Washington state lawmakers pass hate crime bill amid concerns over ‘absolute freedom of conscience’

The Washington House has passed a revised version of a bill that would expand the state’s definition of a hate crime, though concerns were raised by some lawmakers despite amendments adding clarity to the legislation.

Speaking in opposition, state Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, noted the bill could run afoul of the state constitution, which guarantees “absolute freedom of conscience.”

“Sometimes in exercising absolutely freedom of conscience an individual may articulate what is perceived as ‘hate’ by other people,” he said. “We need to proceed very carefully when we regulate speech, and while I appreciate the intent of the underlying bill, Article 1, Section 11 is the highest law in our state.”

For proponents, House Bill 1052 sponsored by Rep. Cindy Ryu, D-Shoreline, would enable prosecutors to pursue hate crime charges for individuals who carry out actions for more than just prejudice. Under existing state law, a person commits a hate crime when they cause physical or property damage based on a person’s perceived identity, and that is the only cause.

Speaking on the House floor, Ryu said that “this bill strengthens our state's laws about hate crimes. This will hold defendants in hate crimes, accused of hate crimes accountable. It clarifies for jurors that the defendant's bias does not need to be the only motive for criminal activities. We are empowering jury to hold perpetrators accountable and affirming our commitment to protecting every member of a community.”

Prior to passing the bill, the House approved an amendment that would define the term “in part or the whole” to mean “that the perpetrator's bias must be a cause in fact of the offense regardless of whether other causes also exist. When multiple concurrent motives exist, the bias must be a substantial factor in bringing about the offense."

The amendment sponsor Rep. Hunter Abell, R- Inchelium, told colleagues that it is “designed to create certainty and clarity. When we're talking about hate crimes offense, we can all deplore the underlying subject matter that we're talking about while still having concerns about establishing criminal statutory regimes that appear standardless and may lead to confusion for jurors, prosecutors, defense counsel, and members of the public alike.”

“There are a few things more frightening for either a defense counsel or a prosecutor than wrapping up a case and looking at jury box, filled with jurors with confused expressions on their face,” he added.

The amendment was supported by House Community Safety Committee Chair Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland, who said it was “not unreasonable and a good refinement and clarification of the bill.”

The addition of the amendment swayed Rep. Jenny Graham, R-Spokane, to vote in support of it, albeit “with some reservations. I hope to continue to keep working with prosecutors on this issue.”

HB 1052 has been referred to the Senate Law & Justice Committee, but is not yet scheduled for a public hearing.