Lansing Democrats in the state House on Wednesday passed a measure amending the state’s hate crime law, and one lawmaker has said it could allow prosecutors to prosecute people for saying there are only two genders on social media.

“After losing [their] majority, House Democrats want to ram through woke bills to allow prosecutors to go after people for stating there are only two genders on social media,” state Rep. Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, said on X before the vote. “Michiganders don’t want this. This absurd, radical, out-of-touch agenda must stop.”

The House voted 57-52 to pass substitute versions of House Bill 5400 and House Bill 5401, which could increase the number of felonies in the state and drive up penal costs for taxpayers. The measures are among the several pieces of legislation the Democratic-controlled House could try to advance during the lame-duck session and before they cede control of the state House to Republicans.

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

Under HB 5400, an individual could face a hate crime charge if they commit or threaten violence, stalk or damage property. It also applies to anyone who makes a “true threat” to engage in such conduct.

Anyone found guilty of making a true threat, a felony, faces up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. However, a judge could opt for an alternative sentence of community service.

The punishment increases to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for subsequent violations of the true threat provision.

Per the proposed statute, a “speaker is not liable for communicating a true threat if the speaker was unaware that the individual or the group of individuals could regard the statement as threatening violence.” Additionally, under the revised statute, anyone who suffers an injury or property damage stemming from a hate crime can bring a civil case against the hate crime’s perpetrator.

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

According to a legislative analysis from the House Fiscal Agency, HB 5400 could have an “indeterminate fiscal impact on the state” and local governments as it could result in more felony convictions and, therefore, higher state prisons and state probation supervision costs.

A companion piece, HB 5401, would amend Michigan’s Code of Criminal Procedure sentencing guidelines.

The push comes against a national backdrop of cases involving transgender issues. Attorneys general from conservative states have banded together to fight various pushes from the left, such as a reinterpretation of Title IX.

This week, a group of 18 attorneys general filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a First Amendment case from Massachusetts.

The case involves a middle school student who wore a t-shirt to school with the message, “There are only two genders.” After school officials told the student he couldn’t wear the shirt, the student then put tape over the word “two.”

However, school officials also banned that statement. In June, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the school’s dress code.

“Free speech is protected even for t-shirts and even in school,” South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a release. “The school actively promoted gender identity theory in the classroom, and yet banned this t-shirt, so this is viewpoint discrimination in public schools. The Supreme Court ruled in a 1969 case [known as Tinker] that teachers and students don’t ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,’ and that’s what’s happening here.”

Attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia joined in the brief, led by South Carolina and West Virginia.

“Beliefs about gender are deeply rooted,” the attorneys generals said in their brief. “And schools should be the place to freely express beliefs. But not according to the First Circuit, which seeks to insulate some students from beliefs they do not share by suppressing messages that the government does not approve. That’s viewpoint discrimination.”

HOW THEY VOTED

Democrat (56 Yeas / 0 Nays)

Aiyash (D-9); Andrews (D-38); Arbit (D-20); Brabec (D-33); Breen (D-21); Brixie (D-73); Byrnes (D-15); Carter (D-53); Carter (D-1); Churches (D-27); Coffia (D-103); Conlin (D-48); Dievendorf (D-77); Edwards (D-12); Farhat (D-3); Fitzgerald (D-83); Glanville (D-84); Grant (D-82); Haadsma (D-44); Herzberg (D-25); Hill (D-109); Hood (D-81); Hope (D-74); Hoskins (D-18); Koleszar (D-22); Liberati (D-2); MacDonell (D-56); Martus (D-69); McFall (D-8): McKinney (D-14); Mentzer (D-61); Miller (D-31); Morgan (D-23); Morse (D-40); Neeley (D-70); O’Neal (D-94); Paiz (D-11); Pohutsky (D-17); Price (D-5); Puri (D-24); Rheingans (D-47); Rogers (D-41); Scott (D-7); Shannon (D-58); Skaggs (D-80); Snyder (D-87); Steckloff (D-19); Tate (D-10); Tsernoglou (D-75); Wegela (D-26); Weiss (D-6); Whitsett (D-4); Wilson (D-32); Witwer (D-76); Xiong (D-13); Young (D-16)

Republican (52 Nays)

Alexander (R-98); Aragona (R-60); Beeler (R-64); BeGole (R-71); Beson (R-96); Bezotte (R-50); Bierlein (R-97); Bollin (R-49); Borton (R-105); Bruck (R-30); Carra (R-36); Cavitt (R-106); DeBoer (R-86); DeBoyer (R-63); DeSana (R-29); Filler (R-93); Fink (R-35); Fox (R-101); Friske (R-107); Greene (R-65); Hall (R-42); Harris (R-52); Hoadley (R-99); Johnsen (R-78); Kunse (R-100); Lightner (R-45); Maddock (R-51); Markkanen (R-110); Martin (R-68); Meerman (R-89); Mueller (R-72); Neyer (R-92); Outman (R-91); Paquette (R-37); Posthumus (R-90); Prestin (R-108); Rigas (R-79); Roth (R-104); Schmaltz (R-46); Schriver (R-66); Schuette (R-95); Slagh (R-85); Smit (R-43); St. Germaine (R-62); Steele (R-54); Thompson (R-28); Tisdel (R-55); VanderWall (R-102); VanWoerkom (R-88); Wendzel (R-39); Wozniak (R-59); Zorn (R-34)

Republican (1 Yea)

Kuhn, (R-57);