After Minnesota shootings, some Pa. lawmakers seek privacy, personal protection increase
The assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband June 14 has put a spotlight on the risks of serving in state offices, and Pennsylvania lawmakers are responding with several proposals to tighten security for themselves and their colleagues.
One proposal by Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta would enable state candidates and elected officials to spend campaign funds on professional security. The Federal Election Commission recently decided to give congressional lawmakers and other federal officeholders this flexibility, and Kenyatta argues state officials should have the same option.
More: Lawmakers call for more safety measures after Minnesota shooting
'This will ensure that public servants in our state have access to security services if needed, regardless of their means,' the Philadelphia Democrat wrote in a memo to colleagues.
He's also suggesting that Pennsylvania State Police expand responsibilities to provide security for legislative leaders, the attorney general, state treasurer and state auditor general, in addition to the governor and lieutenant governor.
A couple lawmakers want to enhance safety by shielding home addresses and other personal information about public officials. Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Hogan argues that, in the current climate of political tension, making addresses easily accessible to the public "presents a clear danger.'
In the Minnesota shooting, the gunman reportedly showed up at the front doors of both state Rep. Melissa Hortman and Sen. John Hoffman, who had shared their addresses online. Hoffman and his wife were shot but survived.
'Stuff of nightmares': How investigators say attacks on Minn. lawmakers unfolded
Reporters and voters often use information about a candidate's place of residence to verify that they live in the district they're running to represent. Hogan, R-Bucks, said his forthcoming bill will lay out a process for checking a candidates' eligibility for office without making their home addresses easily available to the public.
A similar proposal advanced by Rep. Tim Briggs focuses primarily on data privacy for police officers, current and former judges and other people who work in the criminal justice system.
The Montgomery County Democrat wants to give these officials options to prevent online dissemination of their addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, license plates and other identifying information.
Briggs said that, in light of the Minnesota attacks, he'll also look at expanding these privacy protections to cover elected officials.
Legislative language for these three proposals has not yet been released, and Melissa Bevan Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said she'd have to see the bills before weighing in.
Still, she noted that Pennsylvania law already has certain provisions meant to protect officials, including one that exempts the addresses of judges and police officers from disclosure under the state's public records law. Privacy measures for elected leaders and other officials have to be carefully balanced against transparency requirements, she added.
"I think legislatures across the country are struggling with this issue," she said. "I don't think it's an easy thing to legislate."
And House Minority Leader Jesse Topper said that a large number of people usually know where state lawmakers live because they are prominent inside their legislative districts.
"State reps are very well-known in our communities," he said. "I think, to a certain degree, there's only so much that can be done in that realm."
Political violence has erupted in Pennsylvania several times in recent memory, including in July 2024 when Donald Trump, campaigning for a second term as president, narrowly survived an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler.
Then, in April, an alleged arsonist set fire to Gov. Josh Shapiro's mansion while the Democrat was sleeping upstairs. Shapiro and his family escaped unharmed. The Harrisburg man later charged with the attack said in a 911 call that he was angry at Shapiro, who is Jewish, because of the Gaza-Israel conflict.
Former Pennsylvania House Speaker Mark Rozzi recently revealed that he spent several months wearing a bulletproof vest in 2022, a period when he was being stalked by a man who thought Democrats were destroying America, according to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.
Rozzi, a Berks County Democrat, told the outlet the experience influenced his decision to exit politics.
Bethany Rodgers is a USA TODAY Network Pennsylvania investigative journalist.
This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: PA lawmakers pitch safety measures following Minnesota shooting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. Advertisement 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and 'to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' Advertisement What's at stake in the big bill The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would The Senate's strict 'Byrd Rule' The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Advertisement Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. More questions and decisions ahead The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Advertisement Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services. Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Padilla claims Noem clash wasn't planned stunt: ‘rhetoric compelled me'
California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla insisted Saturday that he didn't pre-plan his heckling of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in Los Angeles — claiming that the stunt that got him handcuffed was a spur of the moment attempt at congressional oversight. Padilla argued in an interview with MSNBC hosts Eugene Daniels and Jonathan Capehart that Noem's 'rhetoric compelled' him to approach her lectern at a press conference and interrupt. Padilla was removed from the June 12 event after he pushed against law enforcement officers who blocked him and shouted, 'I'm Senator Alex Padilla! I have questions for the secretary!' He appeared on MSNBC to respond to Vice President JD Vance, who last week referred to him as 'Jose' Padilla and accused him of 'pure political theater' in his protest of Trump administration immigration enforcement policies. 5 Sen. Alex Padilla was handcuffed June 12 after attempting to confront DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. AP 5 Padilla pushed back against law enforcement officers as he tried to reach Noem's lectern. AP The VP's office explained the first-name error by saying Vance 'must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.' 'He knows my name,' Padilla griped to MSNBC. 'Sadly, it's just an indicator of how petty and unserious this administration is.' 5 Noem was discussing an immigration crackdown and local protests against immigration officials. AP 5 Vice President JD Vance accused Padilla of staging 'political theater.' Getty Images Padilla claimed that he was merely attempting to exercise his congressional duties during his confrontation with Noem. 'Part of our job is oversight and accountability — exactly what this administration does not want, and so they will try to throw any hurdle, any roadblock, to keep us from our oversight and accountability role. That's all I was doing, right?' the Democrat said 'That press conference, as you know, I did not barge in. I was escorted in. I did not lunge at the secretary… I had the audacity of trying to ask a question,' he said. 5 Democrats have denounced Padilla's brief detention. via REUTERS 'I heard there was this press conference, asked to join, they opened the door for me and I sat quietly on the side until the rhetoric compelled me to speak up — not just as a senator, but as an American,' Padilla added. 'Just the notion that they're suggesting that it's their job to liberate Los Angeles from our duly elected mayor and governor. It is too much.' The previously little-known senator was appointed to his position in 2021 by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris becoming vice president. He was elected to a full six-year term in 2022.
Time Magazine
5 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Public Rebuke of Tulsi Gabbard's Statement on Iran
President Donald Trump has said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was "wrong" to say that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon. When asked about the claims made by his intelligence community, specifically Gabbard, Trump was clear, telling reporters on Friday: 'She's wrong.' In March, Gabbard testified in front of Congress that the intelligence community [IC] 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor, closely, if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program." The testimony has resurfaced as Trump weighs his options regarding a potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, as the Middle Eastern countries trade deadly missiles after Israel launched an operation against Iranian military targets and nuclear facilities on June 13. Read More: Iran Issues New Grave Warning, Says U.S. Involvement in Israel Conflict Would Be 'Very Dangerous for Everybody' Trump's latest comments echo those he made to reporters on Air Force One on June 17, when he said he did not 'care' about what Gabbard had testified earlier in the year. 'I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having one,' Trump said of his belief that Iran was inching towards having a nuclear weapon. Central to Trump's stance regarding Israel's initial assault on Iran is his belief that Iran has been moving closer to nuclear capability. He has plainly said that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' Trump's stance, bolstered by a May 31 International Atomic Energy Agency report (that stated Iran had accumulated roughly 120 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, dangerously close to weapons-grade levels of 90%), undermines previous reports by U.S. intelligence, including that of Gabbard, a former Democrat. Read More: How Netanyahu Pushed Trump Toward War In response to Trump's new assertion that she was 'wrong' in her previous testimony, Gabbard took to social media on Friday, stating that her words had been taken out of context by "dishonest media." Gabbard maintains that she and Trump are on the same page. "The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division," Gabbard said. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Attached to the post was a longer video of her testimony, which also included her claims that 'Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' Read More: The 5 Groups Hoping to Sway Trump on Iran Trump reportedly still has 'full confidence' in his intelligence team, according to White House communications director Steven Cheung, but the open disagreements between Trump and members of his Administration signal splinters over the Israel-Iran conflict. The President is facing questions from both within and outside the Republican party, as he weighs up his options during a self-imposed two-week deadline about whether the U.S. will intervene, despite him campaigning on staying out of wars overseas. Republican lawmakers Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have both openly disapproved of any potential U.S. military intervention. Read More: Breaking Down the Feud Between Trump and Tucker Carlson Amid Divide Over Israel-Iran Conflict Meanwhile, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson—a long-time ally of Trump, who even hit the campaign trail with him in 2024—has also spoken out against any U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Carlson's initial comments prompted a blistering response from Trump, and their disagreement soon took a personal turn as the feud escalated. While the situation appears to have since settled—Trump said Carlson called and apologized for his 'strong' words—it's clear that the subject of the Israel-Iran conflict and how the U.S. should move forward is proving to be a divisive one.
