The Community Safety, Justice & Reentry Committee voted 5–3, with one member excused, to report out House Bill 1052 with a due-pass recommendation after lengthened discussion about legal terms used in the bill and concerns over subjectivity.

Committee staff summarized House Bill 1052 as modifying current law for hate-crime offenses by providing that a person commits a hate-crime offense if they commit a specified act in whole or in part because of their perception of another person's protected characteristic. Committee members asked staff about definitions and legal standards for terms used in the bill, particularly "maliciously," "intentionally," and "perception," and whether those terms are statutorily defined.

Lina Langer, counsel to the committee, told members that intent is defined in statute for mens rea: "A person acts with intent or intentionally when he or she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime." Langer said she was not aware of a statutory definition of "perception" and that the bill itself did not define that term. Committee members expressed concern that a perception-based standard could be broad and subjective.

Representative Farvar, acting vice chair, urged support for the bill and described a personal commuting incident she said illustrated the problem HB 1052 seeks to address. She said the incident involved a woman wearing a hijab who was berated on public transit and, in her view, the conduct appeared to be motivated by the woman's perceived religion. Representative Farvar asked for a yes vote, saying HB 1052 would provide "needed clarity" and improve reporting and prosecution of these incidents.

Several members said they shared the concern about bias-motivated conduct but opposed the bill as drafted. Representative Griffey said he would vote "nay without recommendation" because the bill, in his view, remained insufficiently neutral and could produce unequal application. Representative Burnett, Representative Graham and others voiced concerns that the bill's standard relies on subjective perceptions rather than provable elements; some members said they favored using sentencing enhancement after a trial rather than a separate statutory standard.

Because members did not reach consensus, the committee conducted a roll call vote. The clerk recorded the roll-call tally as 5 ayes, 3 nays, 1 excused. The chair announced, "By your vote, the committee does report out House Bill 1052 with a due pass recommendation."

The transcript records detailed questioning from committee members about statutory definitions and prosecutorial practice, but it does not record any amendments to the bill during the hearing. Committee staff said they could look up case law and statutory definitions for the committee's follow-up; the bill was referred out of committee to the next legislative stage.