Gillette City Council repeals malicious harms ordinance in 4-3 vote
GILLETTE — After two months of public debate, the Gillette City Council passed the final vote Tuesday night to remove the malicious harms ordinance from its city code.
The motion passed along the same 4-3 vote as the past two council meetings, with Mayor Shay Lundvall and Council Members Tim Carsrud, Jack Clary and Chris Smith voting in favor of the repeal, while Council Members Heidi Gross, Nathan McLeland and Jim West voted against it.
Before its removal, the ordinance, passed in 2023, made it a chargeable offense to maliciously physically attack someone or destroy property with the intent to harm or intimidate a person based on a number of classes (such as race, sexual orientation or religion, among many others) outlined in the ordinance or attempt to incite or produce lawless violence to the same ends.
A misdemeanor, these charges would stack alongside the original charge, such as assault.
While considered a few times over the past two years, the ordinance had never been used before it was removed Tuesday.
Despite this, many members of the community expressed their disappointment, even before the final vote came through.
“This is where I want to be, this is the place I love, and I've got to tell you, if you rescind this ordinance, it will be the first time I can remember that I will be ashamed of my city,” resident Diane Ernst said ahead of the vote.
While those looking to repeal the law argued that the law discriminates by creating classes of people deserving of higher protections, West made clear that, when designing the ordinance, effort was made to make sure the language applied to all parts of the community, rather than specific groups alone.
Voicing his own thoughts, West also shared a story close to his heart, citing the homophobia experienced by his brother-in-law, who stayed with West's family in Gillette at the age of 15 after the passing of his mother-in-law 12 years ago.
West said that, despite the young man’s accomplishments as a track and field runner, he was severely bullied for his sexual orientation.
“It's not about Democrats or Republicans, it's not about giving one group more than another," West said. “It was created to show the world and the people right here in Wyoming that Gillette is a place where everyone who walks through our doors is treated with dignity, a place where families feel safe, a place where businesses know they are welcome.”
This story echoed others provided by members of the community across the three readings, with those against the repeal wanting to make clear that, while not always covered by the ordinance directly, the issue was far from an academic one for many.
“I cannot in any way, shape or form, support repealing this ordinance, when I hear the impassioned stories of so many people in our community that have reached out to me personally through email, text messages, they come to the public hearings,” Gross said. “I just can't turn a blind eye to those, those people that feel real pain about this, that are really impacted by this (repeal).”
Speaking on their reasons for voting in favor of the repeal, the two newest council members, Smith and Clary, cited campaign promises regarding the issue, although both also spoke on their personal view that the base laws covered the issue, leaving the ordinance unnecessary.
“I don't believe in this ordinance,” Smith said. “I believe that we in this community are better than that, because I believe that every citizen is equal before, equally protected by and subject to law.”
This sentiment was echoed by the other two voters in favor of the repeal, although Lundvall also made clear in his own comments that the community should stand behind victims of the malicious harms the ordinance focused on, stating his intention to implement ways to fast-track such cases with full transparency, understanding that for many the ordinance represented "reassurance and belonging” that stretched passed its actual language.
“This decision does not change our city's commitment to protecting every person who calls Gillette home,” Lundvall said. “Every person in Gillette deserves to feel safe, and every business owner deserves to know that their employees and customers are protected. Acts of violence, intimidation or harassment, including those targeted at some, at someone because of who they are, what they believe or whom they love, will continue to continue to be fully investigated and prosecuted under the existing Wyoming law.”
Ahead of the council’s discussion, the community also heard from members of the public, although in fewer numbers than in the previous two readings.
Those speaking in favor of the repeal took a more theoretical stance on the issue, pointing to division within the community and a ‘common sense’ look at the laws, describing the ordinance as ‘political theater,’ that pulled the community away from the values of the equality state.
“This ordinance does nothing to prevent crime, nothing to deter violence, and nothing to actually protect victims,” Norberto Orellana said. “A criminal intent on harming someone is not going to stop in their tracks and say, ‘Well, I was going to commit assault, but since it might be labeled as hate, I'll just go home instead.’ No, that's not how human behavior works.”
Those in support of the ordinance, in addition to providing their own personal stories, highlighted shows of public support for the ordinance through letters, phone calls and petitions in addition to those speaking at the podium, stating that equality can only be true in practice if the community works to send a clear message to counter the intimidation the ordinance sought to address.
“This ordinance may not seem necessary now, but as the world becomes more divisive, especially regarding attacks on identity, religion or sexuality, it could be vital in the future,” Jacob Iverson said. “Why remove something that could serve our future generations?”
This story was published on Dec. 3, 2025.