Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hate Crime Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects bill to criminalize cross burning on others’ property after debate over redundancy and constitutionality
Summary
House Bill 246, prompted by elementary school students and designed to prohibit cross burnings on highways and public places, was amended to include the American flag but failed in final vote (22‑51). Critics said existing hate‑crime statute already covers these acts.
Representative Hansen introduced House Bill 246 after students in a fifth‑grade civics class asked the Legislature to act. The bill would have made it a third‑degree felony to burn a cross (and, after amendment, an American flag) on the property of another or on public property if done with the intent to intimidate.
Sponsor Hansen framed the bill as protecting diverse communities from intimidation, reading letters from students who said they did not want to live in fear. Early on, Representative Phil Pott and others proposed deleting the phrase 'with the intent to intimidate,' prompting sustained debate over the constitutional reach of the bill and whether it would survive legal challenge.
Members raising constitutional and statutory concerns—among them Representative Christiansen and Representative Litvak—argued the state’s existing hate‑crime statute (cited in debate as Utah Code 76‑3‑203.3) already criminalizes primary underlying offenses committed with the intent to intimidate and carries the same third‑degree felony penalty. Supporters said a statute that names cross burning explicitly could provide clarity and prosecutorial tools in cases where prosecutors had been reluctant to use the general hate‑crime statute.
During floor action Representative Farren successfully moved to amend the bill by inserting 'or American flag' after 'cross' to cover flag burnings on another’s property or in public places; the amendment passed. Members questioned whether the amendment could inadvertently criminalize respectful flag‑retirement ceremonies; that concern led Representative Phil Pott to remove suggested language naming the flag after consulting colleagues.
After extended debate about redundancy with the existing hate‑crime statute and the potential for constitutional challenges, the House voted and the clerk reported the tally: 22 yes and 51 no. House Bill 246 failed and was filed.
The bill’s failure leaves intact the state’s existing hate‑crime statute as the primary criminal framework for intimidation‑based offenses; proponents said they may revise proposals in future sessions.
