PHILADELPHIA – Pennsylvania State lawmakers are working on legislation to protect themselves from political violence.
What they’re saying:
“Political violence anywhere is unacceptable and everybody should be condemning it, whether you are on the right, the left, independent, purple, green, blue, red,” said PA State Representative Greg Scott of the 54th District.
A stance that Rep. Scott says is important now more than ever to highlight, as the country moves on after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed Wednesday during an event in Utah.
“This is a moment whether or not you agree or disagree with Charlie Kirk, whether we are going to allow people to kill people because they disagree with them,” said Scott.
Rep. Scott says political violence has been on the rise in the county.
Back in June, Minnesota Democratic Representative Melissa Hortman was assassinated in her home alongside her husband.
Here in Pennsylvania, Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro’s Mansion in Harrisburg was set on fire in April.
Last July, there was an assassination attempt on President Donal Trump during a rally in Butler, just outside of Pittsburgh.
A political climate that is concerning for Representative Scott and the reason he is introducing a package of bills to better protect lawmakers.
The bills include exemption of home addresses of state legislators from public access under the “Right to Know Law” and also a bill to amend the PA Constitution to require each member of the General Assembly to name three people to serve as their temporary replacement if they were to die while in office.
“Our local representatives, their lives are being threatened, their husbands, their families are being threatened in this environment,” said Rep. Scott.
These types of political violence is taking a toll on lawmakers.
Pennsylvania Representative Jason Ortitay of the 46th Legislative District released a statement about Kirk’s death and the political violence stating in part, “We must stop hating one another over politics. We must stop seeing ‘the other side’ as evil, unworthy or expendable. Because when we do, we risk losing the very foundation of what we are, a democratic republic, where debate is the mechanism by which truth and justice move forward. I know there will be people who disagree with this statement or try to find fault in it. Some will say Charlie Kirk was controversial, or that they didn’t like what he stood for. But those reactions miss the point. This is not about agreeing with everything he said or did. It’s about rejecting political violence in all forms, no matter who the target is. If we only defend free speech for people we agree with, we do not defend free speech at all.”
Representative Scott says he fears the impact of these violent acts will go beyond just less political public appearances and accessibility.
“The biggest consequence is going to be good people not wanting to get involved in politics, good people not wanting to get involved in public service, because they are going to say what is it worth,” said Rep. Scott.
NewsCrime & Public Safety
