Senate Judiciary reviews H.118 language to broaden hate-motivated crime penalty enhancement

The Senate Judiciary Committee met April 4 to discuss H.118, a bill proposing clarifications to Vermont's hate-motivated crime penalty enhancement and whether the committee should move to markup.

Committee members discussed whether the bill would expand the enhancement so that criminal conduct motivated by a victim's protected-status would qualify for an enhanced penalty even when the targeted conduct affects property owned by a third party. "It's April 4. Senate judiciary, we are on some committee discussion, potential markup of h 1 18, and we have Michelle with us," Speaker 3, Committee member, said at the start of the discussion.

Legislative counsel summarized how the statute functions as an overlay rather than a standalone crime and explained the proposed change. "So it is not a crime in and of itself. You're not criminalizing someone's expression or speech. You're looking at a violation of the law," Speaker 2, Legislative counsel, said. Speaker 2 added that the enhancement currently applies when the motivation for otherwise criminal conduct is tied to a protected class and that the draft language would make the enhancement available even when the property harmed belongs to a municipality or other third party. "It doesn't really matter that it was the town that owns that gazebo. It would still be eligible for the, for the vehicle," Speaker 2 said, describing the effect of the new language.

Members used examples to illustrate the change: defacing a private homeowner's garage targeted at a Black family, and racist graffiti on a town-owned gazebo in South Royalton. Speaker 2 said the bill would cover both scenarios if the conduct were motivated by a protected characteristic. Speaker 1, Committee member, noted a specific drafting change discussed in the text: "specifically replacing victims with another person."

Committee members discussed hearing additional testimony before advancing the bill. Speaker 2 recommended inviting the attorney general's office for background; Speaker 3 asked whether the office might be available, noting, "If she's available within the next 45 minutes, that would be amazing." The committee agreed that if no changes are required after testimony they would seek to move the bill out of committee soon, but no motion or vote took place during the recorded discussion.

The committee also noted witnesses who had testified earlier in the House and Senate and discussed scheduling follow-up if the attorney general's office could not attend immediately. No formal direction beyond attempting to hear the AG's office and scheduling a future time was adopted.

No formal amendments or final actions were recorded in the transcript excerpt; the committee indicated a desire to proceed to a vote if testimony produced no changes.