An act relating to expanding the scope of hate-motivated crimes
S.19 expands Vermont’s hate-motivated crimes law to cover conduct directed not only at a single victim, but also at a group of particular persons. Under current law as amended by this bill, a person who commits, causes, or attempts a crime motivated in whole or in part by a protected category would be subject to enhanced penalties when the conduct is aimed at an individual or at a defined group. The bill also clarifies that the protected-category motivation does not need to be the sole or predominant reason for the offense.
The bill preserves the existing penalty structure for hate-motivated crimes, with enhanced imprisonment or fines depending on the seriousness of the underlying offense. For more serious underlying crimes, the underlying penalty remains in place, but the court must consider hate-based motivation at sentencing. The bill defines protected categories to include race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, service in the U.S. Armed Forces or National Guard, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and perceived membership in those groups. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
This bill would amend 13 V.S.A. § 1455, Vermont’s hate-motivated crimes statute, by broadening its reach from crimes directed at a victim to crimes directed at a group of particular persons. It would not create a new protected category list, but it would expand who can be covered by the statute and how hate motivation is evaluated in charging and sentencing. The practical effect is to give prosecutors and courts a clearer basis to apply hate-crime enhancements when conduct targets multiple people or a group identity rather than one named individual.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a straightforward expansion of existing hate-crime protections. The introduced language suggests a policy goal of strengthening enforcement against bias-motivated conduct, especially where the harm is directed at a group. No contrary positions are documented in the supplied record, so the available context indicates neutral-to-supportive legislative framing rather than visible controversy.
The main substantive issue is the expansion from a singular victim to a “group of particular persons,” which could raise questions about how specifically a group must be identified and how prosecutors prove the targeted nature of the conduct. Another possible point of debate is the bill’s statement that protected-category motivation need not be the predominant or sole reason for the offense, which broadens liability and may be viewed as helpful for enforcement or, alternatively, as too expansive. No named opponents or supporters are identified in the provided materials, and no committee debate is included.