Protections For Some Or Protections For All: The Implications Of Ohio House Bill 457

by Devin Scarborough, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

During the first half of 2025, the United States experienced approximately 150 acts of political violence—nearly double the number recorded during the same period in 2024.¹ In the wake of recent high-profile political assassinations, including those of Minnesota House Democratic Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, state governments have grappled with combating increased rates of politically motivated violence.² In Ohio, two Republican State Representatives, Josh Williams and Jack Daniels, responded by introducing House Bill 457, a proposal aimed at heightening criminal penalties for politically motivated violence.³ The Bill’s sponsors contend that enhancing penalties for politically-motivated violence will help preserve citizens’ ability to exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of violent retaliation.⁴

This article examines the surge in politically motivated violence and evaluates the potential efficacy of combating this violence with Ohio’s newly introduced House Bill 457. Part II surveys recent incidents of political violence across the country and analyzes the broader implications such threats pose to American democracy. Part III critiques the Bill’s limited deterrent value and its vague and underinclusive language. Finally, Part IV concludes that, while well-intentioned, House Bill 457 is ultimately a reactive and inadequate response to a complex nationwide problem and argues that legislators should pursue more effective ways to halt political violence in its tracks.

II. Background

In the United States, threats and acts of political violence have steadily increased over the past decade.⁵ A research study conducted by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats (“CPOST”), found that threats directed at members of Congress and prosecuted by the Department of Justice have risen sharply since 2017.⁶ These incidents include “repeatedly calling a senator’s office to threaten an assassination, sending menacing powder to a legislator’s office, carrying a weapon to a legislator’s office or home—or, of course, physically harming the legislator.”⁷ Notably, the rise in threats has been roughly equal against Republican and Democratic members of Congress,⁸ contradicting President Donald Trump’s assertion that “the radical left causes tremendous violence.”⁹

Empirical research further indicates that far-right extremists have consistently been responsible for a disproportionate share of politically motivated homicides.¹⁰ For 30 of the past 31 years, far-right extremists have accounted for the vast majority of ideologically driven homicides, disproportionately targeting ethnic and racial minorities.¹¹ By contrast, far-left extremists have accounted for fewer homicides overall, but were more likely to cause multiple fatalities per event and have more frequently targeted law enforcement.¹² Collectively, these findings undermine the Trump Administration’s rhetoric that has inaccurately attributed the rise of political violence to one ideological group.¹³

A. The Effects of Recent Political Violence and Assassinations

Recent acts of political violence across the United States demonstrate that victims of politically motivated attacks are not confined to a single political affiliation. Rather, these incidents reflect a broader surge in civil unrest and intensifying partisan polarization.¹⁴ On June 14, 2017, Representative Steve Scalise, a congressional staffer, a lobbyist, and others were shot while practicing for a charity baseball game.¹⁵ Later that year, Senator Rand Paul was assaulted by a neighbor and suffered six broken ribs.¹⁶ In 2020, 14 individuals were arrested in connection with a plot to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, motivated by opposition to her COVID-19 restrictions she enacted to protect vulnerable populations.¹⁷ The following year, on January 6, 2021, thousands of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol after his call to “fight like hell,” during the certification of Democratic President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.¹⁸ In 2022, a man was arrested in Maryland for the attempted murder of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and later that year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband was brutally attacked with a hammer in their home.¹⁹ The violence persisted into 2024, when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump survived two assassination attempts, one of which injured him and killed an attendee at a campaign rally.²⁰

The pattern has continued into 2025, with a series of high-profile incidents intensifying national fear and anxiety. On April 13, 2025, Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, his wife, children, and dogs narrowly escaped a bombing at their home.²¹ Two months later, on June 14, 2025, Democratic State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot by a masked gunman at their residence, hours after Democratic State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were wounded in a separate attack.²² The assailant, a self-described devout Christian who opposed abortion, had compiled a long list of Democratic lawmakers and Planned Parenthood supporters as potential targets.²³ Most recently, Charlie Kirk, conservative activist and founder of right-wing youth organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot in the neck while speaking at an Utah college campus.²⁴

Although politically motivated violence represents a small fraction of overall violent crime, its symbolic and institutional impact is profound.²⁵ Because such acts frequently target public officials and political figures, they receive extensive media coverage,²⁶ heightening partisan animosity and deepening ideological divides.²⁷ The looming threat of political violence has put a strain on American democracy, undermining democratic participation.²⁸ Attacks and threats of violence suppress voter turnout, delay or cancel elections, and erode confidence in the legitimacy of outcomes.²⁹ Furthermore, fear of violence may chill political speech, curtailing open debate and diminishing the exchange of ideas essential to a functioning democracy.³⁰ To confront the increasing prevalence and impact of political violence, Ohio lawmakers have sought new legislation aimed at addressing this growing threat.

B. House Bill 457

Prompted by the recent assassinations of Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, two Ohio lawmakers—Representatives Jack Daniels (R-New Franklin) and Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Twp.)—introduced House Bill 457 (“HB 457”) to address the state’s lack of targeted legislation on politically-motivated violence.³¹ The Bill seeks to classify politically motivated murder as aggravated murder, the most serious homicide offense under Ohio law.³² Specifically, HB 457 provides that “No person shall purposely cause the death of an elected official…[n]o person shall purposely cause the death of another person if the offender’s motivation for the killing is based on political affiliation, association, belief, or ideology, whether or not the offender was mistaken as to that motivation…and [w]hoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated murder[.]”³³ A conviction under this provision would carry a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, and could include the death penalty.³⁴

Additionally, HB 457 proposes to enhance penalties for other violent felony offenses motivated by political factors. For felony offenses, the Bill mandates imposition of the standard prison term for the underlying offense plus an additional ten-year sentence if political motivation is established.³⁵ The protected categories enumerated in the Bill include the victim’s race, religion, elected or appointed position, political affiliation, political association, and biological sex.³⁶ For misdemeanor offenses, the legislation authorizes courts to consider the same factors as aggravating circumstances during sentencing.³⁷

Notably, HB 457 broadens Ohio’s hate crime classifications by adding biological sex as a protected category in both the violent felony enhancement and misdemeanor considerations. The Bill defines “biological sex” as the “indication of male and female, including sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.”³⁸ Therefore, by explicitly linking protection to sex assigned at birth, HB 457 excludes transgender individuals and other members of the broader LGBTQ+ community from its hate-crime protections, raising concerns about the Bill’s inclusivity and potential for discrimination.

III. Discussion

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a Pew Research Center survey found that 85% of American adults believe politically motivated violence is on the rise in the United States.³⁹ In response to this growing concern, House Bill 457 seeks to protect public officials, journalists, and activists by deterring political violence and imposing severe penalties on ideologically motivated perpetrators. Although the Bill proposes strict punitive measures, including a mandatory life sentence, eligibility for the death penalty, and a ten-year violent felony enhancement, it is unlikely to be effective at halting political violence before it occurs. This is for several reasons, which will be explored in more detail below.

A. Overall Shortcomings: Lack of Deterrence Effect & Preventative Strategies

First, empirical research demonstrates that increasing the severity or length of prison sentences has little deterrent effect on criminal behavior.⁴⁰ Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime.⁴¹ Rather, deterrence is primarily achieved through the perceived certainty of apprehension, as opposed to the magnitude of punishment.⁴² Accordingly, efforts to reduce politically motivated violence would be more effective if directed toward increasing the likelihood of detection and intervention.⁴³ For example, targeted policing strategies, such as “hot spot” policing, which deploys law enforcement to high-risk events or to protect individuals who have recently received threats, may offer a more evidence-based approach to prevention.⁴⁴

Second, House Bill 457 fails to incorporate any proactive or preventative solutions designed to address the root causes of political violence. Instead, it operates exclusively as a reactive measure, relying on enhanced punishment after violence has already occurred. To develop prevention strategies, policymakers must first examine the underlying drivers of political violence. Research indicates that such violence often emerges from a combination of heightened political polarization, the exploitation of ideological divisions by political leaders, and a growing disappointment with the efficacy of democratic institutions. These conditions create an environment in which individuals justify violence as a means of bringing about political change.⁴⁵

With this in mind, policymakers should prioritize preventative measures over punitive strategies that address violence only after it occurs. Political and ideological leaders play a critical role in shaping public discourse.⁴⁶ By unequivocally rejecting violent rhetoric and modeling nonviolence, they can meaningfully influence supporters’ behavior.⁴⁷ Political figures who have previously used violent, inflammatory rhetoric can also mitigate harm by publicly retracting and apologizing for such statements.⁴⁸ Further, strengthening public confidence in the democratic rule of law through equitable policing, the depoliticization of courts, and the denunciation of election denialism will help reduce common grievances that fuel violent extremism.⁴⁹ By emphasizing proactive measures that reinforce democratic norms and institutional trust, rather than relying solely on retroactive, punitive strategies, the United States may more effectively combat the rise of politically motivated violence and prevent future loss of life.

B. Statutory Language Concerns: Vagueness and Exclusion

The Bill’s statutory language also raises significant concerns regarding vagueness and equal protection. The term “political motivation,” which serves as the basis for aggravating a murder charge, enhancing violent felonies, and influencing misdemeanor sentencing, is left undefined.⁵⁰ Without a clear statutory definition, enforcement risks arbitrary or inconsistent application. Such ambiguity may also invite politically biased prosecutions and uneven protections depending on partisan control. To remedy this vagueness, Ohio legislators should amend the Bill to provide a specific and operational definition of “political motivation.” The Bill should also include safeguards against politically biased enforcement, such as requiring oversight from neutral commissions like the Ohio Ethics Commission.⁵¹

Additionally, the Bill’s inclusion of “biological sex” as a protected category—defined narrowly to exclude gender identity—explicitly denies protection to individuals whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth. Its silence on sexual orientation further compounds this exclusion, raising significant equal protection concerns.⁵² For example, a perpetrator who commits murder motivated by anti-LGBTQ+ animus could evade enhanced punishment under HB 457 because the statute fails to classify such violence as a hate crime.⁵³ In this respect, the Bill undermines its stated purpose of protecting individuals targeted for their political beliefs while excluding communities disproportionately impacted by ideologically driven violence.⁵⁴

To ensure that the statute is both effective and equitable, Ohio legislators must revise the statutory language of House Bill 457 to (1) clearly define political motivation and violence; (2) establish non-partisan oversight mechanisms to prevent politically motivated enforcement, and (3) extend hate crime protections to encompass gender identity and sexual orientation. Only through such revisions can the legislation advance its intended goal of protecting all individuals from ideologically motivated violence, irrespective of identity or ideology.

IV. Conclusion

Ohio House Bill 457 reflects a growing legislative need to respond to the rise of politically motivated violence across the United States. However, despite its well-intentioned objectives, the Bill has serious deficiencies. It fails to meaningfully deter political violence, employs vague statutory language in defining “political violence,” and selectively extends protection to certain classes of individuals while denying it to others.

To effectively combat political violence, Ohio lawmakers must prioritize preventative measures that reduce the likelihood of political violence before it ensues, rather than strictly accounting for punitive measures after tragedy strikes. Building trust and unity among Americans requires confronting the root causes of political polarization and curbing the use of inflammatory political rhetoric. If Ohio legislators continue to advance House Bill 457, they should amend the statute to clearly define “political violence,” establish nonpartisan oversight mechanisms, and ensure that its protections equally extend to all individuals vulnerable to ideological violence. In transforming HB 457, Ohio has the opportunity to craft model legislation for other states, shifting from a symbolic gesture to an effective safeguard against political violence.

Cover Photo by Katie Moum on Unsplash

Devin Scarborough

References

1
Chris Boyette, Charlie Kirk’s murder is the latest example of violence tearing through American politics, CNN (Sept. 14, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/14/us/political-violence-cases-america-charlie-kirk [https://perma.cc/N2TJ-9Q3G].
2
Doug Petcash, New Ohio bill would stiffen penalties for political violence, 10WBNS (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/new-ohio-bill-penalties-political-violence-melissa-hortman-charlie-kirk/530-f35daca3-93d1-472e-b7ec-98c9567a79f2 [https://perma.cc/KD4G-5WLU].
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Robert A. Pape, America’s New Age of Political Violence, Foreign Affs. (Oct. 9, 2025), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/americas-new-age-political-violence [https://perma.cc/J9T2-FJWD].
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Art Jipson & Paul J. Becker, Analysis: What Data Shows About Political Extremist Violence, PBS News (Sept. 20, 2025), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-data-shows [https://perma.cc/X5CE-4MXD].
10
Celinet Duran, Far-left versus Far-right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States, 22 Criminology, Crim. Just., L. & Soc’y 33, 42 (2021).
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Jipson & Becker, supra note 9.
14
Boyette, supra note 1.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id.
22
Tracy Grant, Political Violence in the U.S. in the 21^st Century, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Political-Violence-in-the-US-in-the-21st-Century [https://perma.cc/92RF-CGV3] (last updated Sept. 29, 2025).
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Jipson & Becker, supra note 9.
26
Id.
27
Rachel Kleinfeld & Nicole Bibbins Sedaca, How to Prevent Political Violence, 35 J. Democracy 35 (2024).
28
Jennifer Dresden & Lilliana Mason, Assessing the Effect of Political Violence on American Democracy, Johns Hopkins SNF Agora Inst. 4, 13 (2023).
29
Id.; Gina Goldenberg, Political Violence in America: Causes, Consequences, and Countermeasures, Harv. Kennedy Sch. Ash Ctr. for Democratic Governance & Innovation (Aug. 6, 2024), https://ash.harvard.edu/articles/political-violence-in-america-causes-consequences-and-countermeasures [https://perma.cc/QJL3-PTY2].
30
Sarah Donaldson, Ohio GOP Lawmakers Seek Harsher Penalties For Political Violence, Statehouse News Bureau (Sept. 18, 2025), https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2025-09-18/ohio-gop-lawmakers-seek-harsher-penalties-for-political-violence [https://perma.cc/WQ55-HA9B].
31
Id.
32
Ava Boldizar, After Charlie Kirk Killed, Ohio Lawmakers to Consider Harsher Political Violence Penalties, NBC4 (Sept. 19, 2025), https://www.nbc4i.com/news/politics/after-charlie-kirk-killed-ohio-lawmakers-to-consider-harsher-political-violence-penalties/ [https://perma.cc/P98F-VX9D].
33
H.B. No. 457, 136th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2025).
34
Donaldson, supra note 31.
35
H.B. No. 457, supra note 34.
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Joseph Copeland & Jocelyn Kiley, Americans Say Politically Motivated Violence Is Increasing, and They See Many Reasons Why, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/23/americans-say-politically-motivated-violence-is-increasing-and-they-see-many-reasons-why [https://perma.cc/VUV6-YMZM].
40
Five Things About Deterrence, Nat’l Inst. Just. (June 5, 2016), https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence [https://perma.cc/VF9N-5W5V].
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Kleinfeld, supra note 28.
46
Id.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Id.
50
H.B. No. 457, supra note 34.
51
About The Ohio Ethics Commission, Ohio Ethics Commission, https://ethics.ohio.gov/about/index.html [https://perma.cc/3XV9-ZTSK] (last visited Oct. 25, 2025).
52
H.B. No. 457, supra note 34.
53
Id.
54
Ilan H. Meyer & Andrew R. Flores, Brief, Anti-LGBT Victimization in the United States, UCLA Sch. L. Williams Inst.(2025).