What Can Be Done to Shield State and Local Officials From Political Violence?

The killing of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the attempted killing of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, are tragedies with multiple dimensions. They are devastating to family, friends and colleagues of the victims, and a waking nightmare for public servants.

Social scientists have documented a spike in threats and harassment of public officials that began in 2017. They have also looked for factors that could explain this trend and, importantly, things that can be done to help public officials stay safe.

The problem is bipartisan. A study published last year by the Brennan Center for Justice showed that Republicans in state and local government were significantly more likely to say threats and harassment were increasing than Democrats. (See chart.)

The Brennan study draws on data collected through surveys and interviews with nearly 2,000 officials, including local officeholders and current and former state legislators.

When asked what should be done in the aftermath of violent incidents, virtually every legislator said leaders from both sides should call out the behavior and affirm, “This is not who we are,” says Gowri Ramachandran, one of the study’s authors.

It’s also important that lawmakers take commonsense steps to protect their own privacy and assess the threats against them, experts say. That means enhancing personal security measures, but also working in partnership with law enforcement.

Fly Under the Radar

In the wake of the 2020 election, while serving as city clerk for Rochester Hills, Mich., Tina Barton received death threats that were serious enough to send an Indiana man to prison. “His threat to end my life when I least expected it robbed me of my sense of security, my peace of mind,” she said when he was sentenced.

Barton burst into tears when she heard of events in Minnesota, she tells Governing. They represented her worst fears for herself and her family, who were also threatened.

In recent years, as a member of the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections, Barton has introduced thousands of election officials to simple strategies that can help any public servant be safer. Many of them involve helping public officials fly under the radar.

Don’t advertise your child’s school or sports team on your car, Barton suggests. “Make sure you’re not giving people clues about where you are,” she advises. This can extend to limiting social media use and paying attention to what you post. Ensure location tags are off when you are posting to X or similar platforms.

State lawmakers may also consider passing legislation that helps officials keep their information more private. Several states have pushed legislation that could get the personal information of public officials out of public databases, Ramachandran says.

This can be complicated by residency requirements for some offices. “Delaware has a law that allows people who have put their home address on their candidate filing forms to have it redacted if they can show good cause to have it redacted,” she says. Some officials are choosing to use a P.O. Box for their address, another strategy that could run up against residency requirements.

You can also ask Google Maps, Zillow, Realtor.com or similar sites to blur or remove photos of your home, Barton says. Share safety code words with family members that can be used to signify danger without arousing suspicion.

At work, Barton says, the most important thing is to have protocols and rules and follow them. Wear required lanyards, don’t prop open doors that require a key card and don’t place screens or photos of family members where a member of the public can see them easily. Don’t work late alone; have a buddy who can escort you when you leave.

Not every public official has resources to enhance their personal security, says Roudabeh Kishi, chief research officer at Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative. States should consider allocating money for security measures for lawmakers, especially those who are facing active threats.

Officials are unhappy that polarization at the national level is filtering down to them, Kishi says. “They really wish that national leadership would do more of the bipartisan governance work that they see themselves doing at the local level, and speak out clearly against the normalization of hostile, violent rhetoric,” she says.

Firearms can be the difference between an act that is frightening and one that is deadly. The Brennan study urges states to allow candidates and officeholders to restrict their presence at campaign rallies, town halls and public events.

Support From Law Enforcement

Most law enforcement agencies are aware of the elected officials who reside in their jurisdiction, and officers on the beat can take extra measures such as passing checks if officials are being harassed, says Chris Hsiung, a former police chief and county undersheriff in Northern California.

Incidents involving “lone wolf” actors are especially challenging because of their unpredictability. Maintaining personal awareness can be as important as any other security measure, Hsiung says. Some neighborhood associations have installed cameras, like those from Flock Safety, also used by law enforcement, which capture license plate numbers and other vehicle characteristics.

Hsuing has earned a reputation as an expert in social media practices for law enforcement, but believes social media’s rise over the last decade has diminished the ability of individual humans to connect and communicate. Media preference for inflammatory sound bites over expressions of humanity fuels this online shouting, he believes.

Hsiung would like to see law enforcement emphasize language focused on unity. “The leaders who can do that effectively as opposed to preying on weakness and fears are the strong leaders, the ones we really need,” he says. Leaders who can manage to bring people together are also keeping people safer.

Waking to Danger

The vast majority of Americans reject political violence, says Nathan Stock, who designed a Carter Center project to mitigate political violence. “The first thing I would emphasize is that the perpetrators of these horrific acts of violence are a tiny minority,” he says.

The center has supported the development of cross-partisan civic networks in six states — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin — to counter polarization and violence and build trust in electoral democracy. Each is led by a prominent local Republican and Democrat.

Ron Barber, a former U.S. Representative who was also shot the day that a gunman attempted to kill Arizona Rep. Gabby Gifford, leads one of them — the Arizona Democracy Resilience Network — in partnership with Don Henninger, a Republican media executive and business leader. The project was established to help lower the temperature in the state around the 2024 election, but the Carter Center saw reason to keep it going.

The faith community, which has capacity to both reinforce and mitigate polarization, is an essential part of the Arizona network, Barber says. It makes up 20 percent of it already, and participation is expanding. Civic Champions awards dinners will recognize community leaders and business executives working to uphold democratic norms.

“Based on polling that we and others have done, I believe the country at large is beginning to understand that there’s real danger if we continue on this path,” Barber says.