<p>How does state-perpetrated violence shape political preferences during conflict? This paper examines how property rights expansion conditions electoral responses to state violence, drawing on three rounds of presidential elections in Colombia. I argue that state violence alone does not generate electoral backlash against law-and-order politicians. Instead, by reducing dependence on state officials and fostering political autonomy, secure property rights can amplify voter rejection of coercive platforms in areas with a legacy of state-perpetrated violence. Empirical evidence from municipal-level analyses and a regression discontinuity design based on Colombia’s land restitution program supports this argument. The results show that granting property rights significantly weakens electoral support for candidates advocating coercive security policies, particularly in regions with histories of state violence. These findings highlight the role of property rights in reshaping political accountability and voter behavior in contexts marked by state repression.</p>