California hate commission delays vote on annual report after commissioners press for edits

The California Commission on the State of Hate voted to delay formal adoption of its 2025'1026 annual report until its June 24 meeting after commissioners raised substantive and editorial concerns about data categorization, terminology and recommended policy options.

Deputy Director Watts presented staff'led chapters summarizing findings from the 2024 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) and other data. Adrian told commissioners CHIS estimated an aggregate 9% of Californians ' roughly 3.1 million people ' experienced at least one act of hate in 2024, and that CHIS victim counts for property damage and physical violence exceeded California Department of Justice tallies, signaling substantial underreporting.

Commissioners flagged several issues. Commissioner Isan Zafar asked staff to surface a CHIS subgroup showing a high victimization rate for Middle Eastern/North African respondents, arguing the number deserved a clearer treatment in the narrative. Several commissioners objected to the report's use of the term "anti-Islamic," urging staff to standardize around "anti-Muslim" when referring to hostility toward Muslim people. Commissioner Damsky pressed the modernization of the term "antisemitism," asking it be used without a hyphen. Several commissioners also requested clearer breakdowns where the report lists "other" categories, more explicit citation of FBI versus state datasets, and additional discussion of red-flag laws and weapon access as contextual factors.

Dr. Goodsell summarized law-enforcement findings that less than 1% of adult and adolescent victims of hate-motivated property damage or physical violence appear in law-enforcement data, and that 13 counties recorded zero hate crimes in 2024, highlighting data gaps for policy response. Staff also told commissioners the evidence base on sentencing enhancements as a deterrent is limited.

After a public-comment period and follow-up questions, Commissioner Saledo moved to delay the vote on the report until June 24 to allow staff to incorporate the commission's feedback; the motion carried. Recorded votes given during the meeting produced three yes votes, one no and one abstention from the commissioners present.

Deputy Director Watts said staff would work to incorporate the feedback on a very tight statutory timeline and circulate a revised draft in time for the June 24 meeting; commissioners chose to reserve substantive changes for that draft rather than adopt the report at the June 1 meeting.