Janice R. Andrews
Lawmakers Demand Action from Governor Walz
More than 50 Minnesota legislators are calling on Governor Tim Walz to address a contentious situation involving a state employee’s social media activity. The controversy stems from a Facebook post made by a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) worker following an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump on July 13. The employee’s comment, “Too bad they weren’t a better shot,” has raised alarms about political violence and proper conduct for government workers.
On September 30, lawmakers sent a letter to Walz, urging him to take decisive action. This follows an earlier request on July 26 that allegedly went unanswered. With growing concerns about political violence, legislators are intensifying their demands for the governor’s response.
The letter states, “Your inaction as Governor is concerning, particularly given the increasing public demand to end political violence. By not addressing this issue, you’re failing to serve the interests of Minnesotans who desire peaceful political discourse without fear of violence.”
DNR’s Initial Response and Legal Constraints
The DNR promptly condemned the employee’s post, describing it as “reprehensible and inconsistent with the department’s views and values” in a social media statement. However, the Minnesota Data Practices Act has limited the department’s ability to provide further details.
While the DNR is investigating the incident, no public disciplinary measures have been announced. When approached for comment, Governor Walz’s office redirected inquiries to the DNR, indicating that the department is handling the matter internally.
Concerns Over Political Violence and Public Discourse
Minnesota lawmakers have expressed deep worry about the potential precedent this incident could set. Republican State Senator Steve Drazkowski emphasized that Minnesotans expect public employees to maintain high standards of respectful and peaceful behavior, regardless of political affiliations. He stressed the danger of allowing state employees to incite or celebrate political violence.
State Representative Bernie Perryman echoed these sentiments, asserting that political violence should never be tolerated and that Minnesotans should feel safe participating in political dialogue without fear.
Legal Complexities and First Amendment Considerations
The case is complicated by First Amendment protections, as the DNR is a public entity. University of Minnesota Law Professor Charlotte Garden explained that public employers face more legal constraints than private ones when disciplining employees for controversial statements.
Garden drew parallels to the 1987 Supreme Court case Rankin v. McPherson, which involved a similar situation. The Court ruled that while direct threats are not protected, comments on matters of public interest by employees without policymaking roles are protected by the First Amendment.
Key considerations in such cases include whether the comment addresses a matter of public opinion and its impact on workplace functionality. Garden noted that if an employee’s statement significantly diminishes public trust in their department, it could justify disciplinary action.
Pressure Mounts on Governor Walz
Despite legal complexities, lawmakers argue that Walz can still take action. They claim no law prevents him from calling for the employee’s resignation or publicly addressing state employee behavior.
The legislators are urging Walz to use his platform to denounce the post and make it clear that political violence, especially from state employees, will not be tolerated. As the DNR continues its investigation, pressure from legislators, the public, and political observers may soon compel Governor Walz to make a public statement or take further action.
Broader Implications
This Minnesota controversy reflects wider national concerns about political violence and public discourse. Governor Walz’s response in the coming weeks could set a significant precedent for how state employees are held accountable for their social media conduct, particularly regarding comments that may incite or celebrate violence.
