Senate panel hears SB 62 amendment to expand victim compensation for hate-related property damage and replenish human-trafficking fund

The Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 62 and considered an amendment from the Attorney General’s Office that would add limited compensation for property damage to the fund for compensation of victims when a hate-crime enhancement is imposed and allocate funding for victim services, including a $1,000,000 appropriation to the state account for victims of human trafficking.

Special Assistant Attorney General Mike Morton presented the Attorney General’s proposed amendment and described three primary changes: (1) a new section to chapter 217 of the Nevada Revised Statutes to authorize payment from the Fund for the Compensation of Victims for property remediation when a hate-crime enhancement has been applied; (2) an amendment to the statutory definition of “victim” in NRS 217.07 to include persons subject to crimes for which a hate-crime enhancement under NRS 193.1675 or NRS 207.185 has been imposed; and (3) appropriations of $60,000 to the victims compensation fund, $40,000 to the Attorney General’s Office for victim advocates and $1,000,000 to the victims of human-trafficking contingency account for the next biennium. Morton described how the $40,000 would support existing victim advocates in the Attorney General’s Office and how the trafficking funds would support programs and services requested by the Nevada Policy Council on Human Trafficking.

During questioning, Morton provided statistics about hate-crime enhancements and acknowledged that the committee record contained inconsistent figures. He initially cited a multiyear set of figures that included “160 victims” statewide in 2024 where the defendant was charged with a hate-crime enhancement, and earlier years of 85 (2023), 98 (2022) and 110 (2021). Later in the hearing he corrected or clarified that the publicly aggregated statistics available via the Nevada crime statistics website reflected 60 instances in which the hate-crime enhancement was applied statewide in 2024; he offered to provide the committee with specific case lists and noted that reporting comes from many jurisdictions and must be aggregated.

Committee members and public witnesses discussed the policy and practical implications of the amendment. Vice Chair Flores asked for data on the number of victims; Morton supplied the figures described above and offered to provide more detailed case-level information. Senator Hansen raised objections to the structure of hate-crime penalties and to differential treatment of victims not in listed protected classes, asking whether property damage (for example, swastikas carved into vehicles) could qualify and noting broader concerns about equal protection and whether misogyny or gender-bias crimes were being captured consistently; Morton said the amendment adds property remediation eligibility where the hate enhancement is prosecuted and noted the statutory elements necessary for a prosecutor to obtain the enhancement.

Victim-service providers and advocacy organizations testified in support. Brenda Sandquist, executive director of Exquisite (a Carson City nonprofit), praised the 2023 appropriation to the trafficking fund and asked that funds be replenished for trauma-informed care, emergency housing and other direct services. Marco Rauda and Lauren Voitel, representing the Nevada Policy Council on Human Trafficking, described the prior appropriation’s use by service providers and law enforcement and supported the $1,000,000 proposed replenishment to sustain services; Voitel described 291 clients served in the first two quarters of FY 2025 using prior funds.

Opponents at the hearing raised constitutional and enforcement concerns. Janine Hanson, state chair of the Independent American Party, and Tanya Freeman testified in opposition to earlier versions of the bill and welcomed deletion of some prior provisions; Hanson said she remained concerned that bias-crime statutes could be interpreted as “thought crimes” and expressed concern about reporting to central repositories and downstream effects on firearms rights. Several committee members expressed concern about uneven application across jurisdictions; Senator Ellison and Senator Hansen said the statute and enforcement should be carefully considered to avoid unequal protection or unanticipated consequences.

Morton closed by reminding the committee that the amendment does not change the statutory hate-crime elements — a prosecutor seeking the enhancement must be able to prove that but for the defendant’s bias the underlying crime would not have occurred — and by offering to provide additional data to the committee. The hearing record contains requests for more detailed case lists and for clarification about the relationship between aggregated statistics and final convictions.

Ending

The committee concluded testimony and moved on; no committee vote on SB 62 was recorded in this hearing. The Attorney General’s amendment remains in the record and committee members requested additional data and case-level information prior to further committee action.