As a tactic to intimidate and silence their political opposition, Democrats and corporate media have for years labeled conservatives as “threats,” whether it be for refusing to indulge in Covid fearmongering or for actively protesting school board decisions on extended closures. Despite the transparency of this strategy, some elected Republicans continue to enable Democrats in using their “threat” narrative to stifle electoral integrity activists’ speech and participation in the electoral process.
In a Sunday segment on “Meet The Press,” NBC’s Kristen Welker invited several secretaries of state to join her in promoting Democrats’ dubious “threats against election workers” narrative. Rather than countering the clear agenda of the question, Welker’s two Republican guests either accepted the premise or sidestepped it inadequately.
“I know that some people just went on to do other things instead of coming back for 2024. But by and large, in Georgia, we’re actually in pretty good shape,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger responded. He then highlighted poll worker recruitment and training efforts in his state, asserting that these volunteers “understand all the checks, balances, and fail-safes that are in place so you do have a fair, secure, accurate election.”
Nominal Republican and Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt offered an even less convincing answer, touting the state’s cooperation with federal agencies — including the censorship-prone Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — to target what they deem “threatening” election-related speech. Schmidt told Welker that Pennsylvania has mechanisms to respond to threats “expeditiously so law enforcement can do its job, so our election officials can do the job that only they can do, which is counting votes in our representative democracy.”
‘Threat’ Narrative Employed as a Weapon
The narrative about “threats” to election workers serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it complicates the efforts of poll observers to monitor election administration, either by creating excuses for restrictive policies or by intimidating them.
Consider the case of Janet Angus, a Green Bay election integrity activist. Angus saw Molly Senechal dropping off two ballots on April 5, 2022, one for herself and one for her husband. Senechal told Green Bay City Clerk Celestine Jeffreys that her husband was unable to appear in person — as required by law — because he was “sick.” Jeffreys accepted both ballots, as reported by my colleague M.D. Kittle.
When Angus confronted Jeffreys about the law, Jeffreys leaned into the threat narrative, claiming Angus “mocked her” and expressing “very concerned” about the impact of Angus’ words on Senechal, who said the exchange made her “anxious.” The city of Green Bay consequently sought and obtained a municipal citation against Angus for disorderly conduct. A judge later dismissed the citation, noting it appeared to be “retaliatory.”
This narrative is also utilized to restrict access to poll watchers. When Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a Republican bill allowing poll watchers closer observation, he cited concerns about potential threats posed by public involvement, suggesting the bill might “enable voter intimidation and prevent election workers from effectively and efficiently carrying out their important duties without interference.”
The second aim of the Democrats’ “threat” smear is to render election integrity a taboo topic. Democrats have developed a “threat to democracy” narrative about the events of Jan. 6, 2021, leading many Americans to hesitate in voicing genuine concerns about the justice system’s handling of Jan. 6 protesters. Similarly, branding election integrity issues as “threats” attempts to deter Republicans from engaging with the topic.
Democrats’ Record of ‘Threat’ Smears
During the peak of the Covid pandemic, individuals skeptical of rapid vaccine mandates and other directives were labeled as “threats” to public safety. The National Terrorism Advisory System went further, issuing a bulletin in August 2021 warning that “anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists” might “exploit the emergence of COVID-19 variants by viewing the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions across the United States as a rationale to conduct attacks.” The bulletin also asserted that the issues were “exacerbated by … grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions.”
These attacks never materialized, but the bulletin aimed to demonize individuals who opposed oppressive Covid rules such as “stay-at-home” orders and vaccine mandates that threatened their employment.
Democrats similarly weaponized the “threat” smear against parents who attended school board meetings nationwide to oppose lockdown policies negatively affecting children’s education and mental health. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) urged the White House to use counterterrorism tactics against these parents. In October 2021, Biden’s Department of Justice issued a memorandum directing the FBI to label these parents with “threat tags.”
The House Judiciary Committee later discovered that Biden’s administration had “no legitimate basis” for deploying counterterrorism resources against these parents.
