Connecticut should take hate-motivated violence seriously. When someone is targeted because of who they are, the harm is real.
As someone who experienced a very public display of this kind of violence, I understand those lasting impacts. The question raised by SB 90 is not whether that harm matters —it is whether expanding the criminal code in a broader, more subjective way is the right response.
Senate Bill 90 restructures Connecticut’s hate crime statutes by creating new categories of offenses, adding penalties for threats and advocacy, and expanding enhanced consequences across a wider range of conduct. The result is a significant expansion of criminal liability that risks overcriminalization, particularly of some of the communities it was aimed to protect.
Much of the conduct covered by SB 90 is already illegal. Assault, harassment, threatening, and property damage are crimes today. This bill creates parallel “hate crime” charges that allow prosecutors to stack additional counts onto the same underlying behavior. That means more leverage in charging and plea negotiations, not more justice.
The most concerning change is the removal of the “malicious” intent standard. By lowering the threshold for proving bias motivation, the bill allows greater reliance on interpretation and surrounding context rather than clear evidence of deliberate hostility. That shift makes enhancements easier to apply —but also more subjective—raising the risk that ambiguous conduct is treated as bias-motivated without clear proof of intent.
Prosecutors already have broad discretion over what gets charged and against whom. Expanding the scope of criminal statutes increases that discretion. On paper, laws apply equally. In practice, enforcement has never been neutral, let alone equitable. Communities that already experience heavier policing are most likely to feel the impact.
SB 90 also extends into more subjective territory, covering threats and conduct that can be interpreted as encouraging others. These standards are difficult to define and even harder to apply consistently —especially in protest settings where speech, symbolism, and confrontation often intersect.
Expanding the criminal code without stronger guardrails risks reinforcing disparities, not addressing them. A narrower approach —focused on clear acts of violence or property destruction, with strong intent requirements— would better balance accountability with fairness.
There is also room to invest in prevention and community-based responses that address harm before it escalates. On the same day the House voted to advance SB 90—it also chose to kill SB 503. That bill would have expanded parole eligibility to individuals who were under 26 at the time of their offense, extending existing youthful offender parole provisions beyond age 21. Senate Bill 503 was rooted in the idea that young people are still developing, capable of rehabilitation, and should have a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate change.
The contrast is difficult to ignore: in the same legislative moment, Connecticut expanded the ways it can punish while rejecting a chance to recognize growth, accountability, and redemption.
With SB 90 now passed by both chambers, the decision moves to the governor. A veto would not signal indifference to hate— it would recognize that this bill expands criminal liability in ways that risk uneven enforcement, unintended consequences, and a chilling effect on our constitutionally protected rights of free expression.
State Rep. Maryam Khan is Deputy Majority Leader and represents House District 5, which includes sections of Hartford, South Windsor and Windsor.