Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-25 Study Commission Agenda and Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order with Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence - #:00 PM, Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse B. Changes to the Agenda C. Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission THE STUDY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA SC AGENDA Thursday, February 6, 2025 How to Participate: If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to govreview@bozeman.net prior to 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. At the direction of the Study Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to the Study Commission. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference during the appropriate agenda items but you may only comment once per item. As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Meeting Videos and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Ex Officio, Mike Maas, 406.582.2321. This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 669 900 9128 Access code: 951 6442 0347 This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Bozeman Study Commission. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Study Commission cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Study Commission shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your 1 D. Consent Agenda D.1 Approval of Study Commission Minutes(Maas) D.2 Study Commission Claims Review and Approval(Maas) E. Correspondence or Study Commission Update F. Unfinished Business G. New Business G.1 Social Contract to Create Positive Meetings Environment (Maas) G.2 Discuss Goals of the Study Commissioners (Maas) G.3 Discuss Study Commission Timetable(Maas) H. Future Agenda Items H.1 Potential Meeting topics: Timetable Meeting Agreements Study Commission Purview and Charge Timeline Current Charter Contents Charter Crises and City Attorney notes of issues in current Charter Staff identified "pinch points" Community Issues(Maas) I. Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission J. Announcements K. Adjournment comments to three minutes. Written comments can be located in the Public Comment Repository. Consider the Motion: I move to approve the Study Commission meeting minutes from January 22, 2025. Consider the Motion: I move to approve payment of claims as presented. Discuss how to create a positive meetings environment. Reference Materials Study Commission Bylaws Red Light, Green Light Understanding what the Voter Review is and is not Brief History of Bozeman's Form of Government Local Government Center Charters Past Study Commission Reports and Materials Open Meeting and Citizen Participation Resource Document Bozeman Local Government Study Commission page National Civic League Model City Charter 9th Edition Additional Background Information for Study Commissioners' Digital Binder (Maas) 2 Study Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact the City of Bozeman's ADA Coordinator, David Arnado, at 406.582.3232. Study Commission meetings are televised live on cable channel 190 and streamed live on our Meeting Videos Page. 3 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Approval of Study Commission Minutes MEETING DATE:February 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: I move to approve the Study Commission meeting minutes from January 22, 2025. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:Attached are the written minute summaries from the previous meeting. Future meeting minutes ought to be approved at the next schedule Study Commission meeting. All past meeting recordings are available for review on the City's Meeting Videos page. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 01-22-25 Study Commission Draft Minutes.docx Report compiled on: January 27, 2025 4 Bozeman Study Commission Meeting Minutes, January 22, 2025 Page 1 of 4 THE STUDY COMMMISSION MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES January 22, 2025 Present:Carson Taylor, Becky Franks, Barb Cestero, Deanna Campbell, Jan Strout, Mike Maas Absent:None Excused:None A)00:07:55 Call to Order with Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence -4 p.m., City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue B)00:09:06 Changes to the Agenda C)00:09:22 Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission There were no public comments at this time. D)00:11:43 Consent Agenda D.1 Approval of Study Commission Minutes 12-09-24 Study Commission Draft Minutes.docx 01-08-25 Study Commission Draft Minutes.docx 00:11:58 Public Comment There were no public comments on the Consent Agenda. 00:12:09 Motion to approve the Study Commission meeting minutes from December 9, 2024, and January 8, 2025. Jan Strout: Motion 5 Bozeman Study Commission Meeting Minutes, January 22, 2025 Page 2 of 4 Deanna Campbell: 2nd 00:12:30 Vote on the Motion to approve the Study Commission meeting minutes from December 9, 2024, and January 8, 2025.The Motion carried 5 - 0. Approve: Carson Taylor Becky Franks Barb Cestero Deanna Campbell Jan Strout Disapprove: None E)00:12:40 Correspondence or Study Commission Update Jan Strout suggested next agenda have a "positive meeting environment" to operationalize the bylaws, to create a digital binder, Deanna Campbell responded on the additional contents item and to keep within the scope of the work, 00:20:10 City Attorney Clarification Chair Carson Taylor requested City Attorney, Greg Sullivan, address the Study Commission Jan responded to discuss resources going forward. The group directed the Ex Officio to remove the two articles in question. Becky Franks identified the expectation to not speak on behalf of the group via social media. The group agreed. Ex Officio Maas highlighted some administrative process improvements for the functions of the Study Commission F)00:39:46 Unfinished Business G)00:39:48 New Business G.1 00:39:50 Budget Development RE_ Study Commission Mill.pdf Budget_Bozeman_City_Study_Commission.xlsx LocalGovCenter_VoterReview_InPersonTrainings Invoice 2534.pdf 6 Bozeman Study Commission Meeting Minutes, January 22, 2025 Page 3 of 4 Bozeman Invoice.pdf City of Bozeman 2024 General Election Invoice.pdf 00:43:03 Discussion The Study Commission discussed budget allocations. 01:31:47 Motion to approve the budget as discussed and presented. Deanna Campbell: Motion Jan Strout: 2nd 01:32:09 Public Comment There were no public comments on this item. 01:32:32 Discussion 01:33:38 Vote on the Motion to approve the budget as discussed and presented.The Motion carried 5 - 0. Approve: Carson Taylor Becky Franks Barb Cestero Deanna Campbell Jan Strout Disapprove: None H)01:37:07 Future Agenda Items H.1 Potential Meeting topics: Timetable Meeting Agreements Study Commission Purview and Charge Timeline Current Charter Contents Charter Crises and City Attorney notes of issues in current Charter 7 Bozeman Study Commission Meeting Minutes, January 22, 2025 Page 4 of 4 Staff identified "pinch points" Community Issues Timetable Bozeman City Study Commission.pdf 01:37:28 Discussion The group scheduled the upcoming meetings: February 6, 4-7 p.m. February 19, 4-6 p.m. March 6, 4-7 p.m. I)02:06:15 Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission There were no public comments at this time. J)Announcements K)02:06:52 Adjournment 8 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Study Commission Claims Review and Approval MEETING DATE:February 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Finance RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: I move to approve payment of claims as presented. STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean and efficient manner. BACKGROUND:Study Commission claims for approval prior to payment by Ex Officio from the approved Study Commission Budget. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:The Study Commission could decide not to approve these claims or a portion of the claims presented. This alternative is not recommended as it may result in unbudgeted late fees assessed. FISCAL EFFECTS:$2024.00 Attachments: Budget_Bozeman_City_Study_Commission.xlsx LocalGovCenter_VoterReview_InPersonTrainings Invoice 2534.pdf CITYOFBOZE-9-596234-1.pdf CITYOFBOZE-73-599765-1.pdf Report compiled on: January 27, 2025 9 Total Funds Levied or Appropriated 245,207.74$ Election 35,000.00$ Travel/Training 15,000.00$ Outreach and Engagement 90,000.00$ Contracted Services 96,000.00$ Public Hearings 1,000.00$ Other: 8,208.00$ Total Expenses 245,208.00$ Claims Approved on Consent:2,024.00$ Remaining Balance: Local Gov't Center Invoice: 2534 2/6/2025 Chronicle Ad596234 2/6/2025 Chronicle Ad599765 2/6/2025 Bozeman Study Commission Budget 2024-2026 10 243,184.00$ 1,925.00$ 44.00$ 55.00$ Bozeman Study Commission Budget 2024-2026 11 Invoice Date: 12/26/2024 To: Mike Maas Email: mmaas@bozeman.net Organization: Bozeman Invoice: 2534 Number of Study Commissioners Description Unit Price Line Total 7 In-Person voter review event with the Following Study Commissioners in attendance: Barb Cestero Becky Franks Carson Taylor Deanna Campbell Greg Sullivan Jan Strout Mike Maas $275 $1925 TOTAL $1925 Please include Index #036488 and Account #53631 on payment. Checks can be made payable to: MSU Extension Local Government Center PO Box 170535, Culbertson 235 ▪ Bozeman, MT 59717 ▪ 406-994-4186 Contact Schuyler Germann with any questions. Schuyler.germann@montana.edu 12 AD# 596234 Discount: $0.00 Surcharge: $0.00 Credits: $0.00 We Appreciate Your Business! Gross:$44.00 Paid Amount:$0.00 Amount Due:$44.00 Payments: Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check Amount PO Box 11902820 W College, 59718, Bozeman,MT 59771Ph. Fax: (907) 452-5054 ADVERTISING PROOF CITY OF BOZEMAN_Mike Maas PO BOX 1230 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-1230 BILLING DATE: ACCOUNT NO: 01/03/25 27944 AD #DESCRIPTION START STOP TIMES AMOUNT 01/04/25 01/04/25 2 $44.00THE STUDY COMMISSION596234 THE STUDY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANASC AGENDAWednesday, January 8, 2025 How to Participate:If you are interested in com-menting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to comments@boz-eman.net or visit the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00 p.m. on the day prior to the meeting.Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference.As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Meetings video page and available in the City on cable channel 190.For more information please contact the City Clerks’ Office at 406.582.2320.This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meet-ing:Via Video Conference:Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit.Click Join Now to enter the meeting.Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in-personUnited States Toll+1 669 900 9128Access code: 951 6442 0347 A. Important Information for the Public:The Bozeman Local Govern-ment Study Commission was approved by Bozeman voters at the November 5, 2024 elec-tion. The Study Commission’s purpose and scope of work is controlled by Montana Law. Please consult this Red Light Green Light document and Misconceptions document for further information on the scope of the Study Commis-sion’s authority. A.1 Important information for the Public. (Newby) B. Call to Order - 4:00 PM - Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse C. FYI/Study Commissioner Updates D. Changes to the Agenda E. Public Comment F. New Business F.1 Bylaws Discussion and Adoption(Maas)Consider the Motion: I move to adopt the Bylaws of the Governing Voter Review Study Commission. F.2 Budget Develop-ment(Maas)Consider the Motion: I move to place the budget for the Lo-cal Government Study Com-mission on the ___________, 2025 agenda for approval. G. Future Agenda Items G.1 Scheduling Discussion G.2 Potential Meeting topics: Study Commission Purview and Charge Timeline Current Charter Contents Charter Cri-ses and City Attorney notes of issues in current Charter Staff identified “pinch points” Com-munity Issues H. AdjournmentPub Jan 4, 2025596234 MNAXLP 13 AD# 596234 THE STUDY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANASC AGENDAWednesday, January 8, 2025How to Participate:If you are interested in com-menting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to comments@boz-eman.net or visit the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00 p.m. on the day prior to the meeting.Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference.As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Meetings video page and available in the City on cable channel 190.For more information please contact the City Clerks’ Office at 406.582.2320.This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meet-ing:Via Video Conference:Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit.Click Join Now to enter the meeting.Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in-personUnited States Toll+1 669 900 9128Access code: 951 6442 0347A. Important Information for the Public:The Bozeman Local Govern-ment Study Commission was approved by Bozeman voters at the November 5, 2024 elec-tion. The Study Commission’s purpose and scope of work is controlled by Montana Law. Please consult this Red Light Green Light document and Misconceptions document for further information on the scope of the Study Commis-sion’s authority.A.1 Important information for the Public. (Newby)B. Call to Order - 4:00 PM - Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North RouseC. FYI/Study Commissioner UpdatesD. Changes to the AgendaE. Public CommentF. New Business F.1 Bylaws Discussion and Adoption(Maas)Consider the Motion: I move to adopt the Bylaws of the Governing Voter Review Study Commission. F.2 Budget Develop-ment(Maas)Consider the Motion: I move to place the budget for the Lo-cal Government Study Com-mission on the ___________, 2025 agenda for approval. G. Future Agenda Items G.1 Scheduling Discussion G.2 Potential Meeting topics: Study Commission Purview and Charge Timeline Current Charter Contents Charter Cri-ses and City Attorney notes of issues in current Charter Staff identified “pinch points” Com-munity Issues H. AdjournmentPub Jan 4, 2025596234 MNAXLP 14 AD# 599765 Discount: $0.00 Surcharge: $0.00 Credits: $0.00 We Appreciate Your Business! Gross:$55.00 Paid Amount:$0.00 Amount Due:$55.00 Payments: Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check Amount PO Box 11902820 W College, 59718, Bozeman,MT 59771Ph. Fax: (907) 452-5054 ADVERTISING PROOF CITY OF BOZEMAN_Mike Maas PO BOX 1230 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-1230 BILLING DATE: ACCOUNT NO: 01/17/25 27944 AD #DESCRIPTION START STOP TIMES AMOUNT 01/18/25 01/18/25 2 $55.00THE STUDY COMMISSION599765 THE STUDY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANASC AGENDAWednesday, January 22, 2025 How to Participate:If you are interested in com-menting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to govreview@bozeman.net pri-or to 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. At the direction of the Study Commission, anon-ymous public comments are not distributed to the Study Commission.Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference during the appropriate agen-da items but you may only comment once per item.As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Meeting Videos and available in th City on ca-ble channel 190.For more information please contact Ex Officio, Mike Maas, 406.582.2321. A. Call to Order with Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence - 4 p.m., City Com-mission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse AvenueThis meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meet-ing:Via Video Conference:Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting.Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in-personUnited States Toll +1 669 900 9128Access code: 933 7244 1920 B. Changes to the Agenda C. Public Comment on Any-thing within the Jurisdiction of the Study CommissionThis is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Bozeman Study Commission. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for pub-lic comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Study Commission cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agen-da. All persons addressing the Study Commission shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your com-ments to three minutes.Written comments can be lo-cated in the Public Comment Repository. D. Consent Agenda D.1 Approval of Study Com-mission Minutes (Maas)Consider the Motion: I move to approve the Study Com-mission meeting minutes from December 9, 2024, and Janu-ary 8, 2025. E. Correspondence or Study Commission Update F. Unfinished Business G. New Business G.1 Budget Develop-ment(Maas) Consider the Motion: I move to place the budget for the Lo-cal Government Study Com-mission on the ___________, 2025 agenda for approval. H. Future Agenda Items H.1 Potential Meeting topics: Timetable Meeting Agree-ments Study Commission Purview and Charge Time-line Current Charter Contents Charter Crises and City At-torney notes of issues in cur-rent Charter Staff identified “pinch points” Community Is-sues(Maas) I. Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission J. Announcements K. AdjournmentPub Jan 18, 2025599765 MNAXLP 15 AD# 599765 THE STUDY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANASC AGENDAWednesday, January 22, 2025How to Participate:If you are interested in com-menting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to govreview@bozeman.net pri-or to 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. At the direction of the Study Commission, anon-ymous public comments are not distributed to the Study Commission.Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference during the appropriate agen-da items but you may only comment once per item.As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Meeting Videos and available in th City on ca-ble channel 190.For more information please contact Ex Officio, Mike Maas, 406.582.2321.A. Call to Order with Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence - 4 p.m., City Com-mission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse AvenueThis meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meet-ing:Via Video Conference:Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting.Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in-personUnited States Toll +1 669 900 9128Access code: 933 7244 1920B. Changes to the AgendaC. Public Comment on Any-thing within the Jurisdiction of the Study CommissionThis is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Bozeman Study Commission. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for pub-lic comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Study Commission cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agen-da. All persons addressing the Study Commission shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your com-ments to three minutes.Written comments can be lo-cated in the Public Comment Repository. D. Consent Agenda D.1 Approval of Study Com-mission Minutes (Maas)Consider the Motion: I move to approve the Study Com-mission meeting minutes from December 9, 2024, and Janu-ary 8, 2025. E. Correspondence or Study Commission Update F. Unfinished Business G. New Business G.1 Budget Develop-ment(Maas) Consider the Motion: I move to place the budget for the Lo-cal Government Study Com-mission on the ___________, 2025 agenda for approval. H. Future Agenda Items H.1 Potential Meeting topics: Timetable Meeting Agree-ments Study Commission Purview and Charge Time-line Current Charter Contents Charter Crises and City At-torney notes of issues in cur-rent Charter Staff identified “pinch points” Community Is-sues(Maas) I. Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission J. Announcements K. AdjournmentPub Jan 18, 2025599765 MNAXLP 16 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Social Contract to Create Positive Meetings Environment MEETING DATE:February 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Discuss how to create a positive meetings environment. STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND:The Study Commission has determined that the group will benefit from a shared understanding of what will create a positive meetings environment. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified. ALTERNATIVES:As per Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: Example of Social Contract for Positive Learning Environment.docx Report compiled on: January 27, 2025 17 Example of Social Contract for Positive Learning Environment CLS 101 ~ Engaged Knowledge and Community College of Letters and Science Montana State University Jan Strout, Adjunct Professor CLS 101US-0318/28/18 Social Contract Positive Learning Environment Respect yourself and each other’s opinions, etc. Agree to Disagree Open communication (if you agree/disagree, speak up and explain your side) Open to other’s points of view Active listening Participation o Step Up/ Step Back based on how frequently you participate o Be prompt, punctual, on time o Leave phones off o Be prepared (reading material completed, etc.) o Use “I” statements when speaking (owning your comment) o Don't make Assumptions because ASSUME makes an "ASS out of U and Me!" o Have fun! 18 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Discuss Goals of the Study Commissioners MEETING DATE:February 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Discuss goals for the Study Commission to guide work of the Study Commission STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:The Study Commission determined that in order to frame the timetable discussion of activities for the Study Commission, identifying the goals of the group is necessary first. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None Report compiled on: January 27, 2025 19 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Discuss Study Commission Timetable MEETING DATE:February 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Discuss the timetable for the Study Commission in order to meet the statutory requirement to publish an approved timetable within 90 days of the organizational meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:The Study Commission is required by statute to publish it's timetable to reach its Final Report within 90 days of the organizational meeting. This date would be March 9, 2025; in order to meet the requirements of the Chronicle to have legal notice publish on Saturday, March 8, 2025, the timetable must be approved by the body no later than March 6, 2025. A draft timetable is attached to facilitate discussion. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:The timetable itself has no fiscal effect aside from the publication in the Chronicle; the activities contained within the timetable may have costs associated with them and will be addressed in future planning efforts. Attachments: Timetable Bozeman City Study Commission.docx Report compiled on: January 27, 2025 20 Study Commission of City of Bozeman Timetable For Study Commission Deliberations and Actions This timetable for the deliberations and actions of the Bozeman Study Commission is established as required by 7- 3-186, MCA for the purpose of assuring full public information concerning the Local Government Review process in City of Bozeman and enabling informed citizen participation. All meetings of the Study Commission are open to the public. MCA 7-3-172.Purpose of study commission.The purpose of a study commission is to study the existing form and powers of a local government and procedures for delivery of local government services and compare them with other forms available under the laws of the state. Goals:(with guidance from MCA 7-3-141 ) 1.Study the exis?ng form and powers of government and procedures for delivery of services for the City of Bozeman. 2.Incorporate input from the public and organiza?ons from the community. 3.Develop poten?al recommended amendments to the plan, form and sub-op?ons of the current City of Bozeman governance structure through the City of Bozeman Charter. 4.Present any poten?al amendments to the City of Bozeman Charter to the public for a vote during an elec?on. Date Action December 9, 2024 First Study Commission organizational meeting December 12, 2024 Montana State University Local Government Center regional Study Commission Trainings January 8, 2025 Bylaws established and approved by Study Commission. January 22, 2025 Establish dates and cadence for regular Study Commission mee?ng, Bozeman City Hall. Budget established and approved by the Study Commission. February 6, 2025 Determine and schedule education and other needs for the Study Commission to set us up for success in developing the proposed recommendations. March 6, 2025 Timetable established and published within 90 days of organizational meeting March 2025 First Public Hearing—to gather citizen input on the form, functions, powers, and problems of city government and the adequacy of city services Consider scheduling all public hearings and community engagement workshops on Tuesday or Thursday evenings. Middle of the week times tend to be easier for folks to attend than beginning or end of the week times. April 2025 Adopt a Tentative Report from First Public Hearing April 2025 Develop and adopt a public outreach plan with calendar dates and locations April 2025 Develop and adopt discovery plan for best practices to be learned from other communities. Following deliberation and public input, decide the Power structure desired for the City of Bozeman Following deliberation and public input,decide the Form of government for the City of Bozeman 21 Following deliberation and public input, decide the Plan sub-options that will be under consideration Second Public Hearing—to gather citizen response to Tentative Report Adopt the Final Report from Second Public Hearing June 2026 Provide the County Clerk and Recorder a ballot certificate if a proposal is to be placed on the November 3, 2026, ballot July 2026 If the final report proposes an alteration of local government, prepare public education materials to help citizens understand the proposal and compare the proposal with existing governmental form, structures, and powers August 2026 Approve public education materials and conduct public forums. November 2026 Election on proposed alternative or amendment in conjunction with regularly scheduled election. If the voters approve a proposed alteration of the government, the study commission term is extended for 90 days after the vote date. The Study Commission prepares for a transition plan. Study Commission term of office ends. Deposit all minutes and other Study Commission documents with the county clerk and recorder Submit a copy of the final report to the MSU Local Government Center Finalize the end budget and financial plan 22 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Potential Meeting topics: Timetable Meeting Agreements Study Commission Purview and Charge Timeline Current Charter Contents Charter Crises and City Attorney notes of issues in current Charter Staff identified "pinch points" Community Issues MEETING DATE:February 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Schedule on Future Agendas for Action STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:This item is a living list of potential future meeting topics. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified. ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS:TBD Report compiled on: January 27, 2025 23 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Additional Background Information for Study Commissioners' Digital Binder MEETING DATE:February 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Administration RECOMMENDATION:Review information for inclusion in each Study Commissioner's Resource Binder STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:City of Bozeman Strategic Plan City Commission Priorities for 2024-25 Bozeman Community Plan 2020 City of Bozeman Budgets and Financial Reports Equity and Inclusion including: Belonging in Bozeman Plan (BIB) Equity and Inclusion Hub Resolution 5384 Bozeman City of CEDAW Resolution 5169 Gender Pay Equity Resolution 4601 Equal Pay for Equal Work Resolution 4243 Non Discrimination GARE - Racial Equity in City Government Our Impact MT League of Women Voters State and Local Chapters resources: Local Government Review UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: Intimidation of Officeholders Report Jan 2024 - Brennan Center for Justice.pdf Report compiled on: January 13, 2025 24 25 Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Lawresearch reportIntimidation of State and Local Officeholders The Threat to Democracy By Gowri Ramachandran, Chisun Lee, Maya Kornberg, Kimberly Peeler-Allen, Ruby Edlin, Julia Fishman, Jiyoon Park, and Grady Yuthok Short JANUARY 25, 2024 26 2 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders © 2024. This paper is covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license. It may be reproduced in its entirety as long as the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is credited, a link to the Brennan Center’s website is provided, and no charge is imposed. The paper may not be reproduced in part or in altered form, or if a fee is charged, without the Brennan Center’s permission. Please let the Brennan Center know if you reprint. Contents STAY CONNECTED TO THE BRENNAN CENTER Visit our website at brennancenter.org Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Key Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 I. Overview of Sources and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 II. Officeholders’ Experiences of Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Identity-Based Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Aggravating Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Lack of Safety Protocols and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 III. The Civic Impact of Officeholder Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Attrition from Public Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Reluctance to Address Hot-Button Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Reduced Interaction with Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 IV. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Please be aware that this report contains disturbing content such as references to hateful speech, threats against children, sexual abuse, and violence. 27 3 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders LGBTQ+ individuals in office often conveyed misogy- nistic, racist, religious, or homophobic hate. Some respondents mentioned viral social media and deregulation of guns as aggravating factors. Significant numbers were unaware of formal procedures to report incidents or of any recent increases in government- provided security for buildings or their transport. In a time of heated debate about existential issues such as reproductive autonomy, gun regulation, and racial equity, these threats to the free and fair functioning of representative government implicate everyone. As Virginia House Delegate Eileen Filler-Corn put it, “We were going to help improve others’ lives. But we never thought our lives, or most importantly, our family members’ or significant others’ lives, would be in jeop- ardy. I think you’re going to lose a lot of good people because of it.” Yet over the same period, with far less attention and often little recourse, officeholders serving in local and state government across the country have faced a barrage of intimidating abuse. Threats and attacks constrain how freely officeholders interact with constituents, narrow the spectrum of policy positions they feel safe to support, and make them less willing to continue in public service. Unaddressed, the problem stands to endanger not just individual politicians but, more broadly, the free and fair functioning of representative democracy — at every level of government. “Last fall was the last really serious death threat I got,” one state legislator told the Brennan Center. “It was like date, time, location specific. They were going to kill me and then go to the police station and blow themselves up and take as many officers with them as possible.” A series of national surveys completed in October 2023 — one of state legislators and four quarterly surveys of local officeholders — and three dozen in-depth interviews reveal how significantly abuse affects the tenure of these officeholders and shapes their decisions. Taken together, the data sets represent more than 1,700 officials from all 50 states and include a range of ages, party affiliations, ideologies, genders, sexual orientations, racial and ethnic identities, and religions. Officeholders across these demographic categories reported experiencing threats or attacks within the past three years. And the volume and severity of abuse have increased in recent years, they said. More than 40 percent of state legislators experienced threats or attacks within the past three years, and more than 18 percent of local officeholders experienced threats or attacks within the past year and a half. The numbers balloon to 89 percent of state legislators and 52 percent of local officeholders when less severe forms of abuse — insults or harassment such as stalking — are included.5 The surveys and interviews revealed important varia- tions among officeholders’ experiences. Abuse directed at women, people of color, religious minorities, and Introduction The January 6 insurrection at the Capitol seemed to mark a new peak in extremist intimidation targeting public officials. But it was hardly the only act of political violence to break the period of relative stability that followed the assassinations of the 1960s.1 There was the 2017 shooting of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise and colleagues by a Trump detractor.2 There was the hammer attack on U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s husband by a right-wing conspiracy theorist who sought the then House speaker in her home. Then there were threats by Republican extremists against Republican members of Congress for refusing to support their preferred candidate for speaker.3 These acts grabbed headlines and spurred increases in security for federal officials.4 Degrees of Abuse ƒInsults: Demeaning, derogatory, or offensive comments, gestures, or actions that upset, belittle, and/or humiliate ƒHarassment: Persistent, uninvited behavior, attention, or actions that cause distress, fear, or discomfort, such as stalking ƒThreats: Explicit or implicit expressions communi- cating an intention to harm, injure, or cause damage to an individual or others associated with them, implying imminent risk to a person’s well-being and safety ƒPhysical attacks: Slapping, pushing, subjection to projectiles, beating, abduction, assassination attempts, or other acts of physical violence 28 4 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders were less willing to work on controversial topics due to abuse. ƒFifty-three percent of state legislators believed that abuse had deterred their colleagues from taking on controversial topics. ƒApproximately half of officeholders reported reluctance to communicate via social media because of abuse. ƒTwenty-three percent of state legislators said they were less likely to hold events in public spaces because of abuse. Given the prevalence of abuse facing local and state officeholders — and the threat it poses to representative democracy — government and other authorities must act quickly to mitigate the problem. Key Recommendations Officeholders and other influential figures should condemn abuse and promote officeholder safety. ƒState and local governments should provide office- holders training, conducted by experts, in resisting hate-based violence that includes techniques in bystander intervention — how those not directly perpe- trating or experiencing abuse can help to reduce the problem. ƒOther influential figures, including business and community leaders, should publicly reject abuse of officeholders. ƒStates should provide officeholders and staffers with mental health services and encourage their use. States should systematize security and safety prac- tices to protect both officeholders and the public. ƒStates should systematically monitor threats against officeholders, taking care not to impinge on civil liberties. ƒStates should provide adequate physical security resources and training for officeholders. ƒStates should regulate open and concealed carry of guns in places where officeholders engage with the public. ƒStates should permit candidates and officeholders to restrict guns at town halls, campaign rallies, and other public events. Major Findings State and local officeholders report alarming, increas- ing levels of threats and other abuse. ƒForty-three percent of state legislators experienced threats. ƒEighteen percent of local officeholders experienced threats. ƒThirty-eight percent of state legislators reported that the amount of abuse they experience has increased since first taking public office, while only 16 percent reported that it has decreased. ƒTwenty-nine percent of state legislators reported that the seriousness of the incidents has increased, while only 12 percent reported that it has decreased. The severity and nature of abuse varies across demo- graphic groups. ƒLarger shares of women than men, and larger shares of Republicans than Democrats, reported increases in the severity of abuse since first taking public office. ƒWomen were three to four times as likely as men to experience abuse targeting their gender. ƒOfficeholders of color were more than three times as likely as white officeholders to experience abuse target- ing their race. ƒLarger shares of women and people of color serving in local elected office experienced abuse related to their families — including their children — than did other officeholders. ƒWomen serving in state legislatures were nearly four times as likely as men to experience abuse of a sexual nature. Abuse threatens the free and fair functioning of democracy. ƒMore than 40 percent of local officeholders said they were less willing to run for reelection or higher office at the time they were surveyed because of abuse. For women, the rates of possible attrition are higher, with approximately half saying they were less willing to continue serving.6 ƒApproximately 20 percent of state officeholders and 40 percent of local officeholders acknowledged they 29 5 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders imperative and often rewarding for those who believe their communities deserve a voice in policymaking. Women and people of color in office especially expressed concern that exposing the frequency of abuse they expe- rience could dissuade emerging leaders from forging ahead. “It is a privilege and oftentimes a joy to be able to hold elected office and serve one’s community,” said Glynda Carr, president and CEO of Higher Heights, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on expanding pipelines for Black women at all levels of elected government. “But there is a long way to go, still. This study shows that those with power and resources must do more to foster the conditions for all talented people to be able to step up and lead,” she added. This perspective under- scores the need for remedies that ultimately enable more people to participate safely and freely in the democratic process while avoiding unduly restricting civic spaces. ƒStates should update campaign finance laws to permit candidate and party spending on legitimate security measures. States, officeholders, and social media companies should update speech and privacy policies. ƒStates should protect local and state officeholders’ personal information, such as home addresses, with appropriate exceptions to enable public accountability. ƒLegislative bodies, officeholders, and social media companies should prioritize the freedom to safely engage in public discourse as they update policies to reduce serious harm online. Even in the current atmosphere of risk, many office- holders stressed that elected public service remains 30 6 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders separate instances of abuse. But local officeholders answered quarterly surveys that asked about experiences in the previous quarter, providing multiple opportunities to report cases of abuse. (The method of analysis avoids overrepresenting repeat respondents.) Alarmingly high rates of reported threats — 43 percent of legislators — appeared in the state legislator survey, as compared with 18 percent of local officeholders. But racial and gender disparities emerged with sharper clarity in the local officeholder survey, potentially due to more frequent reports of abuse from officeholders of color and women officeholders.10 Insights from this project’s advisory council, prior social science and legal scholarship, and news accounts informed this study’s design and interpretation. These varied sources enabled nuanced analysis of the preva- lence, nature, and consequences of abuse targeting state legislators and local officeholders. Survey administrators sent the local officeholders survey to randomized samples of officeholders. For state legislators, the survey went to all serving in 2023, with targeted outreach to achieve geographic, racial, and gender diversity within this difficult-to-reach group.8 To ensure that findings were as representative as possi- ble of actual populations of state and local officeholders, analysts weighted the data by characteristics such as gender and political leanings of the local populations. Both the local officeholder and the state legislator surveys asked participants to self-identify their race and ethnicity, choosing from a wide range of options. This study defines those who chose any category besides white, and those who marked “Hispanic,” as people of color.9 State legislators answered a single survey covering their current term of office as well as the campaign period preceding that term — typically two to three years. The survey did not ask respondents to enumerate I. Overview of Sources and Methods This report draws on three original data sets: 1) three waves of an ongoing national survey totaling more than 1,350 local officeholders, conducted in 2023 in partnership with the Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University and CivicPulse;7 2) a national survey answered by more than 350 state legislators, conducted August through October 2023 and administered by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University; and 3) in-depth interviews with three dozen current and former state legislators in 2023. 31 7 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders II. Officeholders’ Experiences of Abuse Within the past several years, abusive language and actions have hounded officeholders at the state and local levels. In response to survey questions that provided four gradations of abuse — insults, harassment, threats, and physical attacks — a remarkable share of officeholders across race, gender, age, political parties, and regions reported experiencing abuse of the most serious types. The survey of state legislators defined these gradations as follows: ƒInsults: Demeaning, derogatory, or offensive com- ments, gestures, or actions that upset, belittle, and/or humiliate ƒHarassment: Persistent, uninvited behavior, attention, or actions that cause distress, fear, or discomfort, such as stalking ƒThreats: Explicit or implicit expressions communicat- ing an intention to harm, injure, or cause damage to an individual or others associated with them, implying imminent risk to a person’s well-being and safety ƒPhysical attacks: Slapping, pushing, subjection to projectiles, beating, abduction, assassination attempts, or other acts of physical violence As shown in table 1, 43 percent of state legislators expe- rienced threats of harm to themselves or someone close to them during their current term or preceding campaign, according to responses from all 50 states. The same number experienced harassment. Four percent of state legislators experienced physical attacks. Eighteen percent of local officeholders reported threats in each three-month period the survey waves covered, as shown in table 2. Thirty-six percent of them reported harassment. About 1 percent of local officeholders reported physical attacks. Less surprising, though still disturbing to many on the receiving end, is that 86 percent of state legislators and 49 percent of local officeholders experienced insults, includ- ing racist, homophobic, and misogynistic slurs. Thirty- eight percent of state legislators reported that the volume of abuse has increased over time, and 29 percent reported that its severity also has increased (see table 3). These results align with recent research by others that examined narrower groups of officeholders and particular venues for abuse. One study found that, in the first half of 2019, the average state senator “experienced harass- ment and social media abuse monthly.”11 A 2017 study found that mayors “face meaningful levels of physical violence and psychological abuse — and these events are widespread across types of cities.”12 In San Diego County, TABLE 2 Abuse Reported by Local Officeholders OVER PREVIOUS THREE MONTHS Insults 49% Harassment 36% Threats 18% Attacks 1% Note: Results were weighted by demographic and political characteristics of the local officeholder’s jurisdiction to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±1 percentage point to ±2.5 percentage points depending on the sample proportion. The sample is composed of 1,909 responses from 1,744 unique respondents. Source: Bridging Divides Initiative/CivicPulse/Brennan Center surveys fielded in August 2022, November 2022, May 2023, July 2023, and October 2023. TABLE 1 Abuse Reported by State Legislators DURING CURRENT TERM AND THE PRECEDING CAMPAIGN Insults 86% Harassment 43% Threats 43% Attacks 4% Note: Results were weighted by census division, chamber, party, gender, year elected, state-level estimates of political ideology, and the level of professionalization of the officeholder’s legislature to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±2.8 percentage points to ±6.5 percentage points depending on the sample proportion. The sample is composed of 354 responses. Source: Brennan Center/Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling survey fielded in fall 2023. 32 8 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders in the severity of abuse than men. Fifty-five percent of state legislators of color experienced racialized abuse (see figures 1 and 2). Republican state legislators reported more increases in the volume of abuse than did Democrats. As their leaders have at times failed to condemn violence and violent rhet- oric, state and local Republican officeholders have expe- rienced abuse from within their own party for refusing to back extreme positions.15 Among local officeholders, 12 percent of women reported hostile comments about their gender. Fourteen percent of people of color experienced hostile comments about their race or ethnicity (see figures 3 and 4). Among local officeholders, women and people of color reported experiencing more, and more severe forms of, abuse than male or white respondents (see table 4). Twenty-three percent of women reported threats, compared with 16 percent of men. Twenty-five percent of officeholders of color reported threats, compared with 18 percent of white officeholders. For state legislators, race and gender disparities were not as clear (see table 5), and differences in survey design may help explain this. Because state legislators answered a single survey covering one period spanning multiple years, differ- ences in the frequency of abuse within that period were not apparent: A “yes” referring to two or more instances of abuse in that time counted the same as a “yes” referring to just one instance. But local officeholders answered multiple surveys, each covering just three months, creating the possibility of multiple “yes” responses over time. California, 75 percent of elected officeholders across parties reported experiencing threats and harassment in 2022, according to a different study.13 Numerous officeholders described how abusers frighten or even target their staff. One said, “My district staff I would be more concerned with, because they’re more on the ground.” Another noted that “staff have had to get private numbers, have been told they are on the wrong side of history, had to do damage control on social media, report hundreds of posts and comments that were negative, had to edit settings to not be tagged.” Identity-Based Abuse The severity of abuse — ranging from insults to threats and attacks — tended to be higher for local officeholders from historically marginalized backgrounds, including women and people of color. These officeholders also experienced more abuse targeting their children and families. Women and people of color at all levels of office experienced more abuse targeting their gender and race.14 In interviews, office- holders identifying as members of religious minorities or as LGBTQ+ individuals reported abuse targeting these aspects of their identity. Officeholders who cross multiple catego- ries of identity — women of color, for instance — often experienced compound abuse and particularly acute harms. Among women in state legislatures, 22 percent experi- enced gendered abuse. They also reported more increases TABLE 3 State Legislators’ Perceptions of Trends in Abuse Since Taking Office, by Gender and Party Frequency Increased 35%43%32%*45%*38% Stayed about the same 39%37%40%34%38% Decreased 17%14%20%13%16% Seriousness Increased 24%*37%*28%31%29% Stayed about the same 54%49%50%51%51% Decreased 14%8%14%10%12% MEN WOMEN DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS OVERALL * The difference in proportions between demographic groups is statistically significant at the alpha=0.1 level. Note: Results were weighted by census division, chamber, party, gender, year elected, state-level estimates of political ideology, and the level of professionalization of the officeholder’s legislature to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±4.4 percentage points to ±9.6 percentage points depending on the sample proportion and subgroup in question. The sample is composed of 354 responses. These questions were posed to respondents who reported experiencing hostility in any previous or current campaign or term in office. Source: Brennan Center/Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling survey fielded in fall 2023. 33 9 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders FIGURE 1 Subjects of Hostile Comments Reported by State Legislators, by Gender DURING CURRENT TERM AND THE PRECEDING CAMPAIGN Age* Appearance Gender identity* Party affiliation or political ideology Perceived danger to the community Policy positions Religion* Sexual orientation* Men Women 10% 20% 26% 31% 7% 22% 80% 87% 29% 34% 85% 91% 28% 17% 14% 6% * Actual or perceived Note: Results were weighted by census division, chamber, party, gender, year elected, state-level estimates of political ideology, and the level of professionalization of the officeholder’s legislature to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±3 percentage points to ±9 percentage points depending on the sample proportion and subgroup in question. The sample is composed of 354 responses. We did not find meaningful differences by gender for other options provided: actual or perceived socioeconomic status; romantic life; spouse, children, or other family members; actual or perceived race or ethnicity; actual or perceived immigration status; and actual or perceived physical ability. Source: Brennan Center/Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling survey fielded in fall 2023. 34 10 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders FIGURE 2 Subjects of Hostile Comments Reported by State Legislators, by Race/Ethnicity DURING CURRENT TERM AND THE PRECEDING CAMPAIGN Age* Immigration status* Race or ethnicity* Religion* Romantic life Sexual orientation* Whites People of color 12% 19% 1% 17% 17% 55% 27% 12% 11% 15% 13% 6% * Actual or perceived Note: Results were weighted by census division, chamber, party, gender, year elected, state-level estimates of political ideology, and the level of professionalization of the officeholder’s legislature to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±1.5 percentage points to ±13.5 percentage points depending on the sample proportion and subgroup in question. The sample is composed of 354 responses. We did not find meaningful differences by race/ethnicity for other options provided: appearance; actual or perceived gender identity; actual or perceived socioeconomic status; spouse, children, or other family members; actual or perceived physical ability; party affiliation or political ideology; policy positions; and the perceived danger posed to the community. Source: Brennan Center/Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling survey fielded in fall 2023. 35 11 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders FIGURE 3 Subjects of Hostile Comments Reported by Local Officeholders, by Gender OVER PREVIOUS THREE MONTHS Appearance Family members Gender Party affiliation or political ideology Policy positions Sexual orientation or romantic life Men Women 5% 9% 8% 12% 3% 12% 22% 27% 42% 48% 3% 5% Note: Results were weighted by demographic and political characteristics of the local officeholder’s jurisdiction to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±1.5 percentage points to ±4.5 percentage points depending on the sample proportion and subgroup in question. The sample is composed of 1,440 responses from 1,379 unique respondents. We did not find meaningful differences by gender for other options provided: race or ethnicity; religion; age; comments expressing desire to harm you or for harm to come to you; and loyalty to America. Source: Bridging Divides Initiative/CivicPulse/Brennan Center surveys fielded in May 2023, July 2023, and October 2023. 36 12 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders FIGURE 4 Subjects of Hostile Comments Reported by Local Officeholders, by Race/Ethnicity OVER PREVIOUS THREE MONTHS Appearance Family members Party affiliation or political ideology Policy positions Race or ethnicity Religion Whites People of color 6% 10% 9% 13% 24% 17% 45% 38% 3% 14% 4% 14% Note: Results were weighted by demographic and political characteristics of the local officeholder’s jurisdiction to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±1 percentage point to ±8 percentage points depending on the sample proportion and subgroup in question. The sample is composed of 1,440 responses from 1,379 unique respondents. We did not find meaningful differences by race/ethnicity for other options provided: gender; comments expressing desire to harm you or for harm to come to you; loyalty to America; age; and sexual orientation or romantic life. Source: Bridging Divides Initiative/CivicPulse/Brennan Center surveys fielded in May 2023, July 2023, and October 2023. 37 13 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders TABLE 4 Abuse Reported by Local Officeholders, by Gender and Race/Ethnicity OVER PREVIOUS THREE MONTHS Insults 43%*59%*49%53%49% Harassment 32%*43%*35%40%36% Threats 16%*23%*18%*25%*18% Attacks 1%1%1%3%1% MEN WOMEN WHITES PEOPLE OF COLOR OVERALL * The difference in proportions between demographic groups is statistically significant at the alpha=0.1 level. Note: Results were weighted by demographic and political characteristics of the local officeholder’s jurisdiction to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±1 percentage point to ±7 percentage points depending on the sample proportion and subgroup in question. The sample is composed of 1,909 responses from 1,744 unique respondents. Source: Bridging Divides Initiative/CivicPulse/Brennan Center surveys fielded in August 2022, November 2022, May 2023, July 2023, and October 2023. TABLE 5 Abuse Reported by State Legislators, by Gender and Race/Ethnicity DURING CURRENT TERM AND THE PRECEDING CAMPAIGN Insults 84%89%88%*77%*86% Harassment 41%43%43%42%43% Threats 46%*35%*44%42%43% Attacks 5%*1%*4%3%4% MEN WOMEN WHITES PEOPLEOF COLOR OVERALL * The difference in proportions between demographic groups is statistically significant at the alpha=0.1 level. Note: Results were weighted by census division, chamber, party, gender, year elected, state-level estimates of political ideology, and the level of professionalization of the officeholder’s legislature to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±2 percentage points to ±13 percentage points depending on the sample proportion and subgroup in question. The sample is composed of 354 responses. Source: Brennan Center/Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling survey fielded in fall 2023. 38 14 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders wonder you’re a lesbian. No man would have you. You’re hideous.’ It’s always something like that.” One female state legislator discussed her experience with people “identifying my address or talking about my daughter or my mom or, you know, making overt rape or death threats. . . . My husband just showed me a thread on Reddit yesterday about people talking about — men — what they would do to me. And we women just sort of have to compartmentalize it.” Another female legislator said of her abusers, “They don’t directly say, ‘I’m going to kill her children.’ But they’ll make comments like, ‘We’re going to take over her home. Here’s the address. Here’s a photo of it. She lives here in [town], but her kids don’t go to school [in town] — they go in [neighboring town].’ ” Aggravating Factors Officeholders reported that deregulation of gun carrying and the virality of social media have made abuse more harmful and prevalent. Guns Eight percent of state legislators reported having been intimidated by a person wielding a weapon, and 2 percent of local officeholders reported that they or their staff experienced intimidation with weapons. Members of the public are allowed to carry guns into some legislative chambers and office areas.19 State Rep. Caleb Hemmer of Tennessee recalled one heated legislative session about gun safety that drew high public attendance, where members of the public with concealed carry permits could bring guns to the areas of the Capitol with member offices: “We had a wide variety of visi- tors at the Capitol, including scared mothers of schoolchil- dren, armed Proud Boys, and gun rights advocates,” he said. “I thought it was ridiculous and dangerous that guns could be allowed into the building during the protests and heated political debates. I had security staff tell me how many guns they had checked at just one of the entrances one day during the special session. It was estimated around 30.” Mary González, a state representative from Texas, said, “Sometimes we’re on the legislative floor, and in the galleries above us there are people who are armed. And especially when we’re having those controversial debates, I’m thinking, ‘God, one person. It just takes one person.’ We’re like sitting ducks. I’m still going to do what I’m going to do as far as legislating. But I’m not naive enough to think it could never happen to us.” A different state legislator recalled attending an event on gun safety outside the Capitol, in a room one over from a story-time gathering for children. Detractors, she said, “came to show force with their guns. It’s a method of intimidation in and of itself.” People of color at both the state and local levels were at least three times as likely as white officeholders to experience abuse related to their race. One woman of color serving in a state legislature recalled race-related comments from her own colleague: “My first session, it was just a lot about race. There was someone who made a lynching joke and a three-fifths comment.” She added, of abuse more generally, “I think the ones that I remember the most are the ones where I was called the n-word. But I’m sure there’s more than that.” Women officeholders were at least three times as likely as male officeholders to experience abuse related to their gender. Women state legislators were nearly four times as likely as their male counterparts to experience hostile behavior of a sexual nature.16 Officeholders in the young- est and oldest cohorts, along with women state legisla- tors, were more likely than other officeholders to experience abuse related to their age. Among local officeholders, greater shares of women and people of color reported abusive comments about their children and families, compared with men or white officials. While these gender and race disparities were not apparent among state legislators, this may be explained, again, by a survey design that counted one respondent’s single expe- rience of abuse the same as another respondent’s multiple experiences of abuse over the same three-year period. Even without group differences, the response from state legis- lators was striking: 22 percent reported experiencing abusive comments about their children and families. One female state legislator recounted a detractor’s abusive message to her: “Essentially he wanted me to go back to the kitchen where I belong, because a woman has no place up at the Capitol writing laws. And I should be at home raising my family and making sure that my husband has dinner on the table every night and making sure that his balls were drained.” Lena Taylor, a Black woman serving in the Wisconsin State Senate, described experiencing multiple vectors of abuse: “I have been called everything, a c---, a n-----, a b----, you name it.” Survey results indicating that women and people of color tend to face more intense abuse than other office- holders align with previous research. The 2017 study of mayors found that women were more likely than men to experience physical violence and psychological abuse.17 Among congressional candidates in 2020, women of color were most likely to experience sexist, racist, and violent abuse online, another study found.18 Interviews revealed identity-based abuse of LGBTQ+ legislators as well, though the number of self-identified LGBTQ+ respondents in surveys was too low to analyze statistically. State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a lesbian lawmaker serving in Illinois, said, “No matter what we’re talking about, I’m a dyke, right? It’s just: gun control, ‘dyke.’ Cannabis, ‘lezzy freak.’ . . . And the misogyny. . . . ‘No 39 15 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders to rely on than other legislators, as well as less seniority to influence statehouse security policies.21 Attica Scott, a Black woman who served in the Kentucky House of Representatives, noted that there was no support for her as she faced threats, “except for my legislative assistant. It wasn’t like there was some kind of employee assistance program for me as a legislator that I could go to.” Women in office, and especially women of color, report having to take extra time and adopt special tactics to stay safe. Women in state legislatures were nearly twice as likely as men — 39 percent of women versus 22 percent of men — to change their travel routes because of abuse concerns. They were more than six times as likely as men to avoid traveling alone — 38 percent of women versus 6 percent of men. Fifty-five percent of women of color said they avoid traveling alone. Many officeholders described risk mitigation as an individual challenge complicated by the lack of resources. “Most of the district offices are like strip malls and so it’s direct access to the public,” Florida State Rep. Anna Eskamani explained, drawing a contrast with high-rise offices that provide building security. She acknowledged the positive aspect of street access: “For people who never engage with government, it feels less stuffy.” But to try to keep herself and her staff safe, she installed a security camera and created her own set of protocols: keep the door locked; always check the camera and ask for the purpose of the visit before admitting someone; provide seating outside for visitors and offer them water. Officeholders described mixed experiences with law enforcement support. North Carolina State Sen. Natalie Murdock said, “I have great relationships with my local law enforcement. Not everyone does. I can call my police chief or my sheriff, and they would be here in two seconds. If I wanted to call Capitol Police, they will come to my home. They make it clear that wherever you feel unsafe, wherever you feel there’s a threat, they can go across the entire state. They make it very clear from day one — if there is an email that feels threatening, if there is a phone call — they teach our staff to report all of that.” But others reported that law enforcement withheld protection for political reasons. “I don’t feel supported by the police,” said Colorado State Rep. Jennifer Bacon. “You know, you don’t get to pick and choose who you protect. But it’s hard not to feel like it’s a punishment for our policies and for having the nerve to say Black lives matter.” Social Media Many state and local officeholders indicated that the viral nature of social media is an accelerant of abuse. The U.S. Capitol Police has similarly attributed the rise in threats against members of Congress over recent decades to “people on social media hav[ing] a false sense of anonym- ity and feel[ing] more emboldened.”20 New York Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon recalled how the subject of guns and social media blowback combined to create a heated atmosphere: “We were look- ing at some gun legislation, and the state NRA affiliate did their online newsletter and took a picture of me and my colleague. We hadn’t even drafted it yet. They put what looked like maybe a Polaroid frame, like a little frame and bullets around our heads. I have never seen my Twitter blow up like that. I had all these harassing tweets fairly quickly.” New Jersey Assemblywoman Sadaf Jaffer, who previ- ously served as mayor of Montgomery Township, recalled the social media aftermath of a news report highlighting that she was the first Muslim mayor in the United States. “I started reading all the comments that were negative or hostile, and I think the news website shut down comments and deleted them all. And then that article was shared by a conservative blog,” she said. “And when that happened, the online harassment really ramped up, espe- cially on Twitter. ‘I wish death on you and your family’ and ‘All the Muslims need to be eradicated.’ You know, really, that message over and over and over.” Another legislator, State Rep. Ruwa Romman of Geor- gia, described her frustration with how social media can fan the flames of extremism. “These people or bots will come into my mentions and harass others, and they’ll get all this traction and commentary,” she said. “And then what we see happen is suddenly their follower account goes up, right? Their interactions go up. They are much more likely to reach people they never would have reached if it wasn’t for my page. I just don’t want my page to be that kind of resource or space for that kind of behavior.” Lack of Safety Protocols and Resources Public resources to mitigate the risk and effects of abuse vary widely across the country and often are inadequate, leaving many officeholders to fend for themselves. The dearth of resources especially impairs women and people of color, who tend to have less personal and donor wealth 40 16 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders hold only 25 percent of congressional seats.29 Women of color are especially underrepresented in office, making up nearly a quarter of the population but constituting only 9 percent of members of Congress and 8 percent of state legislators as of 2021.30 Departures from electoral politics due to unaddressed abuse risks exacerbating underrepresentation not just in local and state offices but also at higher levels of govern- ment. Nearly half of the current Congress previously served in state legislatures.31 “To achieve a truly reflective democracy, we must stop the threats and abuse toward anyone running for office, especially women and people of color,” said Erin Vilardi, founder and CEO of Vote Run Lead, a national training program that helps women win elected office at every level of government. Reluctance to Address Hot-Button Policy Issues Even after choosing to run, overcoming abuse, and winning, officeholders find their ability to advance certain issues is also constrained by abusive backlash. Forty-four percent of local officeholders and 87 percent of state legislators report having experienced abuse related to policy positions they took. Thirty-nine percent of local officeholders and 21 percent of state legislators report that they are less willing to advocate for contentious poli- cies due to abuse. Fifty-three percent of state legislators believe that abuse has deterred their colleagues from taking on issues made controversial by so-called culture warriors. The problem likely distorts policymaking in ways that fail broad constituencies and make nuanced, bipartisan lawmaking often impossible. A Republican state legislator with moderate views about abortion said, “I’ve had aboli- tionists — so, people who believe in the abolition of abor- tion — make death threats against my family, my children, myself. I’ve had people advocating to legalize marijuana make threats. And so, it’s constant. It comes from every direction.” Attrition from Public Service Among local officeholders, 39 percent said that abuse lessened their desire to run for reelection, with 48 percent of women saying so compared with 34 percent of men. Thirty-seven percent said that abuse lessened their desire to run for another or a higher office, with 46 percent of women saying so compared with 33 percent of men. Twelve percent of state legislators reported less desire to run for higher office, and 50 percent believed a colleague could decline to run for reelection or higher office because they had experi- enced abuse. As State Sen. Linda Lopez of New Mexico told reporters after a political candidate from an oppos- ing party allegedly arranged for gunshots to be fired at her home and those of other officials, “Is it worth me putting my family at risk because I vote a certain way, I espouse certain ideals?”22 These findings align with the Brennan Center’s previ- ous research into threats against local election adminis- trators — the thousands of public servants who run elections, approximately 81 percent of whom are women.23 An April 2023 survey found that 30 percent of election administrators have been harassed, abused, or threatened because of their job. The abuse has led many to leave their positions, and, because of this turnover, more than one in five election administrators will be administering their first presidential election in 2024.24 The likelihood of attrition because of unaddressed abuse is particularly concerning for groups that histori- cally have faced barriers to attaining political office and remain significantly underrepresented at all levels of government.25 Equal opportunity in representation matters not merely for the sake of inclusion, but also because policymaking by more representative legislatures better serves all constituents.26 Though more than half the U.S. population is female and 40 percent is Hispanic or people of color, these groups hold far smaller shares of elected office at every level.27 Only 28 percent of members of Congress and 33 percent of state legislators are women.28 People of color III. The Civic Impact of Officeholder Abuse Abuse harms not just individual officeholders but all those who rely on a safe, free, and equally accessible democratic process. Many state and local officeholders report that abuse has dampened their willingness to seek reelection or higher office; to lead on controversial issues such as reproductive freedom, gun regulation, criminal justice reform, and LGBTQ+ rights; and to engage with constituents online and at public events (see figures 5 and 6). 41 17 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders FIGURE 5 Activities Local Officeholders Report Being Deterred From Due to Abuse, by Gender Participating in events in public spaces Posting on social media Running for another/higher office Running for reelection Visiting public spaces when not working Working on controversial topics Men Women 28% 45% 46% 65% 33% 46% 34% 48% 25% 39% 34% 48% Note: Results were weighted by demographic and political characteristics of the local officeholder’s jurisdiction to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±3 percentage points to ±4.5 percentage points depending on the sample proportion and subgroup in question. The sample is composed of 1,440 responses from 1,379 unique respondents. Source: Bridging Divides Initiative/CivicPulse/Brennan Center surveys fielded in May 2023, July 2023, and October 2023. 42 18 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders FIGURE 6 Activities State Legislators Report Being Deterred From Due to Abuse, by Gender Bringing family members to public events Holding events in public spaces Holding virtual events Making media appearances or being interviewed Posting on social media Working on controversial topics Men Women 23%36% 18%33% 9% 15% 17%28% 43%52% 16%31% Note: Results were weighted by census division, chamber, party, gender, year elected, state-level estimates of political ideology, and the level of professionalization of the officeholder’s legislature to achieve more nationally representative measures. Margins of error range from approximately ±5percentage points to ±9 percentage points depending on the sample proportion. The sample is composed of 354 responses. We did not find meaningfuldifferences by gender for other options provided: working across party lines and moving policy forward. Source: Brennan Center/Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling survey fielded in fall 2023. 43 19 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders officeholders and their families also restrict their personal social media activity. Some officeholders even limit their traditional media engagements: 28 percent of women state legislators avoid media appearances or being interviewed because of abuse, compared with 17 percent of men. Women state legislators are also less likely than their male counterparts to hold events in public spaces or bring their family members to events.33 Local officeholders also expressed concern about attending in-person public events. Forty- five percent of women local officeholders expressed this concern, while 28 percent of men expressed the same. “Unchecked threats and harassment will disadvantage candidates who may have to take steps to reduce their public exposure, especially women and people of color because they get such hateful abuse,” said Ghida Dagher, CEO and president of New American Leaders, a national nonpartisan nonprofit organization that helps leaders of immigrant background and their allies run for elected office. “That limits their ability to campaign fully and freely and give voters the chance to really get to know them.” Officeholders expressed fear for their constituents and supporters as well, both online and at their offices, town halls, legislative hearings, or other venues. One state lawmaker reported experiencing “bullying” on social media, “which is intended in the first case to have a chill- ing effect on my speech, but also certainly on the speech of other people who disagree with the bullies on a partic- ular issue.” Washington State Rep. Kristine Reeves described how “several volunteers told me they had guns pulled on them” during canvassing. Representative Romman of Georgia also identified the potential dangers of canvassing, saying that she “didn’t let canvassers canvass alone. Some of my more seasoned ones got really annoyed with this, but to me it was just not worth the risk. We asked people to come back once it got dark, too, which was a pain in the winter, but it is what it is.” Gun regulation came up repeatedly in interviews as an issue that drew abuse and gave lawmakers pause. Repre- sentative Cassidy of Illinois explained that she decided not to lead bills about gun regulation because “my kids were too little, the threats were too common and too on point.” Sometimes extremist lawmakers stoke public criticism of more moderate members of their own party. One lawmaker said, “They can’t step out from the party ortho- doxy on issues like abortion, like guns, like LGBTQ rights. And as a consequence, we can’t get anything done on those things where we have divided government.” The nation saw such intraparty extremism unfold during the fight for speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2023. Republican members reported abuse from Repub- lican voters ranging from “lots of profanity” to “credible death threats and a barrage of threatening calls.”32 Reduced Interaction with Constituents Officeholders left to mitigate the risk of abuse on their own often cut back on opportunities for the public to interact with them, virtually or in person. The result is less constituent access and civic engagement. Forty-six percent of state legislators stated that abuse has reduced their willingness to interact with constitu- ents by posting on social media. Fifty-two percent of local officeholders reported the same. More women than men reported reluctance to engage online for this reason: in state legislatures 52 percent of women versus 43 percent of men, and among local officeholders 65 percent of women versus 46 percent of men. Some officeholders reported that they cope by restrict- ing their social media communications to periodic press releases and do not engage members of the public in dialogue. Many expressed regret that they needed to avoid an easy mode of conversing with constituents. Some 44 20 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders didn’t allow them to stop what they were doing, to hold them back from public service. If anything, they double down.” Another legislator of color recalled the impact of community backup. “Some supporters of my opponent went all in on the ‘She’s a terrorist’ commentary, and it really backfired. There’s a local, predominantly right-leaning group of older white people that we go talk to, and in response, they became really protective of me,” she said. “That’s the power of community and especially local offices, is that — you tend to have people looking out for you. I think it really does inoculate against some of this stuff, because it immediately says this behavior isn’t accepted here.” >> States should monitor threats and harassment. Publicly accountable authorities should systematically monitor and analyze instances of threats and harassment of officeholders. Such data collection will enable author- ities to form a more objective, evidence-based under- standing of the threat landscape than ad hoc responses allow and thus to more effectively design mitigation strat- egies and allocate resources. Potential models exist. The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) tracks threats against members of Congress and publicly reports the number it investigates. The data enables the USCP to identify trends and responsively allocate security resources. In 2021, for instance, it opened offices in Flor- ida and California due to increasing threats in those states.38 At least three-quarters of states have an analo- gous security authority, typically tasked with protecting state employees and statehouse visitors.39 These agencies should track threats and harassment against officials, their staff, and their families. While monitoring is important to understand and effectively address risks, states must ensure that their tracking systems, data analyses, and law enforcement actions respect and protect civil liberties and do not incor- porate bias.40 They should use standardized definitions of the behaviors being tracked and analyze the data for actionable trends.41 They should create and make publicly available a plan for addressing these issues. Monitoring authorities should also have to report publicly on their >> States and local governments should provide bystander intervention training. Some officeholders who experienced abuse reported that some fellow officeholders fanned extremism while others expressed support in the face of hateful conduct. States should offer lawmakers and staff training to reduce harm- ful behavior within statehouses, using the techniques of bystander intervention. Business and community leaders should also employ these techniques. Bystander intervention is a standard aspect of anti- hate and conflict resolution training. In launching the United Nations’ anti-hate speech initiative in 2019, Secretary-General António Guterres urged leaders to counter hate speech “like any other malicious act: by condemning it unconditionally, refusing to amplify it, countering it with the truth, and encouraging the perpe- trators to change their behavior.”34 The U.S. Department of Justice provides related trainings and resources in community-based conflict resolution involving issues of race, gender, religion, and other differences.35 Conflict resolution experts also recommend speaking up against anti-democratic speech because doing so can reduce fear, resist the normalization of hate in political culture, and provide hope for those targeted.36 Many local officeholders who have experienced abuse reported “lack of support from fellow elected officials,” according to a 2023 report by the Bridging Divides Initia- tive based on interviews of elected and appointed local officials. But, they said, support from fellow officials, particularly across party lines, was helpful. In one case, a local officeholder who received a death threat came to “feel much more safe in the community” after his super- visor, who belongs to another political party, made a public point of investigating the incident.37 Assemblymember Liz Ortega, a Latina legislator serv- ing California, described fellow lawmakers’ public support after a detractor disseminated her home address: “It was like a community came around me and current and former elected officials called it out on social media and asked for accountability. That was really helpful and something I was not expecting. It felt good to see that I wasn’t alone and that there were other women who actu- ally had experienced similar threats or situations but IV. Recommendations Individual officeholders should not be left to manage abuse on their own. States and local governments, political parties, law enforcement agencies, and social media companies all have a critical role to play in ensuring that the democratic arena is safe and accessible to all. Crucial to developing and implementing protective measures is understanding that the beneficiary of greater safety is not just the elected official, but also everyone who counts on a healthy representative democracy. 45 21 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders >> States and local governments should provide and normalize mental health services. Mental health support for legislators and staffers who experience abuse would help not only public servants but also their constituents, because stress from abuse can cause even politicians accustomed to the limelight to underperform.47 Most states already offer this support as part of health insurance coverage for state legislators. But as of 2021, three states — South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming — did not offer health coverage to all legislators, and five states offered health insurance plans that users needed to buy entirely out of pocket.48 Former Representative Scott of Kentucky said, “Legis- lators need something like an employee assistance program. I mean, I didn’t have anyone I could go talk to that was a professional, a mental health professional, about what I was experiencing. And I couldn’t afford it myself.” Representative González of Texas wanted mental health support for her staff, who work in a statehouse that admits visitors carrying guns. “If I think about my staff this session, with the exception of three, they were all brand new. If they’re struggling with depression or anxiety or stress, it’s a lot and ramps up super quickly,” she said. “I know it’s terrifying for a 19-year old intern to come in and there are guns everywhere.” Legislators stressed that availability of mental health support must come with messaging that normalizes its use, to diminish the common stigma. “Not everybody is going to go out and seek out their own help,” Leader Munson of Oklahoma said. “But maybe it would help to know that it’s available and it’s just necessary now if you’re in this line of work. Allowing or having our staff be able to have that, I think, is really good, too.” >> States should permit candidate and party spending on security. Many state and local officeholders reported experiencing abuse not just after election, but also while still on the campaign trail. Without the ability to spend campaign funds on personal safety, candidates are left to pay from their personal finances or forgo security measures if they cannot afford them. States should update campaign finance rules, whose purpose is to prevent corruption, to allow candidates to spend campaign funds on verifiable security needs. The Federal Election Commission already allows candidates for federal office to spend campaign funds on personal safety.49 After the January 6 insurrection, candidates for Congress increased their campaign spending on security by more than 500 percent.50 Minnesota allows such spending, as does California when law enforcement has tracking methods, aggregate findings, and actions taken in response to threats. Public reporting would not only help to justify government spending on security measures but also ensure accountability for monitoring. To impinge unnecessarily on people’s constitutional rights in the name of protecting their elected representatives would turn the project of strengthening democracy on its head.42 >> States and local governments should provide physical security resources and training. Many jurisdictions fail to provide basic physical security resources or training. They should offer centralized resources, developed and delivered by experts, to both state and local officeholders. States and cities could assess office spaces for vulner- abilities and recommend improvements such as video surveillance and key card access to nonpublic areas where staff can isolate in emergencies.43 The Florida Legislature recently appropriated more than $61 million for windows at its Capitol, including some with bulletproof glass.44 In 2021, Texas legislators proposed spending $40 million on additional security measures, such as panic buttons and video cameras, for their Capitol.45 Many officeholders noted that they would welcome guidance on choosing a secure location for district offices, installing security cameras, reporting threats, or strength- ening cybersecurity practices to avoid inadvertently expos- ing sensitive information about themselves and their families or staff, such as the location of a child’s school. Statehouse authorities should also train officeholders, staff, and volunteers to de-escalate potentially threatening situations at public events and while canvassing. Organi- zations including the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastruc- ture Security Agency offer tips for recognizing when an individual may become violent and how to report threats.46 Some legislators raised concerns that security measures such as stationing police at public events and district offices could discourage members of the public from participating in civic life. As Cyndi Munson, Democratic minority leader of the Oklahoma House of Representa- tives, said, “Not only does it make it a strange place to work, it keeps the public from coming in. People who really should and need to be coming in don’t want to. They’re scared, especially the most vulnerable and the most marginalized. They don’t want to go to a place where there’s, you know, a swath of state troopers.” Enhanced security measures and trainings should incorporate anti-bias education for officers, sensitivity to police–community dynamics, and strong safeguards against overcriminalizing abuse. Some legislators called for a centralized security agency distinct from local law enforcement because of negative interactions they or their constituents have experienced with police. 46 22 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders all states allow the use of a post office box instead of a physical residence address.59 Authorities should review their filings, publicly certify candidates’ compliance, and redact personal information from the public record. Dela- ware requires candidates to show good cause before it permits them to redact their mailing addresses.60 Califor- nia will lift address confidentiality for specific law enforce- ment needs but requires that investigators keep the information out of public records.61 >> Legislative bodies, officeholders, and social media companies should prioritize freedom to safely engage in public discourse as they create guidelines to reduce serious harm on social media. Vigorous debate is a fundamental component of Ameri- can democracy, but threats, harassment, and other forms of abuse deter officeholders and constituents from partic- ipating in civic life online. The Supreme Court is set in 2024 to grapple with at least four cases touching on the relationships among government officials, social media companies, and constituents. Two of these cases consider when and how government can influence social media companies’ content policies — the companies’ decisions about what posts to remove, label, or limit in reach.62 Two others ask when public officials’ use of social media constitutes government activity such that the officials’ decisions to block commenters or delete posts should be subject to First Amendment restrictions.63 When counsel for legislative bodies, public officials, and social media companies ultimately respond to these rulings, they should adopt clear policies that center one of the core functions of free speech rights: the protection of democ- racy and dissent against government. Social media companies will likely reconsider their content policies in light of these cases. When they do, they should consider that harassment — of both public offi- cials and regular users — deters healthy democratic discourse. Likewise, policies that are difficult for users to understand or inconsistently enforced undermine free debate. Similarly, counsel for public officials may revise their guidance for comments on official social media pages. When doing so, they should consider how to avoid incon- sistent enforcement and vague guidelines that would fail to protect the public’s ability to disagree with officials — and each other — in these forums. Instead, narrowly tailored rules that apply equally to those who agree and those who disagree with officials will promote the kind of spirited debate that most legislators interviewed for this study said they welcome. Striking the right balance, and doing so transparently, is a challenge. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decisions will likely set the parameters for such policies.64 corroborated threats.51 But campaign finance laws in most states are ambiguous on the subject, with some defining prohibited spending on personal expenses broadly enough to potentially include security measures. Political parties should centralize security funds and training for candidates, to alleviate the cost to individuals. Since party resources are in high demand during campaign season, states should consider allowing parties to fundraise for a dedicated candidate security account, with a separate cap from already permitted fundraising, as long as dona- tions and expenditures are publicly disclosed.52 >> States should provide personal privacy protections. Several legislators reported that people who had targeted them with abuse knew and even publicized their home addresses or facts about their children. Many states already enable some private citizens and public servants to keep confidential personal information, such as home addresses, that could expose them to risk. States should extend these protections as appropriate to officeholders and make any necessary adjustments to the publication of candidate filing forms that include home addresses. Some already offer protections that could apply to elected lawmakers but should do more to communicate their availability. Address confidentiality protections exempt certain classes of people from having to publicly disclose their residence when they conduct routine civic business, such as registering cars or registering to vote. Forty-one states, for example, offer survivors of domestic violence some degree of address confidentiality.53 Many states have extended confidentiality protections to other groups for whom the risk of violence is a reason- able concern. Several shield reproductive health-care workers and their families.54 California recently extended address confidentiality to public health officials who faced threats during the Covid-19 shutdown.55 When disinformation campaigns stoked extremist rage against election workers who ran the 2020 presidential election, at least seven states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington — extended address confidentiality to them.56 The public’s right to know is at its zenith with respect to the people it elects into power. Campaign and ethics rules often require that candidates and officeholders report home addresses and other personal information, to enable accountability for meeting residency and prop- erty disclosure requirements.57 But with care states can and should craft privacy protections for candidates and officeholders that also preserve the public interest. Twenty-one states extend address confidentiality to officeholders, but 13 undermine that protection, likely unintentionally, by publishing candidate filings.58 And not 47 23 Brennan Center for Justice Political Violence Endangers U.S. Democracy As Minnesota State Sen. Erin Maye Quade said, “I would love to ban guns from at least the chamber itself or the gallery of the chamber.” She acknowledged the constitutional constraints after Bruen but said, “I think that there is a narrowly tailored policy that would prevent people from carrying guns above the people who are voting on legislation.” In fact, even as it struck down a swath of gun regula- tions in Bruen, the Supreme Court described legislative assemblies as a historical “sensitive place” in which gun regulation is permissible without further justification. Other examples the Court named include schools, polling places, government buildings, and “new and analogous sensitive places.”67 But some states have moved in the wrong direction, even overriding municipal ordinances that would limit guns in sensitive places. Some recently began permitting people to carry guns in locations often used for voting and other forms of civic engagement, including houses of worship, government buildings, college campuses, and even elementary schools.68 In Montana, a 2021 law undid a long-standing prohibition on concealed firearms in the statehouse.69 States should resist these rollbacks. Instead, they should prohibit people from unnecessarily carrying guns in locations where constituents and their repre- sentatives conduct the core business of democracy, including statehouses and, with notice from the orga- nizers, pre-announced public officeholder events such as town halls or campaign rallies. In public places where citizens and their representa- tives engage in the democratic process, heightened tensions increase the risk of violence. States can and should provide security to obviate the need some citizens may feel to arm themselves in self-defense. As the Georgia Supreme Court recognized in 1874, “The right to go into a court-house and peacefully and safely seek its privileges, is just as sacred as the right to carry arms . . . [If] a visitor . . . is compelled to mingle in a crowd of men loaded down with pistols and Bowie-knives, or bristling with guns and bayonets, his right of free access to the courts is just as much restricted as is the right to bear arms infringed by prohibiting the practice.”70 Simi- larly, states should protect the right of citizens and their representatives to engage in the democratic process free from armed intimidation. The chief of staff for one state senator explained how helpful the advice of counsel was for protecting constit- uents’ ability to engage online and be safe from abuse: “We were told that as a public figure, you were not allowed to block anybody, to delete anything. But as we got so many people from outside of the district, you know, just hounding people and basically taking advantage of that public space to just harass other people, that’s where we worked with our legal staff to come up with a policy that basically says, you know, if it’s not germane to the post, you can’t have this conversation here and we reserve the right to delete it.” >> States should regulate firearms in spaces where officeholders and candidates engage with the public. Many legislators discussed the need for gun regulation to reduce risks to themselves, their staff, and their constit- uents. Their perception that proliferation of gun carrying presents a growing risk tracks with data showing that 1 in every 20 Americans now owns an AR-15-style semi- automatic rifle.65 States should enact or improve gun regu- lation to reduce this risk. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen severely constrains gun regulation, but it nevertheless leaves room for commonsense limits to protect civic engagement. As Washington State Sen. Patty Kuderer, who intro- duced a bill prohibiting open carry in the Capitol, told reporters, “The purpose of openly carrying a weapon is to chill other people’s voices. And it works.”66 Representative Reeves of Washington State described the terror of working in the Capitol without restrictions on guns before the legislature changed its policy following the January 6 insurrection. “The way that our floor is structured — you have the House floor, and then the next floor up is the galleries, and the galleries are public. And so people would come down for gun rally days and they would come with their assault rifles, their semiautomatic weapons, and they would literally line up in their Kevlar vests and all of that in the galleries or in the rotunda. Row upon row upon row. And I don’t think I’ve ever felt more scared in my life as a mom of two young kids to be stand- ing on the House floor knowing that all they had to do was shoot. It was like a fishbowl. All they had to do was shoot into the fishbowl.” 48 24 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders distorts government’s ability to represent the people it serves. State and local governments must act. Measures to transparently and systematically monitor the problem, provide security, and enact commonsense gun restric- tions will help to ensure a safe, accessible, and represen- tative democracy for all. Conventional wisdom may call such intimidating conditions the price of holding elected office. But its fallout harms everyone who relies on a free, fair, and functional democratic process. By deterring officehold- ers from seeking reelection or running for higher office, taking on important policy positions, or interacting with their constituents, unchecked extremist intimidation Conclusion On the third anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, abuse of officeholders shows no signs of diminishing. To the contrary, during the battle for speakership of the U.S. House of Representatives in October 2023, Republican lawmakers received death threats from their own constituents. In early 2023, a political challenger allegedly paid for drive-by shootings targeting the homes of two New Mexico state legislators and two county commissioners. Flint, Michigan, saw councilmembers and residents show up heavily armed to an October 2023 county committee meeting to protest newly installed metal detectors.71 49 25 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders 8  Cherie Maestas, Grant W . Neeley, and Lilliard E . Richardson, “The State of Surveying Legislators: Dilemmas and Suggestions,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3, no . 1 (2003): 90–108, https://doi . org/10 .1177/153244000300300104 . 9  Those who chose only the category “Prefer to self-describe” in the survey of local officeholders were treated as “White” based on the content of the free-form descriptions participants provided for this category, e .g ., “Irish .” 10  The state legislator survey would count an average of five threats against a legislator of color in the past three years as equivalent to an average of one threat against a white legislator over that same period: both legislators would simply answer “yes” to whether they had been threatened . In contrast, the local officeholder survey would capture only threats experienced within the three months prior to each survey administration . This is one potential explanation for some of the differences between the results of the two surveys: a larger proportion of state legislators than local officeholders reported experiencing hostility, as they were asked to report not only on the three months prior but on their entire term of office as well as the campaign for that term . But race and gender gaps were more apparent in the survey of local officeholders than in the survey of state legislators, as local officeholders were surveyed repeatedly over the year, so that more-frequent abuse of officeholders of color and women would have been documented in more-frequent “yes” answers covering the prior three months . 11  Rebekah Herrick and Sue Thomas, “Not Just Sticks and Stones: Psychological Abuse and Physical Violence Among U .S . State Senators,” Politics & Gender 18, no . 2 (June 2022): 434, https://doi . org/10 .1017/S1743923X2000063X . 12  Rebekah Herrick et al ., “Physical Violence and Psychological Abuse Against Female and Male Mayors in the United States,” Politics, Groups, and Identities 9, no . 4 (June 2019): 681, https://doi .org/10 .10 80/21565503 .2019 .1629321 . 13  Rachel Locke and Carl Luna, How Scared Are You?: Mapping the Threat Environment of San Diego’s Elected Officials, Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice at the University of San Diego’s Kroc School and Institute for Civil Civic Engagement, August 8, 2023, 11, https:// digital .sandiego .edu/cgi/viewcontent .cgi?article=1068&context= ipj-research . See also Bridging Divides Initiative, “Understanding Threats and Harassment”; and CivicPulse, “Threats and Harassment in Local Government .” 14  See Bridging Divides Initiative, “Understanding Threats and Harassment”; and CivicPulse, “Threats and Harassment in Local Government .” 15  Lisa Lerner and Astead W . Herndon, “Menace Enters the Republican Mainstream,” New York Times, June 22, 2023, https://www .nytimes .com/2021/11/12/us/politics/republican- violent-rhetoric .html . 16  Local officeholders were not asked about their experiences of sexual abuse . 17  Herrick et al ., “Physical Violence and Psychological Abuse Against Female and Male Mayors .” 18  Dhanaraj Thakur and DeVan L . Hankerson, eds ., An Unrepresentative Democracy: How Disinformation and Online Abuse Hinder Women of Color Political Candidates in the United States, Center for Democracy & Technology, October 27, 2022, 8, https://cdt .org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/update- anunrepresentativedemocracy-a11y-102622-1710 .pdf . 19  Sophia Lada, “Councilmembers, Residents Bring Guns to Flint City Hall in Response to New Metal Detectors and Threats,” Flint Beat, 1  Ned Parker and Peter Eisler, “Political Violence in Polarized U .S . at Its Worst Since 1970s,” Reuters, August 9, 2023, https://www . reuters .com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-violence/ . 2  Michael D . Shear, Adam Goldman, and Emily Cochrane, “Congressman Steve Scalise Gravely Wounded in Alexandria Baseball Field Ambush,” New York Times, June 14, 2017, https://www .nytimes . com/2017/06/14/us/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria- virginia .html; and Domenico Montanaro, “Sanders of Supporter and Alleged Shooter: ‘Violence of Any Kind Is Unacceptable,’ ” NPR, June 14, 2017, https://www .npr .org/2017/06/14/532935398/sanders-of- supporter-and-alleged-shooter-violence-of-any-kind-is- unacceptable . 3  Daniel Trotta, “Federal Jury Convicts Man in Hammer Attack on Pelosi’s Husband,” Reuters, November 17, 2023, https://www . reuters .com/legal/jury-deliberates-fate-man-who-attacked-nancy- pelosis-husband-2023-11-16; and Justine McDaniel and Marianna Sotomayor, “Threats Continue Toward Republicans Voting Against Jordan for Speaker,” Washington Post, October 20, 2023, https:// www .washingtonpost .com/politics/2023/10/20/house-speaker- jordan-threats/ . 4  Greg Morton, Marianna Sotomayor, and Camila DeChalus, “Lawmakers Are Spending Way More to Keep Themselves Safe . Is It Enough?,” Washington Post, September 18, 2023, https://www . washingtonpost .com/politics/2023/09/18/congress-security- spending-violence-threats/; and Melissa Quinn, “House Passes Bill to Bolster Security for Supreme Court Justices,” CBS News, June 14, 2022, https://www .cbsnews .com/news/supreme-court-security-bill- house-vote-brett-kavanaugh/ . 5  The surveys of state and local officeholders all provided the gradations of abuse in the box on page 3, with the survey of state legislators spelling out the exact definitions . 6  The survey of local elected officeholders asked, “To what extent have concerns about insults, harassment, threats, or attacks negatively impacted your willingness to do each of” a variety of actions, such as running for reelection . For each proposed action, officeholders could respond on a four-category scale: “a lot,” “somewhat,” “a little,” or “not at all .” When reporting what proportion of local officeholders are less willing to to engage in these actions, we grouped together responses of “a lot,” “somewhat,” and “a little .” For example, when asked about willingness to run for reelection, 14 percent of officeholders answered “a lot,” 11 percent answered “somewhat,” and 14 percent answered “a little,” for a total of 39 percent saying they are less willing to run for reelection . Among women, 20 percent answered “a lot,” 15 percent answered “somewhat,” and 14 percent answered “a little,” for a total of 49 percent . The gender differences did not change meaningfully when we tried grouping answers differently: For example, 25 percent of officeholders were “a lot” or “somewhat” less willing to run for reelection, compared with 35 percent of women officeholders . 7  There were 1,440 responses from 1,379 unique officeholders . The Bridging Divides Initiative and CivicPulse conducted a shorter version of this survey, with more than 400 unique local official respondents, in late 2022 . To get the broadest possible view of demographic disparities in threat levels, this study’s reported levels of threats, harassment, insults, and attacks additionally incorporate the data from the 2022 surveys . The survey was sent to random samples of local elected officials in the United States in township, municipality, and county governments that serve populations of more than 1,000 residents . See Bridging Divides Initiative, “Understanding Threats and Harassment to Local Officials,” accessed November 15, 2023, https://bridgingdivides .princeton .edu/ UnderstandingThreats; and CivicPulse, “Threats and Harassment in Local Government,” accessed November 15, 2023, https://www . civicpulse .org/threats-harassment . Endnotes 50 26 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders Who Voted Against Jordan’s Speakership Bid Report Menacing Calls and Threats to Their Offices,” CNN, October 19, 2023, https://www . cnn .com/2023/10/19/politics/republicans-threats-jordan-speaker- bid-votes-congress/index .html . 33  For a study of intimidation in public life in the United Kingdom, see Committee on Standards in Public Life, Intimidation in Public Life, December 2017, 77–78, https://assets .publishing .service .gov .uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/666927/6 .3637_CO_v6_061217_Web3 .1__2_ .pdf . 34  United Nations, “Hate Speech ‘On Notice’ as UN Chief Launches New Plan to ‘Identify, Prevent and Confront’ Growing Scourge,” June 18, 2019, https://news .un .org/en/story/2019/06/1040731 . 35  U .S . Department of Justice, “Community Relations Service,” accessed November 6, 2023, https://www .justice .gov/crs . 36  Divided Community Project, Moritz College of Law, and Mershon Center for International Security Studies, Speaking Out to Strengthen the Guardrails of Democracy, 2023, 3, https://moritzlaw . osu .edu/sites/default/files/2023-07/Speaking%20Out%202 .pdf . 37  Bridging Divides Initiative, In Their Own Words: Threats and Harassment Facing Local Officials, May 25, 2023, https:// bridgingdivides .princeton .edu/sites/g/files/toruqf246/files/ documents/BDI%20Threats%20Interview%20Report .pdf . 38  United States Capitol Police, “USCP Threat Assessment Cases for 2022 .” 39  These states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming . 40  See Rachel Levinson-Waldman, Harsha Panduranga, and Faiza Patel, “Social Media Surveillance by the U .S . Government,” Brennan Center for Justice, January 7, 2022, https://www .brennancenter .org/ our-work/research-reports/social-media-surveillance-us-government . 41  See Rachel Levinson-Waldman and Ángel Díaz, “How to Reform Police Monitoring of Social Media,” Brookings Institution, July 9, 2020, https://www .brookings .edu/articles/how-to-reform-police- monitoring-of-social-media . 42  Spencer Reynolds and Faiza Patel, A New Vision for Domestic Intelligence: Fixing Overbroad Mandates and Flimsy Safeguards, Brennan Center for Justice, March 30, 2023, 11, https://www . brennancenter .org/our-work/policy-solutions/new-vision-domestic- intelligence . 43  Derek Tisler and Lawrence Norden, “Estimated Costs for Protecting Election Workers from Threats of Physical Violence,” Brennan Center for Justice, May 3, 2022, https://www . brennancenter .org/our-work/research-reports/estimated-costs- protecting-election-workers-threats-physical-violence . 44  Jeffrey Schweers, “Florida Is Spending $61 .6 Million to Bulletproof Capitol Windows,” Florida Sentinel, August 24, 2023, https://www .orlandosentinel .com/2023/08/24/florida-spending- 61-6-million-to-bulletproof-capitol-windows . 45  Robert T . Garrett, “Plan to ‘Fortify’ Texas Capitol Appears on Fast Track, Wins Funding in Initial State Budget,” Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2021, https://www .dallasnews .com/news/ politics/2021/01/21/plan-to-fortify-texas-capitol-appears-on-fast- track-wins-funding-in-initial-state-budget/ . 46  Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, “De-escalation Series,” last updated September 23, 2021, https://www .cisa .gov/ resources-tools/resources/de-escalation-series . 47  Ashley Weinberg, “The Mental Health of Politicians,” Humanities & Social Sciences Communications 3 (September 2017), October 21, 2023, https://flintbeat .com/councilmembers-residents- bring-guns-to-flint-city-hall-in-response-to-new-metal-detectors- and-threats . 20  United States Capitol Police, “USCP Threat Assessment Cases for 2022,” press release, January 17, 2023, https://www .uscp .gov/ media-center/press-releases/uscp-threat-assessment-cases- 2022?page=2 (quoting USCP’s consulting psychologist, Dr . Mario Scalora) . 21  Chisun Lee, Gregory Clark, and Nirali Vyas, “Small Donor Public Financing Could Advance Race and Gender Equity in Congress,” Brennan Center for Justice, October 15, 2020, 5–6, https://www . brennancenter .org/our-work/research-reports/small-donor-public- financing-could-advance-race-and-gender-equity . 22  Robert Nott, “Lawmakers Worry Albuquerque Attacks Will Cool Desire to Run for Office,” Santa Fe New Mexican, January 17, 2023, https://www .santafenewmexican .com/news/local_news/ lawmakers-worry-albuquerque-attacks-will-cool-desire-to-run-for- office/article_2827fd88-9681-11ed-b434-3bcca7a1a90d .html; and Ayana Archie and Bill Chappell, “A Losing Republican Candidate in N .M . Is Charged over Shootings at Homes of Democrats,” NPR, January 18, 2023, https://www .npr .org/2023/01/17/1149464953/ new-mexico-shooting-politicians-solomon-pena . 23  Anita Manion et al ., “Who Are Local Election Officials, and What Do They Say About Elections?,” MIT Election Data + Science Lab, February 24, 2022, https://electionlab .mit .edu/articles/who-are- local-election-officials-and-what-do-they-say-about-elections . 24  Brennan Center for Justice and Benenson Strategy Group, “Local Election Officials Survey — April 2023,” April 25, 2023, 13, https://www .brennancenter .org/our-work/research-reports/ local-election-officials-survey-april-2023 . A 2022 survey by the National League of Cities of its members found that 81 percent of respondents reported having been harassed, threatened, or subjected to physical violence . Clarence E . Anthony et al ., On the Frontlines of Today’s Cities: Trauma, Challenges, and Solutions, National League of Cities, November 10, 2021, 11, https://www .nlc . org/resource/on-the-frontlines-of-todays-cities-trauma-challenges- and-solutions/ . 25  See Mona Lena Krook, Violence Against Women in Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020) . 26  See Beth Reingold and Adrienne R . Smith, “Welfare Policymaking and Intersections of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in U .S . State Legislatures,” American Journal of Political Science 56, no . 1 (January 2012): 131–47, https://www .jstor .org/stable/23075148 . 27  United States Census Bureau, “Quick Facts: United States,” July 1, 2022, https://www .census .gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/ PST045222 . 28  Center for American Women and Politics, “Women in Elective Office 2023,” accessed September 18, 2023, https://cawp .rutgers . edu/facts/current-numbers/women-elective-office-2023 . 29  Katherine Schaeffer, “U .S . Congress Continues to Grow in Racial, Ethnic Diversity,” Pew Research Center, January 9, 2023, https://www .pewresearch .org/short-reads/2023/01/09/ u-s-congress-continues-to-grow-in-racial-ethnic-diversity/ . 30  Center for American Women and Politics, “Women in Elective Office 2021,” accessed September 18, 2023, https://cawp .rutgers . edu/women-color-elective-office-2021 . 31  Deanna Ross, “Flow of State Lawmakers to Congress Remains Strong,” National Conference of State Legislatures, December 5, 2022, https://www .ncsl .org/state-legislatures-news/details/ flow-of-state-lawmakers-to-congress-remains-strong; and Congressional Research Service, Membership of the 118th Congress: A Profile, September 14, 2023, https://crsreports .congress .gov/ product/pdf/R/R47470 . 32  Melanie Zanona, Haley Talbot, and Sam Fossum, “Republicans 51 27 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming . Other states that have address confidentiality are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Missouri . 59  Idaho Secretary of State, “Appointment and Certification of Political Treasurer for Candidate,” accessed November 14, 2023, https://elections .sos .idaho .gov/TED/Filings/85672 .pdf . 60  Del . Code Ann . tit . 15, § 8032 (2023), https://delcode .delaware . gov/title15/c080/sc04/index .html . 61  Cal . Gov’t Code § 6208, https://www .sos .ca .gov/registries/ safe-home/laws/confidential-address-program-victims-domestic- violence-sexual-assault-and-stalking-program-law; Cal . Gov’t Code § 6215 .7, https://www .sos .ca .gov/registries/safe-home/ laws/confidential-address-program-reproductive-healthcare- participants-program-law; and Cal . Code Regs . tit . 2 § 22101 .4, https://casetext .com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/ title-2-administration/division-7-secretary-of-state/chapter-11-safe- at-home-confidential-address-program/section-221014-disclosing- confidential-information . 62  Murthy v . Missouri, Nos . 23A243, 23-411, 2023 WL 6935337 (S . Ct . Oct . 20, 2023), cert. granted; and Netchoice, LLC v . Paxton, No . 22-555, 2023 WL 6319650 (S . Ct . Sept . 29, 2023), cert. granted . 63  Lindke v . Freed, No . 22-611, 2023 WL 6377746 (S . Ct . Oct . 2, 2023), cert. granted; and O’Connor-Ratcliff v . Garnier, No . 22-324, 2023 WL 6377743 (S . Ct . Oct . 2, 2023), cert. granted . 64  Ian Millhiser, “The Supreme Court Seems Stumped by Two Cases About Free Speech Online,” Vox, October 31, 2023, https://www .vox .com/scotus/2023/10/31/23940738/supreme- court-twitter-facebook-oconnor-ratcliff-garnier-lindke-freed-first- amendment . 65  Emily Gaskin, Aadit Tambe, and Jon Gerberg, “Why Do Americans Own AR-15s?,” Washington Post, March 27, 2023, https://www .washingtonpost .com/nation/interactive/2023/ american-ar-15-gun-owners/ . 66  Joseph O’Sullivan, “Washington Legislature Approves Ban of Open Carry of Guns at Demostrations, State Capitol,” Seattle Times, April 20, 2021, https://www .seattletimes .com/seattle-news/politics/ washington-legislature-approves-bill-to-ban-open-carry-of-guns-at- demonstrations-the-capitol/; and Iris Samuels and Lindsay Whitehurst, “Guns in Capitol Buildings Divide States After Armed Protests,” Columbian, February 19, 2021, https://www .columbian . com/news/2021/feb/19/states-remain-split-on-guns-in-capitols- after-armed-protests . 67  New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc . v . Bruen, 142 S . Ct . 2111, 2133 (2022) (emphasis in original) . 68  Sean Morales-Doyle et al ., Guns and Voting, Brennan Center for Justice, September 28, 2023, https://www .brennancenter .org/ our-work/policy-solutions/guns-and-voting . 69  Samuels and Whitehurst, “Guns in Capitol Buildings .” 70  Hill v . State, 53 Ga . 472, 477-78 (1874) . 71  Zanona, Talbot, and Fossum, “Republicans Who Voted Against Jordan’s Speakership Bid”; Nott, “Lawmakers Worry”; and Lada, “Councilmembers, Residents Bring Guns to Flint City Hall .” https://doi .org/10 .1057/palcomms .2017 .81 . 48  Information as of 2021 . National Conference of State Legislatures, “2021 Survey Legislative Compensation: Insurance Benefits,” 2021, https://documents .ncsl .org/wwwncsl/About-State- Legislatures/Legislator_Compensation_2021_insurance .pdf . 49  Federal Election Commission to Elton Gallegly (member of U .S . Congress), Advisory Opinion 2009-08, May 7, 2009, https://www .fec .gov/files/legal/aos/2009-08/AO-2009-08 .pdf . 50  Morton, Sotomayor, and DeChalus, “Lawmakers Are Spending Way More .” 51  Minn . Stat . § 10A .01 (2022), https://www .revisor .mn .gov/ statutes/2022/cite/10A .01; and Fair Political Practices Commission, “Use of Campaign Funds,” June 2020, https://www .fppc .ca .gov/ content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Campaign%20Manuals/ Manual_2/Manual_2_Ch_5_Use_of_Campaign_Funds .pdf . 52  Federal rules already permit a similar arrangement for parties to fundraise separately for recounts . Federal Election Commission, “Recounts and Contested Elections,” accessed November 7, 2023, https://www .fec .gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate- taking-receipts/recounts-and-contested-elections/ . 53  National Network to End Domestic Violence, “State by State Chart of Address and Voter Protection Programs,” July 2019, https:// nnedv .org/resources-library/h_address_voter_protection/ . 54  E .g ., Cal . Gov’t Code §§ 6215-16, https://www .sos .ca .gov/ registries/safe-home/laws/confidential-address-program- reproductive-healthcare-participants-program-law; N .Y . S .B . 9384 (2022), https://www .nysenate .gov/legislation/bills/2021/S9384; and Mass . Gen . Laws ch . 9A, § 2, https://malegislature .gov/Laws/ GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter9A/Section2 . 55  CBS News Bay Area, “Gov . Newsom Signs Order Allowing Health Officers to Obtain Confidentiality Services Because of Harassment,” September 24, 2020, https://www .cbsnews .com/sanfrancisco/ news/newsom-order-health-officers-safe-at-home-confidentiality- harassment/ . 56  Ariz . S .B . 1061 (2023), https://www .azleg .gov/ legtext/56leg/1r/bills/sb1061h .htm; Cal . S .B . 1131 (2022), https://leginfo .legislature .ca .gov/faces/billHistoryClient .xhtml? bill_id=202120220SB1131; Colo . H .B . 22-1273 (2022), https://leg .colorado .gov/sites/ default/files/2022a_1273_signed . pdf; Nev . A .B . 321 (2021), https://www .leg .state .nv .us/App/ NELIS/ REL/81st2021/Bill/7842/Text; Okla . S .B . 481 (2021), http://webserver1 .lsb .state .ok .us/cf_pdf/2023-24%20ENR/ SB/SB481%20ENR .PDF; Or . H .B . 4144 (2022), https://olis . oregonlegislature .gov/ liz/2022R1/Measures/Overview/HB4144; and Wash . S .B . 5628 (2022), https://lawfilesext .leg .wa .gov/ biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Amendments/Senate/5628-S%20 AMS%20FROC%20S4516 .1 .pdf . 57  See, e .g ., Wyoming Secretary of State, “Forms & Publications: Elections,” accessed November 7, 2023, https://sos .wyo .gov/Forms/ Default .aspx?root=Elections&startwith=PUBLICOFFICE; and Michigan Municipal League, “Chapter 3 Candidate Filings and Financial Disclosure Requirements,” accessed November 7, 2023, https://mml .org/pdf/information/elections-candidate_filings_and_ financial_disclosure_req_sos .pdf . 58  States that have address confidentiality programs but publish candidate filings are Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, 52 28 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders ADVISORY COUNCIL Sindy Benavides, executive director, Latino Victory Fund Glynda Carr, CEO and president, Higher Heights Leadership Fund Jennifer Carroll Foy, former delegate, Virginia House of Delegates Stephanie Chan, director of data and research, Stop AAPI Hate Anathea Chino, executive director, Advance Native Political Leadership Ghida Dagher, CEO and president, New American Leaders Susannah Delano, executive director, Close the Gap California A’shanti Gholar, president, Emerge America Renee Harvey, executive director and cofounder, Their Future. Our Vote. Shannon Hiller, executive director, Bridging Divides Initiative, Princeton University Diana Hwang, executive director, Asian American Women’s Political Initiative Sadaf Jaffer, member, New Jersey General Assembly Andrea Jenkins, president, Minneapolis City Council Mitzi Johnson, director, Beacons of Democracy Project, State Legislative Leaders Foundation Emily Kaufman, associate director of investigative research, Anti-Defamation League Amanda Litman, co–executive director, Run for Something Erinn Martin, director of nominations and cross-cutting policies, National Women’s Law Center Sean Meloy, vice president of political programs, LGBTQ+ Victory Fund Stephen Richer, recorder, Maricopa County, Arizona Patti Russo, executive director, The Campaign School at Yale University Kira Sanbonmatsu, senior scholar, Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University Wendy Smooth, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies and political science, John Glenn College of Public Affairs, Ohio State University Erin Vilardi, CEO, Vote Run Lead Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. 53 29 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders ABOUT THE AUTHORS  Gowri Ramachandran is deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program, where her work focuses on election security, election administration, and disinformation. She has testified before congressional and state legislative committees about measures to protect U.S. democracy in the face of violent threats and harassment of election workers, detailed in the Brennan Center’s groundbreaking report Election Officials Under Attack (2021).  Chisun Lee is director of the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program, where she works to expand opportunity, participation, and access in the democratic process. She focuses on evidence-based reforms to improve civic engagement, public leadership, election administration, and government accountability. Lee has authored or coauthored nationally recognized reports, legal scholarship, and book chapters. Previously in her career, she won numerous awards as an investigative journalist.  Maya Kornberg is a research fellow in the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. She leads work related to disinformation, Congress, and civic engagement. She has taught political science at New York University and Georgetown University. The author of Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process (Columbia University Press, 2023), she earned her PhD in politics from Oxford University.  Kimberly Peeler-Allen is a senior adviser to the Brennan Center, a political strategist, and a visiting practitioner at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. She is the cofounder of Higher Heights, a national organization that builds the political power and leadership of Black women.  Ruby Edlin is an advocacy campaign coordinator in the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. Her work focuses on election security and disinformation. Edlin previously worked as an organizer on two congressional campaigns and with 32BJ SEIU.  Julia Fishman is a program associate in the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. Her work focuses on money in politics, election security, and disinformation. Fishman previously worked as a litigation paralegal at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.  Jiyoon Park is a program associate in the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. Her work focuses on election security and disinformation. Park previously worked as a litigation paralegal at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.  Grady Yuthok Short is a research associate in the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. His work focuses on money in politics, political violence, and Congress. He previously worked as a communications intern in the U.S. House of Representatives and for the City of Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment. ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to reform and revitalize — and when necessary defend — our country’s systems of democracy and justice. The Brennan Center is dedicated to protecting the rule of law and the values of constitutional democracy. We focus on voting rights, campaign finance reform, ending mass incarceration, and preserving our liberties while also maintaining our national security. Part think tank, part advocacy group, part cutting- edge communications hub, we start with rigorous research. We craft innovative policies. And we fight for them — in Congress and the states, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion. ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER’S ELECTIONS AND GOVERNMENT PROGRAM The Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program works to improve the administration of our elections. We advocate for campaign finance reform, combat misinformation and political violence, and respond to technological change. By eliminating barriers to political participation and countering discrimination in electoral systems, this work aims to bring the ideal of representative self-government closer to reality. 54 30 Brennan Center for Justice Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Brennan Center extends deep gratitude to Pivotal Ventures, a Melinda French Gates company, for its leading support of this work. It also recognizes the dedicated generosity of the Joyce Foundation and Michelle Mercer and Bruce Golden. The authors gratefully acknowledge the government officials, scholars, and advocates who generously shared expertise and knowledge that informed this report. They would especially like to thank the members of the advisory council, who ensured that the research and solutions were culturally competent and captured the lived experiences of those impacted. They also thank the following: Allison Anderman, senior counsel and director of local policy, Giffords Law Center Nadia Brown, professor of government and director of the Women’s and Gender Studies Program, Georgetown University Julie Cederbaum, associate professor, Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California Kelly Dittmar, associate professor of political science and director of research of the Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University Brigitte Filion, consultant on gender equality, Inter-Parliamentary Union Jacob Gottlieb, MPA, senior research analyst, SRI International Rebekah Herrick, professor of political science, Oklahoma State University Mona Lena Krook, distinguished professor of political science, Rutgers University Rebecca Kuperberg, PhD in political science, Rutgers University Tina Lee, former senior research specialist, National League of Cities Rachel Locke, director of the Violence, Inequality and Power Lab, Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego Eric Ruben, associate professor, SMU Dedman School of Law Juliana Restrepo Sanín, assistant professor of political science, University of Florida Paru Shah, professor of political science and senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University Sue Thomas, senior research scientist and director, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Santa Cruz Viktorya Vilk, director of digital safety and free expression, PEN America Dana Watters, former program director, Local Democracy Initiative, National League of Cities Catherine Wineinger, assistant professor of political science, Western Washington University Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors are also deeply grateful to their Brennan Center colleagues for their contributions. Lawrence Norden provided crucial expertise. Michael Waldman and Elisa Miller provided essential guidance. Kathy Boockvar, Veronica Degraffenreid, Liz Howard, Mekela Panditharatne, Ian Vandewalker, and Dan Weiner contributed important insights and collaboration throughout. Faiza Patel, Ivey Dyson, Emile Ayoub, and José Gutiérrez shared civil rights and civil liberties expertise. Sean Morales-Doyle and Robyn Sanders provided important insights on gun violence. Benjamin Nyblade, Josephine Hahn, Coryn Grange, and Jinmook Kang offered methodological advice and support with data analysis. Marina Pino, Natalie Tennant, and Joanna Zdanys assisted with distribution of the state legislator survey. Aizaz Bokhari, Amisa Ratliff, and Penny Mack contributed critical research. Legal interns and clinic students Benjamin Chesler, Tashrima Hossain, and Ben Lerude provided research assistance, as did undergraduate intern Lena Pothier. Laura Strausfeld, Hannah Smolar, and Katherine Storch contributed development guidance. The communications expertise of Zachary Laub, Sophia Lee, Brian Palmer, Alexandra Ringe, Lisa Vosper, Alden Wallace, and Pinky Weitzman made the publication of this report possible. 55 Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law 120 Broadway // 17th Floor // New York, NY 10271 brennancenter.org 56