The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs deferred a bill Tuesday that would broaden the current definition of a reported hate crime and push more resources to recording hate crime data and training law enforcement officers.
Senate Bill 1149’s deferral comes amid national conversations about what constitutes hate crimes and discriminatory actions, especially as President Donald Trump begins rolling out investigations into antisemitism on college campuses following protests over the war in Gaza.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, expressed support for SB 1149 in a statement.
“We support any legislative effort to ensure that law enforcement accurately documents and reports all reported crimes that are allegedly motivated by bias or prejudice,” Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s national communications director, said in a statement.
But the bill that was posed to committee Chair Rep. David A. Tarnas (D, Hawi-Waimea-Waikoloa) and Vice Chair Rep. Mahina Poepoe (D, Molokai- Lanai-Hana) would have redefined a hate crime to “any reported incident, regardless of whether it results in criminal charges, where there is evidence or indication that bias or prejudice may have been a motivating factor” — a red flag to SB 1149’s opposition.
Deborah Umiamaka, who opposed the bill in written testimony, pointed to possible infringements on free speech, where certain expressions, protected under both the state and national constitution, could be criminalized as a hate crime.
“By requiring law enforcement to investigate incidents based solely on perceived bias or prejudice — without clear evidence of a crime — this bill risks chilling free expression and creating an environment where individuals may fear expressing their opinions.”
Native Hawaiian and Kahaluu resident Tiare Smith also opposed the bill in written testimony, stating that the broad language for defining a hate crime is dangerous for a multicultural state like Hawaii.
“For a Native Hawaiian like myself, who has witnessed the resilience of our communities in overcoming historical injustices, this approach is antithetical to the spirit of reconciliation and coexistence,” Smith wrote. “It risks casting neighbors as adversaries, compelling officers to scrutinize every interaction for latent prejudice, rather than fostering dialogue or resolution.”
But supporters of the bill contended that the looser definition of a reported hate crime, combined with more intentional law enforcement training and hate crime data collection, could help mitigate the underreportage of hate crimes in the state.
Currently, the state’s hate crime statistics are set at the prosecution level, according to the state Department of the Attorney General, meaning that Hawaii records hate crimes only if they reach the prosecution level. The bill would have expanded the reporting criteria, allowing hate crimes to be reported at the police level.
However, according to written testimony from the Attorney General’s Office, the state department is already working to transition to a more robust National Incident-Based Reporting System program, which will include hate crime data.
At Tuesday’s public hearing, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom supported the intent of the bill but said that it would be unnecessary considering that the new reporting system is underway. Additionally, Tom said that the department is already developing a user- friendly, public dashboard that would provide more transparency and accessibility to hate crimes data for the public, which would be available by September or October.
In deferring the bill, Tarnas said that while “this is an important matter,” he wants to reassess the bill’s necessity after the Attorney General’s Office implements the new reporting program.
He also said that the police-level reporting would require a standardization of training across all four county police departments that should be further discussed and strategically planned.
“We do need to get as much data as possible, and if there’s gaps, let’s identify it based on the data that would be presented at that time,” Tarnas said at the hearing.
