SB 90 revises and consolidates Connecticut’s hate crimes statutes into a broader, more uniform framework. The bill renames several existing offenses, expands the list of protected categories, and defines “protected social category” to include actual or perceived race, color, religion, ethnicity, disability, alienage, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and age 60 or older. It also updates definitions for race, sex, disability, religion, and related terms, and adds new definitions for concepts such as religiously affiliated community center.
The bill creates or reworks a wide range of criminal offenses tied to bias-motivated conduct, including hate crime causing physical injury, physical contact, property damage, threats against persons or property, threats against houses of worship and religiously affiliated community centers, advocacy or urging of property damage, deprivation of civil rights, burning a cross, placing a noose, discriminatory public accommodations and housing practices, false reports, stalking, and misuse of the 9-1-1 system. It also revises persistent offender provisions, allows hate-crime diversion programming and anti-bias or diversity awareness conditions in probation, preserves civil rights and CHRO remedies, and authorizes civil actions and attorney general enforcement with treble damages and civil penalties in some cases.
In addition to the criminal-law changes, SB 90 amends related discrimination statutes in public accommodations, housing, and civil rights enforcement to align them with the new hate-crimes framework. It removes some older misdemeanor penalties from those civil-rights provisions and instead cross-references the new hate-crime offenses and protected categories. The bill also directs the Connecticut Sentencing Commission and the State-Wide Hate Crimes Advisory Council to review hate-crime penalties and report recommendations to the Judiciary Committee by January 1, 2027.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly favorable. The Judiciary Committee reported the bill out with a 39-2 vote on both the original and substitute versions, and the Senate later passed it 36-0 on one roll call vote. That pattern suggests broad bipartisan support for consolidating and strengthening hate-crimes law, along with a smaller amount of opposition at the committee stage.
The main points of contention appear to center on the scope and structure of the new framework rather than the general goal of addressing hate crimes. Likely areas of debate include the expansion of protected categories, the addition of new offenses and mandatory minimum fines, the treatment of speech-adjacent conduct such as advocacy or urging, and the bill’s integration of civil-rights violations into the hate-crimes scheme. The inclusion of houses of worship, religiously affiliated community centers, and protected categories such as age 60 or older and pregnancy-related sex definitions also likely broadened the policy reach in ways that could have drawn scrutiny.
The bill substantially rewrites Connecticut’s criminal and civil hate-crimes laws by repealing and replacing multiple statutes, expanding protected categories, creating new offenses, and increasing or standardizing penalties and mandatory fines. It affects criminal defendants, victims, law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the Attorney General, and the Sentencing Commission, while also preserving separate civil-rights remedies and adding new reporting and review requirements.
The legislative record shows strong support for the bill overall. It advanced from the Judiciary Committee by a wide margin and passed the Senate unanimously on one recorded vote, indicating broad agreement with the bill’s purpose of modernizing and consolidating hate-crimes law. The small number of negative votes at committee suggests limited but real concern about the bill’s breadth or penalty structure.
The most notable areas of contention are the bill’s expanded scope and tougher enforcement tools. Potentially disputed issues include the broader definition of protected categories, the inclusion of new offenses tied to threats, false reports, stalking, and 9-1-1 misuse, the mandatory minimum fines, and the treatment of conduct that may overlap with speech or advocacy. Some may also have questioned the consolidation of hate-crime provisions with public accommodations and housing discrimination statutes, as well as the new civil penalties and attorney general enforcement authority.