Republican state lawmakers want to get tough on political violence after Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

The day after the conservative activist was killed, a New Jersey Republican pledged legislation to make political violence a hate crime — and quickly got a leading Democrat on board. North Carolina and Ohio lawmakers are proposing increased penalties for acts of political violence, dangling the possibility of the death penalty. In New Hampshire and South Carolina, Republican state lawmakers are pushing efforts to curtail freedom of speech protections for public workers who support political violence.

Kirk’s murder spurred these efforts in statehouses around the country. But states had been grappling with different types of legislation in an effort to stem political violence in a year that’s been full of it — from the arson attack against Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to the assassination of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman.

Political violence experts said that legislation could be practical in mitigating some acts of violence, though not a panacea.

In New Jersey, GOP state Sen. Doug Steinhardt wants to make political violence — including assault, arson, terroristic threats and murder — a hate crime, which would add mandatory minimum sentences and stricter penalties.

“The violent undertones [in politics] have been growing and have been amplified,” he said in an interview. “Especially over the last several months and years, it seems to be happening with such frequency that whatever we’re doing isn’t working. I just felt that it’s incumbent upon us as leaders to do more.”

In Ohio, GOP state Rep. Jack Daniels is proposing a similar bill that would put politically motivated murder in a different category of crime with more severe punishments: life in prison with the possibility of the death penalty. Other violent felonies committed for a political agenda would also face increased penalties.

Daniels said political violence sends a chilling effect on political discourse — comparing it to terrorism.

“When you commit an act of terrorism, it’s not as much the person that you’re hurting, it’s the message that you’re sending,” he said in an interview. “And political violence sends that message beyond the person you’re hurting. It tells others: ‘Be careful what you say, because if I disagree with you, I might come after you.’”

The proposals are led by Republicans, although they appear to have bipartisan support. The North Carolina House recently passed a bill, 105–6, in response to Kirk’s killing that increases penalties for politically motivated crimes and makes people guilty of political violence ineligible for parole. In New Jersey, Steinhardt’s proposal has key support from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brian Stack, a powerful Democrat whose committee typically oversees criminal justice issues.

“By imposing tougher penalties, we are making it clear: if you use violence to punish, deter, or silence a victim from engaging in political expression or participation, there will be consequences,” Stack said in a statement. “Enough is enough.”

The proposals are not without their detractors. When asked about the New Jersey proposal, ACLU-NJ Executive Director Amol Sinha warned against proposals that up criminal penalties.

“The response to political violence must be more thoughtful than rushed legislation that expands criminal punishment,” Sinha said. “Acts of political violence are already prosecuted as egregious crimes – increasing penalties will not prevent them from happening or lead to a more civil or just society.”

Some GOP lawmakers across the country want to clamp down on people cheering on political violence, which has raised free speech concerns. New Hampshire House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, a Republican, wants to rescind speech protections for public employees who condone violence against political figures — an idea that’s received pushback from public employee unions.

In South Carolina, state Sen. Mike Reichenbach is proposing legislation to make it easier for colleges to fire employees who promote violence on campus.

People tracking political violence say that legal remedies can only do so much to address a sense of increased unrest.

Shannon Hiller, executive director of Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative, which tracks and studies political violence in America, said that laws limiting public disclosure of the addresses of lawmakers and civil servants could provide some protections for public figures.

But it would take more than bills to meaningfully lower the risks political figures fear, she said.

“If we want to have more comprehensive ways of addressing political violence we need to see more comprehensive efforts from our leaders… to reject dehumanizing language and to reject broadbase calls for retributions,” Hiller said. “Voters need to hold our leaders accountable to that type of behavior as well and I think that’s where we’re sort of headed in the wrong direction.”