The recent surge in political violence in the United States has brought to the forefront a troubling reality: the threat of violence has become an inherent part of political life. Election officials, judges, and even presidential candidates are now forced to live with the constant specter of danger, as witnessed by the second apparent attempt on Donald Trump's life. This phenomenon is not limited to high-profile figures; even lower-level officials, such as judges and election administrators, are not immune to the threat of violence.

The 2024 election has been marked by a climate of fear and intimidation, with violence and threats becoming an increasingly ubiquitous part of political discourse. From Maine's secretary of state Shenna Bellows to Colorado's supreme court justices, the list of targets is long and varied. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, received over 60 threats, while Judge Juan Merchan faced significant threats after overseeing the hush-money case involving Trump.

For local election officials, who have traditionally operated with little to no security, the threat of violence has been particularly acute. In Georgia, one key battleground county has allocated $50,000 for panic buttons and an additional $14,000 for a security guard. Several other counties have reportedly expressed interest in the panic button.

A June national survey by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats found that 10% of respondents believed violence was justified to prevent Trump from becoming president, while 6.8% believed it was justified to restore him to the presidency. This prevailing atmosphere of political polarization has contributed to an environment in which violence is increasingly seen as a viable means of achieving political goals.

The consequences of this escalating violence are far-reaching and devastating. Election officials, once seen as neutral and apolitical, are now forced to operate in an environment of fear and intimidation. Claire Woodall-Vogg, a former election official, described the shift from a calm and respectful discourse to one of hostility and aggression, saying, "We would have citizens who were frustrated or angry... but once you explain to them, 'I have to ask for your photo ID, it's under state statute,' you could usually defuse that situation. Now, it's become a situation where it's not that you disagree with the law, you are accusing us of not following the law but with no proof, and when we try to provide proof, you then just dismiss it."

Violence in the Shadows: The Unsettling Reality of Political Life in the United States

Actions