[raw]
[/raw]
Mary Moriarty won the race to be the next Hennepin County Attorney Tuesday night, roundly defeating Martha Holton Dimick by nearly 16 percentage points, a feat accomplished by winning Minneapolis and most suburban cities in the county.
That Moriarty, the progressive favorite, outperformed expectations in some of the less lefty corners of Hennepin County, was, to some, an early indication that tougher-on-crime messages might not be resonating in the suburbs as expected.
After all precincts had reported, MinnPost examined where Moriarty picked up her vote advantage, where Dimick won, and how the issue of increased crime appeared to play much less of a role than many anticipated.
Dominance in Minneapolis
Dimick, a former Hennepin County prosecutor and Fourth Judicial District judge, called reducing violent crime her top priority, saying she would dedicate more resources to prosecuting violent offenders and establish a task force with law enforcement and community members to curb rising crime.
Moriarty, on the other hand, was a public defender for 31 years, and put the emphasis on police accountability and restorative justice. She pledged to call out police misconduct during cases and prosecute officers who do wrong, while also devoting resources to violence prevention and diversion programs for low-level offenders.
Moriarty carried every ward in Minneapolis, winning with more than 60% of the vote citywide and at least 55% of ballots cast in each of the individual wards.
[raw]
[/raw]
She won big among voters in wards 8 and 9 — the middle portion of South Minneapolis that includes the intersection where George Floyd was murdered — where she received the highest percentage of the vote at 72% and 75%, respectively. Ward 7, which includes the Uptown area and Ward 13 in the city’s southwestern corner — which make up the wealthier parts of the city’s electorate — were where the margins were the smallest, with Moriarty receiving 55% of the vote in each.
Before the election, North Minneapolis appeared to be where the race would be closest, due to Dimick’s residence there for more than 20 years and her performance in those wards during the August primary. But Moriarty comfortably held both North wards, 4 and 5, by more than 60% each.
Moriarty’s victory somewhat mirrored the results of a failed ballot initiative put to Minneapolis voters last year that would have replaced the Minneapolis Police Department with a new Department of Public Safety.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peyton Sitz[/image_credit][image_caption]Martha Holton Dimick speaking to supporters at her election night gathering.[/image_caption]
The results were also similar to the primary between U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar and challenger Don Samuels for the 5th Congressional District seat earlier this year – further illuminating the fissure between the progressive and more moderate factions of the city’s Democratic voter base.
Nearly all of the areas that Dimick won outright were farther west of Minneapolis, where voters in cities like Medina, Orono and Wayzata favored Dimick. One exception was Edina, which is much closer to the county’s urban core, where Dimick carried with more than 52% of the vote.
Here’s a table showing Moriarty and Dimick’s vote totals by city.
[raw][/raw]
Moriarty’s victory was bolstered by a wide margin in Minneapolis — a large share of the county’s votes. Unless you include Fort Snelling, an unorganized territory where fewer than 70 people voted in the race and where Moriarty won 70% of votes, she didn't win more than 61% of the vote in any city in the county outside Minneapolis.
Crime as an issue
The typically quiet race for the county’s top prosecutor was pushed into the spotlight this election cycle as increased crime and police accountability were framed as competing issues by some campaigns and their supporters.
An increase in crime citywide was expected to play a large role in this race, and in other races statewide, with Republicans and some moderate Democrats campaigning hard on the issue. The loss by Dimick, who was seen as the “law and order” candidate in the race and pledged to prosecute more offenders in an effort to reduce crime, appeared to be emblematic of the lack of potency the issue had among voters that was suggested by polling before the election.
Gov. Tim Walz, who won a second term Tuesday against Republican challenger Scott Jensen, told reporters on Wednesday that attacks from the GOP regarding how Democrats have handled crime didn’t resonate with voters because the criticism didn’t come with solutions.
“A lot of Minnesotans said pointing out that problem without offering a solution does us nothing,” he said. “I heard about it on the campaign. They were concerned about it. But they are concerned about solutions.”
[raw]
MP.highcharts.makeChart('.chart-mdward', $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, {
xAxis: { categories: ['Ward 1', 'Ward 2','Ward 3','Ward 4','Ward 5','Ward 6','Ward 7','Ward 8','Ward 9','Ward 10','Ward 11','Ward 12','Ward 13'] },
yAxis: { title: { text: 'Votes' } },
tooltip: {
formatter: function(){
return ' ' + this.x + '' + ': ' + this.series.name + ' got ' + '' + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) + '' + ' votes';
}
},
series: [{
name: 'Mary Moriarty',
color: '#C69B50',
data: [8658,4629,8267,4766,3292,3929,7073,8237,6072,7245,8669,11583,9402]
}, {
name: 'Martha Holton Dimick',
color: '#03665E',
data: [3709,2109,5270,2792,2108,1839,5644,3162,1984,2997,5205,5188,7465]
}
]
})); [/raw]
interesting analysis, but wasn’t Moriarty an endorsee on the DFL sample ballot?
I would agree. Many people vote straight DFL and the uninformed voter likely did. Mary appeared on the DFL mailers with the other slate of DFL candidates. I question the act of endorsement in non-partisan races like county attorney. When one candidate is endorsed by a party, it is implied that the other candidate is from another party, which was certainly not true in Martha’s case. She and several others sought the DFL endorsement. Endorsement misrepresents the candidates to voters and supplies a shorthand way to vote in non-partisan races. I consider endorsements in non-partisan races to be special interest and a disservice to voters. Endorsements are also made by a small group of citizens who are available on a Saturday and able to spend the entire day there. That’s not most people.
Dimick’s endorsement by a peace officers association held more weight for me. The cops need to be held accountable too. The sad reality is that some officers break the law & too many of their peers let it slide. To rebuild the relationship between civilians & law enforcement the civilians need to see accountability.
You want solutions? How about locking up anyone with an illegal gun? That would make a HUGE dent in the problem.
Moriarty is Hennepin county’s version of John Choi in Ramsey county. But at least the people in Hennepin county had a choice. John Choi ran unopposed. I would have voted for a ham sandwich to replace him.
Of course republicans offered up solutions. Prosecute criminals and put them behind bars. Walz didn’t hear it because he doesn’t want to hear it. Those people vote democrat and he wants their votes.
Of course Walz is Governor, and isn’t responsible for prosecuting and sentencing criminals. So that’s a bogus accusation. You also don’t know what kind of County Attorney Moriarty will be because she hasn’t had a chance to do the job yet. Seems to me that Choi has made a course correction over the last year and has gotten more aggressive about prosecutions.
“Prosecute criminals and put them behind bars.”
This already happens, and there is nothing to suggest it will not continue to happen, so how can it be a solution? I feel like you just proved the point.
At what point to GOPers come to the realization that every part of their anti-crime narrative has failed? You’d think that the fact that this country has by multiple times the rate of incarceration of any other country, including authoritarian regimes, might cause even the most die-hard thin-blue-line authoritarian some pause. If not that maybe the fact that red states have consistently had higher rates of violent crime than blue ones. But GOPers are the same ones that were happy to pretend that the war on drugs was both winnable and about crime while continuing their cosplay as freedom-loving patriots.
But GOPers have never really cared about reducing crime. As evidenced by the fact that nothing they advocated for actually has that effect. What they want is the fear of crime. Either because it excuses the fact that they are always afraid and/or because it helps motivate people to follow their desire for a government where the police can never be questioned. Without the fear that they themselves drum up GOP would have nothing to offer.
So you don’t dispute conservative policies represent abject failure, but that fear-mongering can still be effective. Thanks for agreeing with me.
I very much understand the power of messaging, but if Trumpism has shown nothing else it has made it obvious that a purely defensive strategy lacks impact. One reason the GOP has had success for so long with the “law and order” tack is that Democrats continually feel to simply call them on their BS and instead retreat into repeating lightweight versions of the GOP talking points.
Defund the Police was a terrible slogan but the actual strategy has far more merit than any policy the GOP has ever supported. Democrats need to use the fact that GOP policies have done nothing but increase crime levels despite their rhetoric and result in significant degradation of constitutional protections. Talk about how the best way to address crime and make the job of being a cop safe is by rooting out corruption in the police force. Put up hard-core law-and-order republicans with testimonials of regular people who, despite being innocent, had their cars, homes, or life savings seized based on nothing bus suspicion. Wrap it up in a “Good Apples” campaign that focuses on law enforcement done well and supporting the policies that build on that. Force the GOP to admit what they actually want is bad cops. Which is the reality.
Republican policies have failed at every level, across every part of the country from the point they started until now. As verified by decades of data collection. There are Democrats (like Bill Clinton) who are willing to support those policies because fearmongering works across all groups of potential voters. The issue is that ramping up enforcement with the current system simply amplifies existing inequities and feeds the pipeline that causes more problems a few years down the line. All while emboldening a policing, court, and prison system that is overtly racist.
The only way additional support for law enforcement should be done is if it comes with significant and fearless reforms. Unfortunately, there are too many Democrats who find it easier to double down on Republican fearmongering despite the evidence that it will simply continue to entrench inequity and failure.
The irony of course is that the closest any Oath Keeper will get to actually protecting the constitution is their time behind bars.
You only prosecute criminals if you catch them. You would be surprised by the relatively low number of crimes where anyone is charged. In some cases, a person with influence can manage to avoid getting charged. The conviction rate is lower for people with expensive lawyers.
If you reduce crime by attacking its root causes, crime rates go down and police can devote more thought and energy to the cases that are left. If the wrong person is charged and convicted that is not success. If police live in the community and are trusted, those who know who did what will be more cooperative. Every act of police violence, most never reported or charged, undermines community trust.
Unfortunately Johnny One Note Republicans focus on tough punishment applied selectively to the poor. Maybe if the justice system were stronger in communicating what isn’t working (more guns equally higher crime rates), we would be better off. In fact, as Minneapolis is working on across the board reform, violent crime appears to be subsided despite loe police numbers due to resignations and retirements.
It isn’t just Johnny One Note Republicans, it’s a hostile-to-progressives class of attorneys and PR people (Mayor Frey, Joe Radinovich, Jacob Hill, Carly Melin, etc.) who fear monger and echo conservative talking points devoid of any data-based backup. They were soundly rejected in the DA election, no matter how many sockpuppets Mr. Radinovich uses to comment in local forums.
Attack away at the root, that is a good thing.
Stop new offenders before they are created
You still have to remove the violent offenders from society.
Or do you think the Proud Keepers should walk?
Maybe give them a civics course?
Regarding only poor go to jail ask Tom Petters about that
“Of course republicans offered up solutions. Prosecute criminals and put them behind bars.”
18 USC 641: “Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Republican vote on impeachment: 0 in favor, 195 against.
She is a good attorney, but her history of working well with others is dismal and that is from many who worked in her own office of public defense. Maybe she will change, but the reality is that much of what she said, is already in place. It is easy to accuse, to sit in meetings and go over the latest model that pretty much looks like the last pilot program, its another thing to be the people on the front lines. And that is where she will need to prove herself, not just to cops or attorneys, but others working in the system. And she needs to be present, fully, not off at a conference. It is not an either or situation. You need the right programs for various needs, recognition of the complexities and various perspectives and strong safety assessing. Otherwise, it is just another attorney with an ego.
Agree and well said.
She’ll need the Mpls police to cooperate on cases that she wants to prosecute (if any) and officers can easily undermine her office’s efforts.
When my former Congressperson Tip O’Neill said “all politics is local” (several hundred years before I was born) he was not talking about potholes. He was talking about circumstances. Elections are not schools of fish where all the individual elements follow a flocking behavior, but a collection of individual elections that may or may not be pushed or pulled by this or that trend. Every lost or gained US House Seat in a midterm year is pushed or pulled by voter-party dynamics, but each race is still a case of individuals choosing to vote or not, then for whom to vote. Because of this, two things matter that may have been underemphasized in this article (though it is a good article): details and the actual candidates.
1) Nuance beyond the surface both-sideristic dichotomies the press usually defines matter to thoughtful voters, ie., about a fourth of the voting population. For example, this was not a “tough on crime” vs “tough on cops” race. I’ve spoken with each of the candidates for a total of about 1.5 hours for Dimick and 2.5 hours for Moriarty. Never once did Moriarty say anything that made me think she didn’t want to stop crime and lock up the bad guys. In fact, she once told me about a plan she would implement had she the power of the office to stop one of our major crime waves, the ripping off of catalytic converters. Turns out the state, county, and several local police departments were already on that, and just recently, announced a major operation that may have shut those particular bad guys down for real. Moriarty’s policies have multiple layers. Yes, lock up the bad guys, but also, make fewer bad guys, and when someone is sliding into a life of crime, a) stop doing the things that enhance the likelihood of this being a long term career choice and b) allow the system to implement policies we know from the science and study of criminology.
2) Candidates matter. I’ve had many conversations with top cops and prosecutors, and candidates aspiring to these positions. There is a range. No disrespect to Dimick, but Mary Moriarty is simply a person in the top of the range. Smarter, quicker, more focused, than the average bear. I think voters who spent time with both of them would be biased towards Moriarty as the person best suited to do a complex job and run a complex organization like the Hennepin County Attorney office.
These two things mattered to enough voters to have shifted the votes towards Moriarty on top of, or in spite of, the perceived but only partially relevant and not very accurate “tough on crime” vs “tough on cops” dichotomy.
I don’t think you speak for most “voters”. Many are unengaged and don’t pay attention and vote based on party affiliation. You are highly unusual in the amount of time you spent on making this decision. In addition, county attorney was a non-partisan race with an endorsed DFL candidate. That endorsement allowed the endorsed candidate many advantages, including resources and inclusion on mailers with other DFL endorsed candidates in partisan races. By having one candidate endorsed by a party, it was likely inferred by voters that the other candidate was from another party, which we know was not the case.
Time will tell, MM was on Almanac Friday, sorry not impressed, her tune went something like, yeah this guy may be a murderer, but he was abused when he was 3 years old, OK, does that mean he gets a free pass, no prosecution and returned to the street to kill again? She wants to hold police accountable is her job 1, but seems holding criminals/bad folks accountable is a very, very, very distant job 2.
So weird, I saw the same interview and came away with the opposite impression. I heard her say that she wondered if intervening sooner when folks are first abused might have stopped them from becoming abusers or offenders themselves. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would at least entertain that idea.
As Ken pointed out, the CA is in the criminal prosecution business, not the Health and social services business, appears some folks can’t tell the difference. if your focus is to deal with 3 year old trauma, MM is at the wrong end of the stick, go sign up for Health and Social Services or back to public defender. It appears she doesn’t have the resolve to prosecute.
Isn’t her number one job to manage the Office?
Skills as a lawyer would seem to be subservient to her managerial skills.
In my world, many managers.and supervisors come.from the ranks of skilled professionals who a great at their job but are poor management
Well Greg, not sure where you are going, suggesting she will be a great manager or a lousy one? Public defense was her expertise, so are you suggesting she can change stripes and be better?
“This is completely wrong. Moriarty, who was suspended from her job heading the Hennepin Country Public Defender’s office, was a terrible manager of her employees. The attorneys I know who worked for her would put her at the very bottom of your range.”
as one who wastes a fair amount of time on twitter, where civility and quality thinking remain scarce
just wanted to say kudos to Minnpost for hosting social media dialogues that are civil, informative and thoughtful, posters who advance arguments that are almost always anchored in reality
thanks, Minnpost!
We should re-visit this conversation in four years to see the outcome of her policies and leadership.