHRO's prior interpretation of vicarious liability: supervisors who direct day-to-day work should be considered employer agents even if they cannot hire or fire. \"Sticking with the more narrow federal definition of supervisor would allow employers to avoid vicarious liability even when a superior has this sort of control over an employee's daily work,\" Hughes said.

Michelle Dumas Cuellar, a managing director of legal operations at CHRO, explained the change follows a 2024 Connecticut Supreme Court decision that adopted a narrower federal standard. \"Prior to this, we were interpreting it that any level manager who committed the discriminatory act would then make their owner...vicariously liable,\" she told the committee, arguing the statutory change would restore the agency's historical enforcement reach.

Opponents, including business counsel and trade groups, warned the proposed statutory language could create uncertainty for employers and expand agency jurisdiction into routine supervisory interactions. Attorney Steven Poloff, who consults with management, told the panel the proposal would enlarge CHRO's reach and may produce unintended litigation and jurisdictional consequences.

Committee members questioned operational details and whether the draft would create new individual liability for midlevel managers; CHRO witnesses repeatedly said the change is aimed at vicarious liability for ultimate employers and does not create personal liability beyond existing aiding-and-abetting law.

The bill also clarifies CHRO's timelines for early legal intervention and the reopening of complaints, and aligns deadlines for filing in courts following administrative actions with federal timelines; CHRO staff said those clarifications reflect the agency's practice and would reduce confusion.

Committee staff did not take a vote at the hearing. Several members asked CHRO and business stakeholders to continue discussions on the drafting, especially to ensure that the bill would not unintentionally expand individual liability for supervisors or impose burdens that would chill ordinary workplace supervision.","The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and business groups clashed at a hearing over bipartisan draft changes that would expand who counts as an employer's agent and clarify CHRO timing and process rules; CHRO leaders said the change corrects a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that narrowed vicarious-liability interpretation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Connecticut judiciary hearing draws wide public comment on proposed hate-crime consolidation bill

State marshals, restraining-order advocates back bill to let attorneys and agencies email process for service

CHRO, employers and business groups debate expanding "employer's agent" definition and process changes