Ioli Filmeridis a research and policy manager at The Violence, Inequality and Power Lab at the University of San Diego’s Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice. She can be reached at ifilmeridis@sandiego.edu.

“Dicey” or “crazy” are not descriptives we often associated with school board meetings. But in this period of unprecedented threats against public officials, we now do. Even popular culture has taken note. But while these incidents affect most public officials, they don’t affect every public official equally. A new study by The Violence, Inequality and Power Lab of local elected officials in San Diego, Riverside, and Imperial Counties gives us a clearer picture of who gets harassed in Southern California and why.

Sixty-six percent of those surveyed reported being threatened or harassed. Over a two-year period, the frequency of threats increased from “annually” to “between annually and monthly,” particularly among women and intersectional minorities. Thirty-one percent of women reported weekly threats and harassment, compared to 8% of their male counterparts. While the average female elected official receives at least ten times the amount of threatening or harassing behavior as the average male, in 2024 there was an increase in vitriol newly directed at white, male, conservative, and rural elected officials.

Elected representatives across California have faced racial and homophobic rants, death threats, swatting, hate speech, and harassment from extremist groups in opposition to public health measures. Others have been confronted outside their homes or faced personal attacks and comments about family members. 

Research attributes this trend to a few factors: A large percentage of Americans see U.S. systems as broken, with trust in government at its lowest in decades. Violent rhetoric and a lack of political decorum at the highest levels of government exacerbate polarization and support for political actors, setting a low bar of conduct for downstream actors. In fact, threats against members of Congress increased so much that in 2021 that the Capitol Police opened field offices where officials were recording the most threats: Florida and California.

National data also indicates that threats and harassment are becoming increasingly normalized at the hyperlocal level, with the willingness of national leaders to embrace brinkmanship leading to more hostile and competitive politics. The trickle-down effects of these dynamics became evident in the course of our research and discussions with elected officials, many of whom agree that civility in politics is “sadly gone.” Some suggest that women, racial minorities, and members of the LGBTQ+ community have become targets because their political ascendancy poses a threat to the traditional social order.

What drives threatening behaviors? “Pets, property lines, and children”

According to our interviews, instigating topics range from international affairs to the impact of state water, infrastructure, and public health measures on local areas. Issues that bridge the local and national stages — such as book bans, critical race theory, and parental rights — catalyzed groups on both sides. One interviewee noted that school board issues, more so than water board or city council agendas, were the most personal to constituents, and therefore garnered more attention.   

But it is the “routine, day-to-day stuff,” such as fixing potholes and road repairs that tends to lead to heightened tensions and aggressive behaviors. Affordable housing plans, pride flags, and street vendor policies also mobilized vehement reactions. Electeds mentioned constituents were sometimes not well informed about the process and would often demand their issues be addressed “right away.” This friction between expectations and reality leads to further tension and distrust.

Given both state and national influence on local functions, one official we interviewed suggested that there is a sense that local control is being “stripped away,” leading to feelings of powerlessness on local issues, including housing and zoning.

“Quiet harassment”

A lack of community and empathy in the workplace makes the shared commitment of governing and building consensus to serve the public a challenge. This becomes even more difficult when colleagues are part of the threat dynamic. The less observed but equally harmful attacks that take place within councils and across the dais are what one interviewee called a form of “quiet harassment.”

These methods include procedural and bureaucratic tactics: having one’s stipend taken away, being censured or removed from committees, and being excluded from public events. Those interviewed seemed hard-pressed to find sympathy among colleagues who would only acknowledge that threats and harassment were “part of the job.” We heard this and similar refrains repeatedly, suggesting an internal and public acceptance and normalization of indecent and often violent behaviors.

These dynamics have individual, community, and institutional implications. Forty-three percent of survey respondents said that threats and harassment have caused them to consider leaving office. An equal number are less likely to recommend public service, and a quarter indicated they were less likely to publicly address hot-button topics. Six percent say they have changed their votes due to harassment and threats. Survey and interview respondents said that these issues caused them to fear for their own safety and that of their families, affecting their engagement with constituents and their mental health. For women and minoritized groups, aggression could reduce already low levels of representation.

As one interviewee shared, “I’m just a normal person; it’s so hard to do the job if all you hear is the negative things.” Others noted that protestors are “vomiting up anger” making it, “an impossible time to be an official.” These feelings of precarity can increase stress, lead to disengagement from constituents, and higher turnover of electeds. Disruptions at public meetings close spaces for productive and civil debate. This undermines representatives’ ability to work on behalf of the community, decreasing government functionality, and heightening perceptions of ineffective governance, with the penultimate effect of undermining democracy.

What can we do?

As part of our research approach, The Violence, Inequality and Power Lab held a series of community conversations to ground our recommendations in local resources and capacity. Across six conversations, participants suggested civic lessons to increase understanding of how local government works, as well as of constituents’ roles and responsibilities, increased accountability for perpetrators, documenting and recording all events, enhanced protection for officials, revisions to the Brown Act, additional training for officials, and working with community organizations to pursue constructive conversations. These are all reasonable ideas that suggest the solution lies in a combination of coordinated community, legal, and political responses. 

Democracy depends on the ability of groups with different perspectives to find consensus, overcome differences, and seek common ground. Since threats and harassment are rarely prosecuted, local and state authorities and communities must be part of the solution, as in last year’s AB 2041(Bonta). The new law allows candidates and local officials to use public funds for security. Statewide entities, including the League of California Cities, the Institute for Local Government, and School Board Partners, all offer support and trainings in response to the tide of threats and harassment. A multitude of other organizations — Emerge California, the Anti-Defamation League, and Over Zero — combat disinformation and online harms, focus on civility, and improve how we communicate our differences.

In short, we do not lack the resources to help us manage and mitigate these issues. However, normalizing incivility is a glide path to political violence. When elected officials no longer feel safe legislating on behalf of their constituents, their retreat disenfranchises voters with deleterious effects on representativeness. We cannot assume this democracy’s resilience to internal or external threats. Our collective awareness of the problems facing our representatives is an essential first step to returning to civility and governing by consensus rather than through conflict.