Gillette residents debate merits of “hate crime” ordinance; city council votes to repeal
GILLETTE — On Tuesday night, the Gillette City Council inched one step closer to repealing its malicious harms ordinance.
In front of a packed and vocal audience, the members of the Gillette City Council voted 4-3 to push forward the repeal of the city’s malicious harms ordinance. The vote came after 23 residents expressed their views on the effect of the ordinance and how its repeal might affect the community, both positive and negative.
Council Members Heidi Gross, Nathan McLeland and Jim West voted against the repeal, while Mayor Shay Lundvall and Councilmen Jack Clary, Chris Smith and Tim Carsrud voted in favor of the repeal.
Often referred to as Gillette’s “Hate Crime” ordinance in the public discourse surrounding its passing in 2023 and the current attempt to repeal, the malicious crimes ordinance works as an additional charge that can be added to an existing crime.
Thanking members of the community who reached out to him about the issue, West spoke on a clarification of the ordinance as targeting malicious harms rather than hate crimes.
The former is more inclusive of all sectors of the community, and West said that those that insist on calling it a hate crime ordinance are doing so to manufacture claims of division within the community.
“One of the things that was very important to me was to make sure that it was inclusive to every single person that walks this planet,” West said. “We're not making a special class. Everyone on this side, everyone on that side, you're all special. We're all special. We need to be treated that way. I think what happens is a lot of people that use that word hate as they can mix their words and they can turn it into talking points.”
According to the Gillette City Code, the malicious harms ordinance imposes a misdemeanor (with a maximum of $750 and/or up to 6 months of imprisonment) if a person, with intent to intimidate or harm, causes injury, property damage or making creditable threats based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, disability, or age of the victim.
The ordinance also covers incitement or promotion of lawless violence toward the same ends.
The repeal, now headed to its second reading, would remove the relevant chapter as well as other language relating to the ordinance found elsewhere in the city code.
In the final comment spoken before the vote, Lundvall said that while he believes the community doesn't need the ordinance, he also wants to make clear that the violence and intimidation the ordinance was designed to prevent will never be tolerated in the community.
“I will not stand for any violence in this community, for whatever class,” Lundvall said. “It is unacceptable. I will not tolerate it and we want to know about it. I want to know about it. Our police chief, our law enforcement, want to know about it. It is unacceptable. You are welcome here.”
Community split on ordinance
Gillette is one of five communities in Wyoming to have an ordinance addressing hate crime, with Wyoming being one of two states, alongside South Carolina, not to have any statewide hate crime laws.
This more uncommon nature of the ordinance within the state was brought up by many who spoke out in favor of the ordinance, claiming that it sends a message that Gillette is a community that is willing to stand up and protect all its people.
“I just think it sends the message outside our community, as well as inside our community, that we are a community that cares for people and we feel that they have the right to be safe,” said resident Vicki Swenson.
Many in favor of the repeal claim that the ordinance is divisive.
While some claimed that the ordinance criminalized speech, others stated that, as the underlying actions are already crimes in their own right, adding on punishments based on intent does more harm than good.
“I see this quite simply. I have always believed our laws and ordinances are written to be applied to all of our citizens equally,” Clint Copping said. “This ordinance has the effect of making certain groups more equal than others. I think it should be repealed.”
“The community already judges intentions and character, and that responsibility belongs to citizens, not government,” resident Katherine Poynter said. “Gillette's shared values of faith, family and responsibility make the ordinance unnecessary.”
One resident who supported the repeal, Dean Vomhof, took a different approach. He claimed the ordinance had its roots in the issues at the Campbell County Public Library during that time.
He said that following a protest of the library, a church had been vandalized, and that in his view, the law creates problems by putting "groups with sexual issues" in the front of the line.
"Being lesbian or gay is your own choice, but why should you be treated better because of your sexual preference?" he asked. "Why should we put our wives, mothers, children at risk because some transvestite wants to invade their space in the bathroom or the locker rooms? Let's treat everyone with respect. Use the restroom that matches your birth gender and not pass laws that treat folks with identity problems differently than anyone else."
The controversy surrounding the library began two years before the ordinance was passed, and if the ordinance had been in place at the time the vandalism at the church took place, it would have applied.
At the close of the public comment, those in attendance also heard from former city councilman Billy Montgomery, who initially put forward the ordinance in 2023.
Montgomery defended the ordinance, asking the members of the council to think about the many members of the community not present at the meeting and the city’s commitment to the well being of all its residents.
“This ordinance isn't about politics, it's about making sure that our neighbors can go about their day without fear of hate or harassment,” he said. “I'm asking you to stand firm in your duty to represent the whole community, not just the largest voices. Keep this ordinance in place and show that our city stands against hate in all forms.”
Local officials weigh in on matter
The city clerk’s office received four letters touching on the topic ahead of the forum, including a short request from Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, who asked that the city council continue with its repeal of the ordinance.
He described it as a “useless ordinance which, other than virtue signaling, does nothing to improve our community and society.”
Bear also compared the ordinance to “thought crime” and echoed assumptions on what he believed the ordinance actually covers.
Campbell County GOP Chairman Norberto Orellana also wrote to the city, arguing that the ordinance goes against the principles of liberty and equality, claiming it creates special classes of citizens.
“I understand where the ordinance’s supporters are coming from — a place of worry and compassion for others — but I believe their approach is misguided,” Orellana said. “The ordinance simply provides the illusion of an extra layer of security while setting an unfortunate precedent of division and special protected classes of citizens in a nation where all should be equal under the law.”
Residents share personal stories to highlight importance of ordinance
Two members of the public expressed how the law has impacted them in a far more personal way. Both parents who have raised their children in Gillette, Amy Caldwell and Amber Lewis recounted incidents that have affected their families.
Caldwell, whose adult child is transgender, noted that despite the efforts of some within it, the community is not as welcoming as those who wish to remove the ordinance would like to claim. She said her child moved away from Gillette in part due to safety concerns.
“That loss of trust didn't happen in a vacuum,” Caldwell said. “It comes from real experiences of intimidation and silence. Why are you okay with removing the protection that would help the others in our community feel safe? I don't understand this.
Caldwell also recounted a more specific incident, which she saw during the city’s first “No Kings” protest in June.
“A man with a holstered gun stood staring at a small group of LGBTQ kids and friends,” Caldwell said. “He locked eyes with them several times and repeatedly patted his gun. He didn't have a word to say. Words weren't necessary; the threat was clear. This kind of behavior is the kind that this ordinance was written to address."
What stuck out for Lewis were two incidents within her first year in Gillette.
“One of my very first experiences in Gillette was going school shopping with my little 10-year-old girl and being attacked by four men who said I was too tall to be a real woman,” Lewis said.
Less than a year later, she said her teen child was "bullied to the point where they almost lost their life."
"These children, because (my child) is a member of the LGBTQ community, took her into the stairs to try to get her to jump off the building," Lewis said. "This is happening in our community, and these people do need protections, and we need to send a loud and clear message that this kind of action will not be tolerated.”
In a letter to the city council, Caldwell said the repeal effort is "about protecting bullies."
“Let's be honest, a certain group in our community would rather all the LGBTQ people left town," she wrote. "It does not take long to sense the high level of hatred in this town. Repealing this ordinance will only reinforce the belief that Gillette does not welcome everyone. No one’s rights are violated by asking people to treat others with respect and refrain from harassment or intimidation.”
Council members express divided views on how to promote safety in Gillette
Those in attendance heard from five of the seven members of the council, with Lundvall and Smith speaking on their reasons for voting to move forward while Gross, West and McLeland expressing their reasons for their vote against the repeal.
Gross discussed how the repeal will impact the influx of young talent and companies coming to and remaining in Gillette, arguing earlier points made during the public comment that the repeal, particularly how the impact will color the view of what Gillette is willing to stand for, will do no favors for the community.
She also questioned the validity of the view that the ordinance promotes division, asking for more concrete evidence to back up the claim.
“I hear folks say that this has caused such a division in our community. I would love to hear of an example of an actual fact of division that was caused in our community because of this ordinance. I'd like to see some facts that support that,” Gross said. “…I have heard no compelling reason why we should repeal this, not one.”
McLeland took pains to clarify that the ordinance does not deal with speech, even hate speech, but malicious actions in particular.
He joined West in pointing out that the wording of the ordinance is not meant to protect any one specific group but enhance the penalties against anyone who seeks to intimidate or harm another based on who they are.
“I think one of our most important jobs is to protect people's rights,” McLeland said. “As I look at this ordinance, and I look at what it does, it adds an extra layer of protection so that people can worship how they choose to worship, and, you know, live their lives as they please, without as much fear of being persecuted. That's why I supported it before. That's why I support it again.”
Both Smith and Lundvall expressed compassion for those supporting the ordinance but felt that it was the wrong tactic to discourage violence in the community, with Smith stating he has seen the community come together before to stand against hate.
“I have seen when hate tried to rise up in this community with the burning of a Quran, and this community came together and spoke against that,” Smith said. “Christians stood with Muslims because they opposed that kind of a threat to somebody else, and I think that this community decides who we are.”
Smith also put forward the idea of making the ordinance a ballot initiative, standing that this choice was better left to be decided by the community directly rather than the council, but he noted that those he has talked to have by and large expressed a desire to see the ordinance repealed.
With Tuesday being the first of three readings, the council will take up the issue again in their meetings on Nov. 18 and Dec. 2. Those wishing to express their views on the ordinance and its potential repeal may speak during the public comment of those meetings.
This story was published on Nov. 6, 2025.