Do you have any evidence for these statements?
I would be very interested to read the answer to your question.
In 1999 Alabama authorities did not report any hate crimes. That was the year that Billy Jack Gaither, a homosexual, was "was brutally beaten to death. His throat was cut, and his body was bludgeoned with an ax handle before being thrown on top of a pile of tires and set on fire."
If there is such a thing as a hate crime, Gaither's murder probably qualified, yet Alabama reported no hate crimes (or did not report any hate crimes). Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that Alabama's standards for reporting such incidents didn't measure up to those of other states.
You could argue that Alabama wasn't required to report a murder based on sexual orientation as a hate crime. Fair enough. But if other states do report such incidents, then the statistics give an unfair picture of where hate crimes occur.
Those who've called attention to Alabama's recordkeeping have also questioned Mississippi's. I can't say whether they're right or wrong, but they do ask whether Mississipi really only had 2 hate crimes in years when Minnesota reported 300 and Washington State 200. So yes, accusations have been made that something is wrong with Mississippi's recordkeeping as well.
I don't think additional sentences for "hate crimes" are a good idea. But if states and localities are required to report such incidents, shouldn't all states and communities be on the same footing? And if some state doesn't use the same standard as others, what's wrong with pointing that out?
It looks to me like the Waterbury paper was misled by questionable records. Shouldn't people be aware that inconsistencies may exist?