Case Explained: SC GOP governor candidates discuss hate crimes law stance – Legal Perspective

In 2027, South Carolina will have a new governor succeeding Gov. Henry McMaster who has not had to decide whether to sign hate crimes bill into law. Previous efforts have passed out of the House in recent years, but the bills always died in the state Senate because of objections from senators.

With local governments now opting to put their own penalties in place for people who commit crimes fueled by hate, would the next occupant of the governor’s office be a proponent of adding a hate crime law to the state’s books?

Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, state Sen. Josh Kimbrell, U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman and Attorney General Alan Wilson are all vying for the Republican nomination for governor in the 2026 election. Some don’t think a hate crimes law is necessary, some would support a law depending on how its tailored. The Republican nominee for governor will be the favorite to win the general election because South Carolina is a reliably red conservative state.

Proponents of a hate crimes law have been making the call since nine Black churchgoers were killed in a mass shooting at Mother Emanuel Church, including the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was a state senator at the time.

Dylann Roof, a white supremacist, has been sentenced to die for that shooting. He was charged under the federal hate crimes statute.

South Carolina is one of two states without a hate crimes law, leaving it up to prosecutors to rely on federal prosecutors to pursue such charges. And efforts to establish a hate crimes law include naming the law after Pinckney.

Without a hate crimes law on the books, some local governments have taken the step of adding a local ordinance. Richland County, the municipalities of Charleston, Columbia, Arcadia Lakes and Cayce and the Orangeburg County Council have adopted hate crime ordinance. The Orangeburg City Council and town of Irmo are looking to add one as well.

Reaction over football camp altercation

Last month, video surfaced of an altercation at a football camp for high school students. The camp took place at Presbyterian College and was sponsored by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. In the altercation, two black players were seen beating a white player.

As the video circulated on social media, Mace chimed in and took a shot at one of her opponents for the GOP nomination for governor.

“We need to call this what it is: A HATE CRIME!” Mace posted on X.

Without a state hate crimes law, prosecutors in South Carolina would have no way to prosecute that offense.

When asked about the post after her campaign launch, Mace said she would support a hate crimes law.

“I would support any laws that put bad people in jail,” Mace said. “We don’t have one. We’re one of the few states that don’t have one, and would support that as well.”

Two-and-a-half weeks later at the S.C. Chamber of Commerce’s Washington Night, she reiterated her stance saying she would support a hate crimes law, but the state needs to enforce the law it has on the books.

“So we can put all the laws on the books. I really think we should be focusing on the conversation about, how do we ensure criminals get jail time for the crimes they commit,” Mace said. “I’m all about raising fines, raising fees, raising mandatory minimums, raising sentencing. I’m all of the above. Yes. put me in on it, but we have to have a system that will follow the laws and ensure that people who commit crimes commit to jail time.”

Wilson said he prefers a compromise that allows for an enhancement of a punishment rather than requiring prosecutors to have to prove another element.

“In other words, there’s a principal crime of assault and battery, and you don’t have to prove hate as an element. It could be like an additional element would be an enhancement crime. So, prosecutors don’t want additional elements for the principal crime,” Wilson said.

“It’s a bill that I’m willing to sit down with people and talk about. I’ve met with sheriffs and prosecutors and elected law enforcement leaders from around the state,” Wilson added. “I wanted to make sure that law enforcement was okay with this, before I got out. I talked to my staff. We don’t have a problem with a hate crimes (law) that doesn’t make it difficult or more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs.”

Evette echoes McMaster’s stance.

“I think hate crime is something the governor and I have always agreed on, and I’ve heard the governor say over and over again that every crime is a hate crime,” Evette said. “And what we need is we need judges and prosecutors that prosecute people to the fullest extent of all the laws we have on the books, because if we’re not prosecuting based on those, what does one more law actually mean to anybody?”

State Sen. Josh Kimbrell, R-Spartanburg, said he would support a hate crimes law, but it shouldn’t be too broad.

“I’ve always said that I wouldn’t support one that is so broad that it includes language in there that is going to be violative of people’s religious freedom or freedom of speech,” Kimbrell said.

Kimbrell has opposed the version that has come to the state Senate because it has language that could violate a person’s First Amendment rights, he said.

“It depends how it’s tailored. So I can’t just blanketly say yes or no,” Kimbrell said. “I have said that I would be willing to support a version even in the Senate, that is narrowly tailored, that’s talking about race, gender, age, or (something) like, Alabama has really narrowly tailored, but it doesn’t get into the broad cultural issues.”

U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-Rock Hill, a member of the U.S. House Freedom Caucus, said he would be against a hate crimes law in South Carolina.

“That’s just a that’s just a lawyer’s dream to start suing people,” Norman said, “The 14th Amendment covers that anyway. Everybody’s equal under the law, and that’s just a litigation, in my mind, that’s not needed, should not even have been proposed.”

When asked if there should be additional criminal penalties for crimes motivated by a hatred based on race, religion, sexual orientation or gender, such as in the case of Dylann Roof, Norman rhetorically asked “how do you prove that?”

“You could argue mentally he’s mentally insane, which he is, he’s probably all of the above, but you don’t need more laws,” Norman said.