It’s no secret that American politics is not what it used to be. From deep partisan cleavages in Washington and the rise of “us against them” rhetoric, to a stark departure from the institutional decorum that has long preserved the civility of democratic governance, it is evident that the nation’s political climate has never been more polarized than it is today. Arguably, the most threatening amongst these symptoms of polarization has emerged far more recently than these more gradual, long-term trends: the escalation of political violence.
Though politically motivated violence has long been a present force throughout American history, both the nature of it and the frequency at which it is occurring have evolved significantly in recent years.
For one, political violence has become increasingly extreme and “ungrouped.” As opposed to formally organized groups and organizations, there has been a considerable rise in the perpetration of intense violence by independent actors, notably those who self-radicalize through extremist online engagement. Likewise, incidences of political violence have also become strikingly more common today compared to the past. By virtue of this intensifying political violence, high profile politicians and elected government officials in the U.S. have become greater targets. From just 2016 to 2020—only five years—threats against members of Congress grew tenfold.
In the era of heightened polarization within which we are currently living, events once perceived as “unthinkable” by the American public now seem to make headlines everyday. The assassination attempt of former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords, the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise at the 2017 congressional baseball practice, the attempted kidnapping of Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer, the January 6th Insurrection, former President Donald Trump’s not one, but two recent assassination attempts, and many more jarring instances of violence akin to these over the past decade all reflect the nation’s intensifying state of polarization and hostility. As a result, they underscore the growing threats being posed to our democracy—such as a mass-casualty event targeting members of Congress—and the importance of implementing safeguards to forestall them.
So, how do we approach this issue? Four lawmakers from the U.S. House of Representatives have put forward their ideas.
In a joint resolution, representatives Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), William Timmons (R-S.C.), and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) have propounded a “continuity amendment.” This proposed amendment—which would be the twenty-eighth to the U.S. Constitution—essentially establishes that representatives, upon being sworn into office, would make a list of five different candidates who could replace them in the event of their death “prior to the expiration of [their] term in office.” If such a thing were to happen, within 10 days of the representative’s death, the state’s governor would be obligated to pick one of these five interim appointees to hold the vacant seat until the opportunity for a special election.
The legislators emphasize that this structural change to the Houses’ design is critical given that only the Senate has established provisions outlining the procedure in the event of such circumstances. Furthermore, in light of the ongoing rise in political violence, they argue that the House is at an even greater risk for a vacancy. A vacancy could very easily throw off the body’s balance of power and allow major decisions to be swayed by unforeseen partisan power imbalances until a special election, which typically takes three to four months, could be held.
Since introducing it to his fellow House members, Representative Kilmer has proudly defended his proposed amendment. He has asserted that it would “ensure the continuity of the legislative branch during times of crisis,” such as a political violence-fueled mass casualty event aimed at offsetting and rearranging the branch’s partisan composition. Kilmer has also argued that because the representatives’ chosen designees would all be “qualified to serve in their place” and “almost assuredly from their own party,” the amendment would, therefore, serve to reduce the overall incentive for political violence in the first place.
Despite its rather grim purpose, this proposal is generally compelling on paper. Its recommendations seem sensible enough to perhaps make us question why the House of Representatives doesn’t already have this system explicitly laid out. However, the reality of the country’s volatile political climate, coupled with the exceedingly slow-moving process of ratification, ultimately seems to render it unlikely that a majority would come together now to codify a twenty-eighth constitutional amendment. That being said, the proposal’s bi-partisan authorship yields some hope that politicians from both sides of the spectrum can reconcile their differences and come together in the interest of protecting some of the nation’s most sacred democratic traditions and processes.
Will this “continuity amendment,” a product of the nation’s staggering division, ultimately become a cause for reunification between America’s left and right?
***
This article was edited by Molly Morrison.
