COLOMBIA – South Carolina’s eminent business and police leaders testified on March 9 in support of a hate crime bill, saying it will help prosecutors serve justice and send a powerful message that the state condemns prejudice and discrimination.
His testimony kicked off the bill’s first hearing in a House judicial subcommittee for the 2021 session, when longtime advocates are hopeful that the addition of influential supporters will help advance the measure more than in previous years.
SC Chamber of Commerce President Tim Arnold, President and CEO of Colonial Life, noted that South Carolina is one of only three states that has yet to pass a hate crime bill, along with Arkansas and Wyoming.
“When we see that 47 other states are able to pass hate crime laws, it illuminates our view of our state for businesses, tourists and potential workers,” said Arnold. “It is important for us that South Carolina shows the nation that hate crimes will not be tolerated in our great state.”
The legislation, H.3620, would increase the penalties for crimes committed against victims who were intentionally selected because of characteristics such as race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality or physical or mental disability.
Charleston police chief Luther Reynolds and Richland County sheriff Leon Lott said the move would help them fight hate crimes and give victims more confidence that justice would be done.
As an example, Lott cited a series of robberies committed against more than two dozen Hispanics in the Columbia area in just three weeks. Although the police finally captured the perpetrators, Lott said the Hispanic community “lived in absolute fear for the past three weeks”.
“This is the type of crime we need to have something where we can hold them accountable,” said Lott. “At the moment, we cannot hold them accountable. We have not been charged with armed robbery. But the fact that they have gone out and hunted our Hispanic community, we can hold them accountable for that.”
A special House committee worked to draft this version of the bill in 2020, after protests broke out across the country in response to racial violence and allegations of police brutality. Much of the project’s language was modeled after a similar measure passed in Georgia last year, said Weston Newton subcommittee chairman R-Bluffton.
Presented by State Representative Wendell Gilliard, D-Charleston, the project’s co-sponsors include House Majority Leader Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, and minority leader Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, giving it valuable support from some of the chamber’s most influential members.
Supporters noted that the project will not protect only minorities. Victims who were targeted for being white, male or Christian would also be covered by the law.
Representatives from Walmart, UPS and Duke Energy, among other large companies with a presence in South Carolina, also spoke in support of the move, saying they felt it was important to lend their political strength to combat inequality.
“Standing up against hate crimes is a way to defend our diverse workforce and is an expression of solidarity with a diverse community of customers,” said Brooke Mueller, director of government relations at Walmart.
Of the 19 speakers in the first part of the subcommittee’s hearing, only four spoke out against the bill, and even opponents said they only disagree with specific parts of the measure.
Tony Beam, director of public policy for the South Carolina Baptist Convention, and Mitch Prosser, director of the Palmetto Family Pastors Network, said they were concerned that the bill’s provisions that increase harassment penalties could be used by people to litigate against religious discourse.
“We are not concerned with adding the statutes to the Penal Code, adding anything to that to stop hatred and intolerance, but we are only concerned with the aspects of religious freedom that can be put at stake,” said Beam.
Lawmakers questioned why these pastors were concerned about how the bill could be used against them, when it only increases penalties for existing laws against violence and harassment that have not been used against them in the past.
“I think the concern would be that the definition of someone (harassment) in the future might somehow stretch that language a little,” replied Prosser.
SC Citizens for Life executive director Holly Gatling added that she feared it could be used to file lawsuits against anti-abortion activists who protest outside the clinics or encourage women to look for other options, and she asked for the language to be added to make it clear. that cannot be used for that purpose.
But Newton said he did not understand why these critics had not previously spoken out against harassment laws in books that could, in theory, be used for the same purpose. This bill, he noted, only increases the penalties for these laws.
The subcommittee is scheduled to hold another meeting later this week to discuss the bill and consider whether to move it forward.
Follow Jamie Lovegrove on Twitter @jslovegrove.