By Liz Navratil, Briana Bierschbach and Ryan Faircloth
Star Tribune
MINNEAPOLIS — Minneapolis voters will decide Tuesday whether they want to replace the city’s Police Department, the culmination of more than a year of contentious debate over how to transform public safety following George Floyd’S killing.
Nearly 18 months after Floyd was filmed pleading for breath under an officer’s knee, community groups remain divided on how to change a system that has subjected Black residents to disproportionate amounts of crime and police violence.
The proposal that would clear the way for leaders to replace the Police Department with a new agency has drawn national attention as cities grapple with the racial reckoning spurred by Floyd’s killing and an increase in violent crime.
The policing amendment has dominated every other issue in the city elections, and political groups on both sides of the issue have spent millions working with high-powered consultants and blanketing voters with texts, mailers and online advertisements. Ahead of next year’s midterm elections, a divided Democratic Party is looking to see how whether Minneapolis will embrace far-reaching change.
“This vote most certainly ... is huge in that no matter what happens, the city of Minneapolis is going to have to move forward and really wrestle with what we now cannot un-know,” said JaNaé Bates, a spokeswoman for Yes 4 Minneapolis, the political committee that wrote the proposal.
Candidates running in the first municipal elections since Floyd’s death largely agree that Minneapolis should boost mental health programs, increase social services and seek to determine which nonviolent calls could be handled by civilians. But they disagree on one fundamental question: Whether the city should replace its Police Department with a new agency in its efforts to take a broader approach to public safety.
If the proposal to amend the city’s charter passes, Minneapolis will no longer be required to maintain a Police Department with a minimum number of officers based on population. Instead, it would have to create a Department of Public Safety that takes “a comprehensive public health approach to safety.” Details of the new department, including police staffing levels, if any, would be determined by the mayor and City Council members, who are also up for election Tuesday.
[RELATED: A letter to the American public: Here’s what real police reform looks like]
Supporters argue the proposal gives the city the flexibility to create a new safety system that can better respond to residents’ concerns, without being constrained by the police staffing levels added to the city’s charter during another contentious election in the early 1960s.
Opponents argue the city is already expanding those programs without changing its charter and that nothing in the proposal guarantees increased accountability for police.
“This is too critical of a time to wish and hope for that help that we need so desperately right now,” Police Chief Medaria Arradondo said in a blistering news conference last week that quickly prompted the council president to accuse him of misusing city resources to campaign on an issue before voters.
The city’s elected leaders — and some staffers — have been deeply divided on the question of how to change policing.
Nearly two weeks after Floyd’s death, while the memories of nights of unrest were still fresh in residents’ minds, elected officials began cementing their stances.
Protesters shouted “shame, shame,” at Mayor Jacob Frey after he told them he did “not support the full abolition of the police department” but instead favored systemic changes. He’s been squarely aligned with Arradondo.
The day after that protest, nine City Council members gathered in Powderhorn Park and pledged to “begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department,” eliciting strong support from the activists who organized the event and setting off a panic in other community groups who deeply opposed the idea.
Council members tried to get a similar charter question on last year’s ballot but were blocked by the court-appointed Minneapolis Charter Commission. Supporters quickly accused the commissioners of obstructing the democratic process, while opponents claimed they were doing the due diligence that council members had failed to provide.
Nearly a year and a half after their pledge, many of those council members have softened their rhetoric, seeking to reassure residents that state law makes it difficult to remove police, because it says only officers can respond to some types of calls. Many of them are supporting the campaign to replace the Minneapolis Police Department, as well as candidates who back the effort.
Those same divisions are playing out in the community, according to a Star Tribune/MPR News/KARE 11/FRONTLINE Minnesota Poll conducted in September. That poll showed that 49% of likely voters surveyed supported replacing the department with a new agency, while 41% opposed the effort and 10% remained undecided. That put it within the margin of error. For the proposal to pass, 51% of people voting on the question would need to select “yes.”
Groups organizing on both sides of the issue say the election will answer the key question of how residents want to proceed at this moment but shouldn’t end the discussions about how to change safety in response to Floyd’s killing.
“The work needs to continue after Election Day,” said Leili Fatehi, campaign manager for All of Mpls, a political committee leading the fight against the proposal and supporting candidates who oppose it. “It’s really important that everybody is committed to transformation ... and we all need to be committed to that.”
The policing charter amendment is Question 2 on the Minneapolis ballot. On Question 1, voters will determine whether to shift more power over city departments from the City Council to the mayor.
Question 3 asks voters whether the city should have the ability to implement a rent control program.