The City of Beaufort passes hate crime ordinance. But how far can it go without state law?

The city of Beaufort passed a hate crime ordinance Tuesday, joining 13 other municipalities in the state, including Bluffton. But without a state-wide hate crime law, prosecution at the local level can only go so far.

The ordinance passed by Beaufort is identical to the one passed by Bluffton in October. The ordinance adds a new charge, “hate intimidation.” The charge will act as an additional offense when “race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental disability, or national origin of any person” is believed to have motivated a “primary charge,” such as assault or vandalism.

A hate intimation charge considered a misdemeanor, can add as much as $500 in fines or up to 30 more days of imprisonment.

“This is long overdue,” said City Councilman Neil Lipsitz in a press release. “We hope that by joining the other 12 municipalities in South Carolina in passing a hate crime ordinance, we are sending a clear message to Columbia that it is time for action by our state legislators to pass a similar measure for inclusion in the South Carolina Code.”

The City of Beaufort and the Town of Bluffton are the only municipalities in Beaufort County to have adopted the hate crime charge. But prosecution of the charge could get a bit tricky.

The limits to the local laws

The charge couldn’t be applied to any case that would be prosecuted by the 14th Circuit Solicitor’s Office, as without a state-wide law, the solicitor would have no avenue to pursue charges. So if a murder in Beaufort or Bluffton was deemed to be a hate crime, the solicitor could only take the murder charge and not the hate intimidation charge, according to Jeff Kidd, spokesperson for the 14th Circuit.

In that case, it would be entirely up to the municipality to further pursue the hate intimidation charge with their own prosecution, likely having to hire a prosecutor, Kidd said.

The additional charge is most likely to be added to crimes that can be prosecuted at the municipal level. For instance vandalism.

The City of Beaufort would not prosecute a hate intimidation charge on its own, City Manager Scott Marshall said.

The charge has not been applied to anyone in the Town of Bluffton since the ordinance was adopted, Bluffton Police Chief Joe Babkiewicz confirmed.

But Ordinances like these are typically aimed at pressuring state lawmakers into passing similar legislation. South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two U.S. state legislatures that haven’t passed hate crime bills.

A bill was in consideration in the SC Senate, after passing through the House last year, but failed to get enough senators in the republican caucus to support taking the bill up for discussion, according to South Carolina State Sen. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort).

“It’s an expression of municipalities, local government saying this is something that’s important to our constituents, and it’s a way of signaling to the legislature that this is something that’s important that the legislature needs to take up,” Davis said.

Beaufort’s City Manager, Scott Marshall, corroborated.

“I think the major impetus in passing it is the fact that South Carolina is only one of two states in our Union that does not have a hate crime law on the books. That’s not a good look for us,” he said. “Yes, they believe in the hate crime ordinance and think it’s important. But what’s more important is sending a message to the General Assembly that we’re tired of waiting for you.”

Davis said he believes a lot of the opposition to a hate crime bill stems from a misconstruing of what it would do.

“This isn’t about criminalizing thought,” Davis said. “There’s got to be an existing crime. In certain crimes, certain instances, certain motivating factors and certain unique circumstances are deserving of enhancing the penalty. And that is nothing new. We do that in the code now.”

“The fact that we haven’t (passed a hate crime bill), we stick out. I think it causes people in other parts of the country to look at South Carolina, and to draw what I think are unreasonable inferences about the people of South Carolina.”