A bipartisan group of legislators just introduced an Ohio hate crimes bill. Does it protect LGBTQ+ Ohioans? It depends who you ask.

A bipartisan group of legislators in the Ohio House introduced a bill that would for the first time establish a category of “hate crimes” in Ohio. 

HB 306 seeks to “prohibit hate crimes and to create a civil remedy for a person who is terrorized by another because of specific characteristics or beliefs.” Those found to have perpetrated a hate crime may have to pay a fine of up to $25,000. 

The primary sponsors of the bill are Reps. Dontavius Jarrells (D-Columbus) and Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Twp.). HB 306 features 26 co-sponsors: 15 Republicans and 11 Democrats. 

The specific characteristics or beliefs protected are an individual’s:

Political affiliation
Race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry
Age, familial status, military status or disability 
The person’s position in a labor dispute
A perception that the person has any of the characteristics or beliefs above.  
Notably missing from the list of specific characteristics: sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. 

One of the bill’s Democratic co-sponsors says that the bill would protect LGBTQ+ Ohioans. LGBTQ+ advocates vehemently disagree.

Origins and intent
Rep. Jarrells told The Buckeye Flame that HB 306 came to be introduced after one of his constituents – a Black woman – was spit on by a white male who then proceeded to verbally call her racial epithets.

“He just did not want this woman to exist,” Jarrells said. 

As the Ohio Revised Code only addresses hate crimes that cover religious persecution, Jarrells said he researched hate crimes legislation in other states and ultimately came to work with Rep. Williams. Jarrells said that key to this bipartisan approach was creating a bill that could actually get support from both sides of the political aisle in the starkly divided Ohio House.

“We want this bill to be able to pass so that the experience of that Black woman does not happen again,” Jarrells said. 

Jarrells said that the decision not to specify LGBTQ+ identity in the list of protected classes was part of the attempt not to make the bill too “tailored or narrow.”

But Jarrells insists that LGBTQ+ identity is covered under the word “sex.” He said that the decision in Bostock v. Clayton County – a landmark Supreme Court case that expanded protection to transgender workers in companies of 15 or more employees – supports this interpretation. 

“We were really intentional about making sure this bill reflects inclusive interpretation,” Jarrells said. “But do it in a way where the bill is not politicized because hate is hate, regardless of whether you are Black, white, Jewish, religious or gay.”

All of the categories Jarrells mentioned other than “gay” are specifically mentioned in the bill. 

Rep. Williams did not respond to our request for comment on whether he shares Jarrells’ interpretation of the word “sex.”

LGBTQ+ advocates say the omission of the words “sexual orientation,” “gender identity” and “gender expression” will omit LGBTQ+ Ohioans from the protections HB 306 aims to provide.

GLAAD’s anti-LGBTQ+ extremism analyst Sarah Moore said that any bill seeking to address hate and bias-motivated crimes must include explicit and comprehensive LGBTQ+ protections. 

“LGBTQ Ohioans already face discrimination and violence based on who they are, including threats to personal safety that create unsafe environments for every Ohioan,” said Moore. 

Moore highlights that these LGBTQ+ protections are especially needed given that there have been 100 anti-LGBTQ+ incidents reported to GLAAD’s Anti-LGBTQ Extremism Reporting Tracker (ALERT) since 2022 in Ohio alone.

“LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime statutes allow victims to seek justice and help researchers track anti-LGBTQ violence, and that helps direct essential resources to protect the most vulnerable in our communities,” Moore said. 

Other LGBTQ+ advocates say Jarrells’ application of Bostock to conclude that HB 306 is inclusive of LGBTQ+ identity might be reasonable, but would be unwise given Ohio’s the anti-LGBTQ+ track record over the past few years. 

Maria Bruno, executive director of the advocacy group Ohioans Against Extremism and an attorney, said that the entire point of codifying specific LGBTQ+ protections is to “unambiguously clarify the scope of a law’s application.” 

“It would be naive and short-sighted — if not altogether delusional — to give the benefit of the doubt to a legislature that has made its mission over the last four years to target LGBTQ+ Ohioans in every facet of their lives,” Bruno said. “There is no reason to assume those same lawmakers would suddenly, implicitly intend to codify protections for LGBTQ+ Ohioans.”

For his part, Jarrells acknowledged this anti-LGBTQ+ political climate.

“The things that my colleagues are doing related to trans rights are abhorrent and I’ll fight against those things,” he said.

In the current proposed Ohio budget that has already passed the Ohio House, there is an amendment that would establish the policy of the state of Ohio to “recognize two sexes, male and female” and that “these sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

Legal analysts at Equality Ohio said that this is an attempt by lawmakers to “codify the very opposite of what Bostock [decided].” Still, there is a feeling that HB 306 at least represents more protections than currently exist, even if all of those protections are not explicitly articulated.

“As a Black gay man, I am glad the Statehouse is taking a step towards finally defining hate crime law in Ohio,” said Dwayne Steward, executive director of Equality Ohio. “It is a long time coming. I will be excited to support this bill if our legislators can ensure that it will protect us all from hate.”

Moving forward
Even fellow lawmakers take issue with HB 306. Rep. Tristan Rader (D-Lakewood) said that he strongly supports protections for hate crimes but has concerns about a bill that “increases criminal penalties without addressing sentencing reform or the impact of over-incarcerated communities.” 

He, too, highlighted the lack of LGBTQ+-specific language.

“This is an unacceptable omission when these communities remain frequent targets of hate,” Rader said. 

Jarrells is hopeful that conversations with representatives like Rader will create more understanding. He said it would be “horrific and unhelpful” for individuals to conclude that HB 306 is not LGBTQ+ inclusive. He points to the 26 co-sponsors of the bill as a sign of hope in Ohio. 

“For us to have this bipartisan bill with so many Republicans, I truly believe that finally for the first time, when this bill passes in law, we can build in Ohio where justice can finally be remedied,” Jarrells said. 

HB 306 was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee on May 28 and now awaits a scheduled hearing. ¿