‘Better be scared’: threats of political violence foretell tense election year
The judge overseeing the election interference case against Donald Trump in Washington DC had her home visited by police after a fake emergency call, and attempts were made to do the same to the prosecutor Jack Smith.
The Maine secretary of state was “swatted”, too, after she ruled that the former president could not appear on the ballot there because of the 14th amendment. The Colorado judges who ruled similarly have faced threats, leading to increased security.
There was also a round of bomb threats to state capitols, sent to secretaries of state and legislative offices, that were believed to be a hoax but led to evacuations around the country this month. Those hoaxes came after letters containing fentanyl were sent to elections office in a handful of states in November.
A recent wave of threats against elections officials and judges foretells a tense presidential election year that’s likely to see ongoing threats of political violence that could turn physical, as the future of US democracy hangs in the balance.
“It does seem sort of like it’s a message starting off the year, saying, ‘OK we are in 2024, and this is not going to be easy. Elections are not going to go smoothly, and you better be scared,’” said Lilliana Mason, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies political violence.
The wave comes after several years of sustained threats to and harassment of elections officials, who have seen high turnover in their field as a result. It’s now part of the job to face an onslaught of harassing messages when running an election in the US.
While these recent threats haven’t carried physical violence, they aren’t innocent. They disrupt and intimidate the people involved – and they cause chaos, making it difficult for elections officials to do their jobs. Women and people of color are more often the targets of these threats, Mason said, which could drive people out of the jobs, potentially changing the profile of who runs elections.
A threat against a building, such as the bomb threats, takes hours to investigate and evacuate to ensure people are safe. Threats like doxing, or posting personal information online, or swatting someone’s home take even longer to unwind, requiring more security, staying in another location and scrubbing online information. It’s not always clear, either, whether a threat is simply designed to sow chaos or will lead to violence.
“Today, it could be warnings. Tomorrow, there could be an actual bomb that goes off or there could be an assassination attempt with a rifle,” said Robert Pape, a University of Chicago professor who directs the Chicago Project on Security and Threats.
Beyond the effects on those targeted, violence and intimidation are destabilizing and distract people from thinking more soberly about the country and its future, Mason said.
“They focus our energy on who is mad at who and dividing us against each other, rather than focusing on the wellbeing of the nation as a whole,” she said.
Shenna Bellows, the Democratic secretary of state in Maine, had her home swatted – with state troopers searching her house summoned by a call about a fake break-in – after her decision on the 14th amendment question that would result in Trump being left off the ballot in the state. Her personal cellphone number and home address were posted online. She knew that her decision would bring strong reactions, but not to this extent.
“The ensuing threatening communications, the doxing, the swatting of my home are unacceptable,” she said. “We should be able to agree to disagree on issues that are extraordinarily important and even controversial with respect and civility. We should be able to disagree without threats of violence.”
Pape, who has conducted surveys showing increasing support for political violence in the US, said the recent wave of threats shows exactly what he was concerned about.
They show that the country is a “tinderbox”, where people increasingly support violence to achieve their political goals as they lose faith in democracy, he said. Pape also pointed out the threats have come in waves since the January 6 insurrection and could increase this year, especially if Trump’s supporters believe he will not win at the ballot box. The increased support for violence gives the people doing threats a “mantle of legitimacy”.
“These volatile individuals are often encouraged to take the next step toward actual violence by a perception they’re doing it in a community’s interest,” he said.
Trump and his allies have not sought to tamp down their rhetoric or condemn the threats made by supporters, but such a condemnation could make a difference, Mason and Pape both said.
Strong bipartisan statements against political violence and threats have a tangible effect, Pape said. Given the reaction politicians often get when standing against their party, particularly Trump, some Republicans have privately said they fear for their safety and their families and have shied away from speaking out against him.
“One thing that we found to be pretty effective at reducing regular people’s approval of political violence is just to have their leaders tell them that it’s not OK. It’s pretty simple. And the problem is that Trump is not doing that,” Mason said. “The tragedy is that we have very easy ways to reduce violent tendencies in the electorate, but those ways tend to be based on leadership playing a responsible role.”
The incredibly high stakes of the 2024 election, where both sides see an existential battle for the country’s future, are not typical of a normal election.
“It’s not supposed to feel that way. If it’s existential, then the bedrock of democracy – which is loser’s consent – is harder to agree to,” Mason said.
Bellows, the Maine secretary of state, said she also received messages of support alongside the threats and harassment. One former GOP legislator reached out and asked if she needed a place to stay or firearms, she said. Even people who disagreed with her decision supported her ability to make it and she said it’s the responsibility of public officials to tone down the rhetoric.
“Our democracy depends on open and free expression and debate. We need to stand up against hate and threats of violence.”