On the day of the #NoKings march last month, Americans awoke to news that two Democratic state lawmakers and their two spouses in Minnesota had been shot, two fatally.
Now, a California legislator wants more money for lawmakers’ security. KPBS spoke to Rachel Locke, the director of the Violence, Inequality and Power Lab at University of San Diego, about that proposal and the threatening environment.
Rachel, you have sounded the alarm for some time now about rising threats against San Diego politicians. What were your first thoughts when you heard about the Minnesota legislator and her husband who were assassinated last month, and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife?
LOCKE: So my first thought was sadness and shock. And I say shock because I don't think we should ever get used to these kinds of incidents. Even though I knew there was a strong likelihood that something like this would happen, it still should be surprising. Every time you see this level of violence in the political arena, we should be shocked, surprised and appalled. This isn’t normal. So, yeah, it was a mixture of sadness and really just shock that it had happened, even though I knew it was likely to come.
As you know, California Assemblywoman Mia Bonta is pushing legislation that would allow lawmakers to use more campaign money on their own personal security. What do you think about the idea?
LOCKE: The data is pretty clear on this. People who are serving in positions of elected leadership are more at risk for violence because of their willingness to serve their community. And that extends, unfortunately, to the campaign period. You’re at higher risk when you’re in office and also when you’re running for office. With those higher risks should come the ability to mitigate them, including by spending campaign funds.
Obviously, there should be oversight, conditions and limits on that. From my limited research and reading part of the legislation, the current California spending limit is very low — especially compared to candidates running for federal office. So I support allowing people to protect themselves and their families if they’re running for office or serving constituents.
What does the fact that this bill is even being floated say about where we are now as a society?
LOCKE: It’s not great. What it says is if you want to serve your community in elected office, that now comes with risks — to yourself and to your loved ones. And I don’t think that reflects well on our society.
There was a recent NPR/Marist poll that found roughly three-quarters of Americans are concerned about political violence. So not only are people who hold office at higher risk, but now everyone is worried about whether we can run our democracy in a way where people are free from fear. And once fear takes hold, it limits who’s willing to run.
If we don’t allow public funds to be used for security, we could end up with a field of candidates limited to those wealthy enough to afford their own security or those willing to overlook the risks.
And the data shows the people at the highest risk are women, especially women of color. So if we don’t allow public funds but people remain at risk, we’re likely to limit representation — and that means a narrower field of representatives in a highly diverse country that needs diverse voices in public office.
Based on your research, what have local representatives told you about the need to beef up their own security?
LOCKE: We heard a lot of stories about people increasing home security — cameras, higher fences, that sort of thing. We also heard about people changing their behavior — not taking the same route every day, not going to the same neighborhood grocery store because they’re worried about being approached violently.
Some have had to increase security at their workplaces. Some government buildings have added more security measures — plating in front of the dais for representatives, more police at public meetings, things like that.
But it’s not just physical security. We also heard about the mental health toll — how this fear wears people down. Several people told us they’re deeply afraid for themselves and their families but don’t talk about it because they don’t want to worry their loved ones. So the burden and the stress just keep piling up.
That’s why I think a more public conversation about this is better. Legislation that acknowledges this and provides public support could help ease the burden on individual representatives.
Your study of threats against San Diego elected representatives continues. What's the latest?
LOCKE: Unfortunately, we weren’t able to secure funding to continue the survey work we’d been doing — tracking self-reported threats and harassment over time. So we can’t keep doing that, at least for now.
But the work continues. We’re now looking at how narratives of aggression, violence and anger travel. This came directly from elected officials asking us to look into it.
For example, we heard that some people showing up at public meetings — school board or city council meetings — and acting aggressively aren’t even constituents. Some people move around the county. We’ve also heard about narratives and messages that mirror what’s happening at the state or national level.
So we’re trying to understand how people adopt these messages and how it influences behavior, potentially increasing the risk of violence. We’re doing a critical discourse analysis starting this week, plus a stakeholder analysis and some mapping work to study what we call the pathways of influence.
In the past, local elected officials have told you that some of them simply didn’t feel safe around their colleagues. Any updates on that front, given that we've now seen federal agents actually throw down U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla to the ground and handcuff him?
LOCKE: I think the really important takeaway that we had from the research is that elected officials — and pretty consistently we heard this — people really wanted us to hear this piece of information. They don’t just feel afraid or anxious with regard to their engagements with the public. They also fear their colleagues, whether that’s colleagues on a school board or a city council or in a school administration or within the party they may be seeking support from — individuals within the Democratic Party, within the Republican Party, those who should be supporting them.
People wanted us to know that. They wanted us to know that this kind of environment of intimidation — and intimidation backed up by very real instances of violence — permeates almost all aspects of public service now, including spaces where you would think people wouldn’t have the same level of fear.
So, again, trying to understand how these things are traveling not just across the public and constituents, but also within boards and representative bodies themselves, is part of what we’re trying to understand now.
