Robbie Sequeira, Stateline

A year into her first term in office, New Jersey Assemblywoman Sadaf Jaffer decided not to run for reelection.

The political world saw her as a rising star in 2023; Jaffer, a Democrat, previously served as the nation’s first female Muslim mayor. But rampant harassment from online commenters and other politicians about her religion, as well as high-profile acts of violence against other public officials, made her reconsider her political future.

“I was concerned about my family,” Jaffer said in an interview. “They didn’t sign up for this. I didn’t want to put them in harm’s way.”

In the wake of the assassination of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as the wounding of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, more public officials across the country are taking stock of their safety. Some say death threats have become part of the job. They fear that violence — real attacks and constant threats — will scare potential candidates away from seeking public office.

Many State Capitols Have Security Holes

Michigan Democratic state Rep. Laurie Pohutsky said she has faced multiple death threats since 2020. In one instance, a neighbor reported that a stranger was waiting at her house, demanding to know when she would return home.

“I have certainly considered somewhat frequently that I might be killed doing this job,” Pohutsky told Stateline. “But what really alarmed me [about the Minnesota attacks] and stopped me in my tracks was I had not considered that someone might enter my home and kill my family.”

Nationwide, lawmakers in both parties say political rhetoric that dehumanizes anyone who disagrees on an issue has created a charged atmosphere. As politicians increasingly describe their rivals not just as wrong on policy but as the enemy, the message can embolden extremists to carry out violence.

“People treat death threats against government officials as a matter of course until someone is assassinated,” Pohutsky said. “It’s an impossible position, because the people who are carrying out these attacks want people to leave public office.”

In some states, lawmakers are discussing whether officials’ home addresses should be included in campaign finance forms and other publicly available documents. Elsewhere, political leaders are reviewing their security protocols.

But elected leaders say there are no easy answers. And they fear things will get worse before they get better.

“These threats of violence, we’ve seen it before here and there, but nothing like we’ve seen it now,” said South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, speaking with reporters this week. “And yes, I think that would make a lot of people stop and think and decide they do not want to enter that arena.

“It’s a tough arena anyway,” McMaster said, “but when you have the threat of violence — unanticipated, unmitigated, unexpected violence — that’s just one more reason not to get involved in politics.”

Growing threats

In recent years, elected officials have faced a growing number of threats and attacks.

In 2020, a group of men were accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer; five were later convicted. That same year, the 20-year-old son of a federal judge in New Jersey was killed by a gunman and lawyer who had previously had a case before her.

Paul Pelosi, the husband of former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was assaulted by a hammer-wielding attacker at his home in 2022. President Donald Trump was targeted in a pair of assassination attempts during the 2024 campaign, including a shooting in which a bullet grazed his ear. And earlier this year, Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro was targeted in an arson attack on the governor’s mansion.

Nearly 9 in 10 state lawmakers reported facing demeaning or derogatory comments or actions in their current term or the campaign leading up to it, and more than 4 in 10 reported harassment and threats, according to a report published last year by the progressive-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.

Women were three to four times more likely than men to experience abuse related to their gender, according to the report. And people of color were more than three times as likely as white officeholders to endure race-based abuse.

Since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, political threats against candidates — particularly women, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals — have escalated dramatically, according to Amanda Litman, co-founder and president of Run for Something, a political action committee that helps recruit young, liberal candidates for office.

“It sucks that we have to have these conversations with folks,” she said. “But the goal of this violence is to stop good people from running.”

NM lawmakers review security practices after Minnesota assassination

Litman said that her organization offers support for candidates, including safety protocols, digital privacy training and mental health support. But increasing political violence and the easy online access to officeholders and candidates has begun to change how they interact with constituents and what they share about their lives.

“We have candidates who may have not thought twice to share a photo of their family or post updates about their lives outside of political office,” Litman said. “But now there is a shift in being more deliberate about what is being shared, especially online, where people can send threats and other stuff into your DMs, and use that information to stoke even more fear.”

Language matters

Leaders say that rhetoric characterizing opponents as evil has made violent incidents more likely.

“People have gotten very, very good at toeing the line just shy of actually threatening to kill people,” Pohutsky, the Michigan lawmaker, said.

“That’s sort of become normalized,” she said. “If you make this a righteous fight, if you convince people that someone is harming children, it’s much easier to incite violence against them. That language is intentional.”

The changes have accelerated in recent years. Returning home in 2015 after serving in combat zones as a U.S. Marine and working in post-conflict regions, Jake Harriman said he didn’t recognize the country he had fought for.

Harriman said the tactics he witnessed extremist groups use in conflict areas abroad to exploit fractured nations and warring factions — such as division, fear, isolation — he now sees playing out across the United States.

“What shocked me most,” said Harriman, founder of More Perfect Union, a veteran-led civic service group, “was the hatred — Americans dehumanizing each other in ways I had only seen in war.”

More people are finding a sense of self and belonging via partisan political groups, such as identifying as MAGA or as an opponent of MAGA, said Amy Pason, an associate professor who specializes in political rhetoric at the University of Nevada, Reno.

“This is because people are more isolated or finding social groups on social media — or the other media they consume — and they identity with that group,” she said. “This gets to be more problematic when belonging to that group is to also accept beliefs and shift your attitudes — that those not in your group are dangerous or out to harm your group.”

North Dakota man charged with threatening official after email citing Minnesota shootings

Despite condemnations of the Minnesota shootings from state lawmakers of both parties, some Republicans in Congress rushed to social media to falsely blame Democrats and liberals.

U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat and friend of Hortman’s, confronted U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, in person on Capitol Hill after he made inflammatory comments about the assassination on the platform X. The posts were removed soon after.

Oregon state Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat, said the Minnesota attacks were a wakeup call. He pledged to direct his public comments in the future “towards the substance of the proposal and not the character of the person proposing.”

“I do think it can be a thin line,” Golden said. “I probably have crossed it one time or another, and I’m gonna do everything I possibly can not to do it again.”

But politicians have incentive to keep their base motivated and engaged through inflammatory attacks on people they characterize as the enemy, which dehumanizes them and fuels political violence, said Donald Nieman, a history professor at Binghamton University in New York.

Nieman noted in an email to Stateline that fear for personal and family safety is increasingly common among elected officials — affecting even how they vote. While he believes the path out is clear — “tone down the rhetoric, emphasize common ground” — he’s not optimistic.

“In a polarized political system, politicians depend on (and fear) a loyal base,” Neiman wrote. “I fear that the discussion of political violence will take the same course as school shootings: We will lament them, propose solutions that go nowhere, and there will be more shootings.”

Security measures

Just hours before the Minnesota shootings, Oregon lawmakers passed a bill that would make it harder for the public to obtain the home addresses of elected officials. Rather than having that information on the secretary of state’s website, as is currently law, the bill would require residents to submit a public records request to obtain those details.

In 2023, New Jersey lawmakers passed a bill exempting local officials from sharing their addresses publicly, but Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy declined to sign the measure, citing a technicality with its effective date.

“We’re in such uncharted territory when all of this data can be accessed by anyone and made into lists,” said Jaffer, the former New Jersey lawmaker, citing the “hit list” of 45 officials that law enforcement officials say had been compiled by alleged Minnesota attacker Vance Boelter.

“There needs to be more done to protect those who step up to serve, but we also need to protect freedom of speech and freedom of information,” she said.

Jaffer said a friend from another country was surprised to learn that she had no security detail while in office.

“We’re just normal people,” she said of state legislators. “It’s a great thing that we’re accessible, but it certainly makes us vulnerable.”

Following the Minnesota shootings, North Dakota officials announced they will take down lawmakers’ addresses from legislative websites. New Hampshire legislative leaders also pulled down pages with information about elected leaders, while ramping up security at the State House. Meanwhile, lawmakers in New Mexico are reviewing their security practices.

Litman, of Run for Something, said legislatures should consider funding security for local candidates and officials who may not be able to afford it.

“I think there’s a real fear that if Donald Trump, who has the best security detail in the world, can be attacked at a public event, then what about local officials who don’t have the budget to afford to keep themselves or their families safe?” Litman said.

Julia Shumway of the Oregon Capital Chronicle and Seanna Adcox of the South Carolina Daily Gazette contributed to this report.

When Minneapolis, then Oregon, then other local and state governments began stripping away exclusive single-family-home zoning over the past five years to allow the construction of multifamily housing, many development advocates predicted the start of a pro-YIMBY revolution.

But the “yes-in-my-backyard” movement has stumbled even before it’s really gotten started.

In court challenges around the country, opponents have cited spikes in traffic, strains to infrastructure, displacement of low-income residents, hits on property values and changes to neighborhood character. Multifamily zoning advocates, however, counter that opponents are resisting changes that will yield broader societal benefits.

The debates are challenging elected leaders, planning specialists, homebuilders and advocates, pitting long-established homeowners against a system desperate to get a handle on the nation’s growing crisis of housing affordability and homelessness.

“People want to maintain their neighborhood character, but it should be about ensuring quality of life for everyone,” said Natali Fani-Gonzalez, a Democratic member of the Montgomery County Council in Maryland who has endorsed changes to zoning laws. “You’re part of a community … you don’t own it. We need to evolve with society.”

‘I dread the possibility’

The most recent ruling arrived this month, when the Montana Supreme Court issued a decision paving the way for a pair of state laws to take effect over the objections of homeowners.

In 2023, Montana lawmakers were lauded for a bipartisan effort dubbed the “Montana Miracle,” a collection of measures that overrode local zoning ordinances to encourage more multifamily homes and accessory dwelling units, or ADUs — smaller secondary cottages or in-law apartments within or on a lot of a single-family home. The laws, championed by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, were supposed to go into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

But in December, a consortium of single-family homeowners from across the state called Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, or MAID, filed a complaint. The group argued that the state had unconstitutionally taken away homeowners’ property rights and would wrest local control from cities and counties. The lawsuit warned, in part, that the laws meant new construction could begin down the block without notice.

“I dread the possibility of waking up one morning and finding that one of my neighbors has sold her property to a developer who is then erecting a multi-unit building or a duplex, or an accessory dwelling unit right next to our nice and carefully maintained single-family dwelling,” wrote Glenn Monahan, a Bozeman resident and managing partner of MAID, in an affidavit filed with the initial lawsuit and quoted in the court’s ruling.

“If such development aimed at increasing density in my neighborhood happens, I believe it will seriously and adversely affect the economic value of my property,” Monahan wrote. “More important than economic value is the moral, aesthetic neighborhood values that my wife and I share with the neighbors …”

Representatives for MAID did not return calls for comment.

Wealthier and whiter

Berkeley, California, first established a residential zone exclusively for single-family homes in 1916 — just as racist covenants banning home sales to non-whites were gaining steam nationally and other workarounds to preserve neighborhood segregation were being tested.

Today, around 75% of residential land in the United States is zoned exclusively for single-family homes. These neighborhoods are typically wealthier and whiter, according to a 2023 research report by the Urban Institute.

Minneapolis is credited as the first major U.S. city to enact substantial changes to increase density when it abolished single-family-only zoning citywide in 2019, allowing up to three dwelling units on any residential lot.

That same year, the Oregon legislature passed a law with two so-called upzoning provisions: allowing duplexes in single-family zoning areas of cities with at least 10,000 residents, and allowing townhouses, triplexes and fourplexes in cities of at least 25,000 residents.

Upzoning encompasses a range of policy tools — such as building more “missing middle” housing in the range between single-family homes and apartment buildings, focusing on transit-oriented development, lifting parking requirements, and increasing floor-to-area ratios. But researchers and planners told Stateline that it can take years for these policy changes to address current housing needs or undo the harms of restrictive zoning.

“The largest challenge is that zoning reform takes a really long time to implement. From the start of reform to actually seeing effects, it takes about 10 years,” said Stephen Menendian, assistant director and director of research at the University of California, Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute.

“Even the Minneapolis reforms, which happened at warp speed, will take another four years to fully assess the effects,” Menendian said. “It’s been less a revolution and more of a slow shift.”

Montana Supreme Court reverses judge’s decision that blocked residential zoning laws

UC Berkeley’s Zoning Reform Tracker, last updated in November, provides an overview of municipal zoning reform efforts across the U.S., documenting 148 initiatives in 101 municipalities over a span of 17 years.

Other local governments have passed ordinances taking aim at single-family-only zoning in various ways, including Austin, Texas; the city of Alexandria and Arlington County in Virginia; Sacramento, California; and Portland, Oregon. Many have been challenged in court.

In Minneapolis, the 2040 plan, as the city’s long-term planning blueprint is known, was held up after its passage in 2019 by years of environmental lawsuits and back-and-forth rulings, delaying implementation.

Finally, state lawmakers in May passed a bill exempting comprehensive housing plans from environmental review, a measure aimed squarely at preserving the 2040 plan.

Even then, a county judge issued an injunction, forcing the city to halt parts of the plan and revise it.

Talking it out

Diana Drogaris, outreach coordinator for the National Zoning Atlas, a research organization that works to demystify zoning laws across the U.S., thinks city leaders are improving their communication with residents during public hearings and input sessions. However, she notes that leaders must balance transparency with managing valid fears of zoning changes.

“A zoning change is going to have an effect on the public. It will affect the store they go to, their commutes, what type of resources are available,” Drogaris said. “And I think community leaders are getting better at having these conversations.

“The public doesn’t need to know every nook and cranny of these outdated codes,” she said, “but enough to understand how that one zoning change is going to change how that land is being used in their community.”

Menendian argues that misconceptions on both sides — among housing advocates and concerned community members — fuel much of the anger. “There’s a lot of misnomers about zoning reform,” he said.

Desperate for affordable housing, some cities sweeten tax breaks for developers

Homeowner groups also are expected to challenge a recent series of upzoning changes in Austin, approved at the end of 2023 and this spring. In 2022, a group of citizens successfully sued the city over a handful of ordinances designed to streamline housing development.

When a lawsuit is filed, work toward new housing developments may stop. California enacted a law in 2021 allowing property owners to split their lots and build two new homes in certain cities. In April, a Los Angeles judge ruled the law unconstitutional. In June, the state filed its notice of appeal.

Meanwhile, in Northern Virginia just outside the District of Columbia, the city of Alexandria and Arlington County, which also passed zoning changes last year, are facing their own legal challenges. The full impact of Alexandria’s zoning overhaul — even if it clears its legal challenges — may not do much to affect housing outcomes. According to the city manager’s estimates, allowing up to four units in zones that are currently limited to single-family dwellings would only create a net new 178 units over 10 years.

‘Absolutely … some sort of backlash’

This fall, both Montgomery County, Maryland, and Berkeley, California, will be considering upzoning proposals, following a summer filled with contentious public hearings.

Fani-Gonzalez, the Montgomery County councilmember, said that modernizing the county’s zoning, in conjunction with other policies such as rent stabilization, will help keep residents in their homes while creating new housing to accommodate the growth associated with being just outside Washington, D.C.

“We need more housing, but we cannot get stuck with building cookie-cutter houses that only certain folks can actually afford,” said Fani-Gonzalez.

In California, the city of Berkeley’s proposal to end exclusionary zoning in its neighborhoods is part of a broader effort to undo its racist legacy. The Berkeley City Council took its first steps in examining that legacy by denouncing the racist history of single-family zoning in 2021, a largely ceremonial move that gained steam when the city council asked the city for a report on missing-middle housing.

The city’s latest upzoning plan was scaled back this summer after a five-hour public hearing.

Lori Droste, a Berkeley councilmember from 2014 to 2022, told Stateline that she had been advocating for major upzoning changes since 2016 but struggled to get the votes. What changed, she said, was linking the need for zoning changes to the national consciousness raised by 2020 protests around systemic racism and racial injustice.

“Zoning reform is going to take time. It’s probably going to take 20 years before anyone notices real changes. But if we don’t start now, the housing crisis will only get worse,” she said.

When asked by Stateline if she expects any legal action if the upzoning proposal is successful, Droste responded, “I imagine there will be. I’m not in the city attorney’s office, but absolutely there’s going to be some sort of backlash.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and X.