Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is blocking the passage of a Senate bill that would make lynching a federal hate crime, because he worries that it would be used for lesser violent crimes that result in only “minor bruising.”
Paul on Wednesday told reporters that he objected to the bipartisan measure, which appeared on the verge of passage by unanimous consent after more than a century of similar legislation being blocked, because it might “conflate lesser crimes with lynching.”
“We think that lynching is an awful thing that should be roundly condemned — that should be universally condemned,” Paul said.
However, he argued that the bill would be a “disservice to those who were lynched in our history” and result in “a new 10-year penalty for people who have minor bruising.”
“We don’t think that’s appropriate, and someone has to read these bills and make sure they do what they say they’re going to do rather than it be just a big PR effort, and then everybody gets up in arms and wants to beat up anybody who wants to read the bill and actually make the bill strong,” he added.
Paul said in a statement that he aims to add an amendment to the legislation that would create a “serious bodily injury standard” so that only crimes involving “substantial risk of death and extreme physical pain” are prosecuted as lynching.
Democrats slammed the delay.
“It is shameful that one GOP Senator is standing in the way of seeing this bill become law,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., tweeted.
Paul’s comments came after the National Journal reported that he was the unnamed senator who bill co-sponsor Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said was blocking the legislation in March.
The bill was authored by Booker, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C. The Senate already passed an anti-lynching bill, but it stalled in the House, which instead opted to vote on the Emmett Till Antilynching Act sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill. The bill, named after the 14-year-old black boy lynched in Mississippi in 1955, passed 410-4 in February.
Paul on Wednesday said the authors of the legislation should talk to him “about how to make the bill better.”
“If they want to pass it the easy way, they have to talk to me about it,” Paul added.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rejected Paul’s complaints. A spokesman for Pelosi told Politico that the two bills “only differ with respect to the title and House resolution number.”
“It’s unfortunate that procedural issues are being used to delay the passage of historic legislation,” he said. “The House of Representatives has passed numerous anti-lynching bills. Unfortunately, the Senate again stands in the way of enactment.”
Scott, the only black Republican in the Senate, argued that it was the House which had actually held up the legislation.
“To be frank, I think they wanted their fingerprints on it. They want it to be a House bill,” he told the National Journal. “So they changed the title and kept every other syllable, sentence, letter in it…. We got it passed twice. Now, we have to do it again. I think we would have been better off just keeping it as it was and sending it to the president’s desk so we could get it done immediately. I hope that doesn’t disrupt it.”
Paul’s objection comes after Congress failed to pass anti-lynching legislation 200 times since 1992.
“This has been decades in the making, and it is remarkable that we have gone this long in our country without declaring lynching a federal crime,” Kristen Clarke, the head of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told the National Journal. “And today’s communities continue to wrestle with racial violence in many forms.”
“The fact there may be one man who prevented her from seeing that bill signed into law is very unsettling,” she added.
Rush questioned Paul’s motives in an interview with the outlet.
“The only conclusion I can draw from Sen. Paul’s sudden opposition to the bill is that he has an issue with the law being named after Emmett Till, which would be utterly shameful to say the least,” he said. “In the face of the recent lynchings that have taken the lives of Ahmaud Arbery and others, it defies reason that anyone would be opposed to swiftly enacting this critically needed legislation.”
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment. We are presently looking for 98 new monthly donors before midnight tonight.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy