Greenwood council adopts ordinance addressing prejudice-motivated conduct and urges state for uniform law

The Greenwood City Council on Monday adopted an ordinance adding a municipal penalty for conduct motivated in whole or in part by prejudice and passed a separate resolution asking the state legislature to create a uniform statewide approach.

City Attorney Padet, who presented the ordinance, said the measure is deliberately titled to focus on "criminal conduct motivated by prejudice" rather than using the phrase "hate crime." "I have intentionally not used the term hate crime," Padet said, arguing that "hate" is an emotion and that the ordinance must be precise about conduct the municipality can lawfully punish.

Padet described a two-stage process the ordinance creates: first, a defendant must be convicted in municipal court of an underlying criminal act defined under state law; second, a jury in a separate phase would determine whether the conduct was motivated, in whole or part, by a protected characteristic (listed in the ordinance as race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry). If the second phase establishes motivation, the ordinance authorizes an additional civil fine—Padet said up to $500 per question in the ordinance text—and related municipal remedies. He emphasized the city’s limited jurisdiction, noting that municipal court cannot substitute for state criminal law and that the ordinance applies only inside city limits and in municipal court proceedings.

Padet discussed precedent and constitutional limits, citing municipal and U.S. Supreme Court authorities used to frame the ordinance and stressing that the text attempts to thread constitutional constraints while giving the city tools to address conduct that is “bigoted” and harmful to residents.

Separately, the council approved resolution 25-009 urging the state legislature to consider a uniform statewide statute or sentencing approach so that the same rules apply across counties and municipalities. Padet told the council the resolution is intentionally broad, offering lawmakers options ranging from statutory sentencing recognition for motive to a standalone statewide offense, and that the state may choose to adopt none, one, or another approach.

Council members thanked law enforcement and staff for their work on the draft ordinance and discussed technical aspects of the title and enforcement limits. The ordinance and companion resolution were advanced by the council during the meeting; transcript shows council action to move the items forward and expressed approval in the procedural record.

What happens next: the ordinance and the resolution’s language will be reflected in the city code and the council’s official filings; the resolution will be forwarded to the state legislature as the council’s formal request for statewide action.