Minnesota Candidates Spar Over Role of Attorney General
In the race for Minnesota attorney general, Republican challenger Jim Schultz is harnessing a tough-on-crime argument against Democrat incumbent Keith Ellison, and, in the process, proposing a complete shift in focus on what the AG does.
Landwebs
In the race for Minnesota attorney general, the Republican challenger is harnessing a tough-on-crime argument against Democrat incumbent Keith Ellison and, in the process, proposing a complete shift in focus on what the AG does, Blake Hounshell reports for the New York Times. Jim Shultz has characterized himself as an opponent of “crazy anti-police ideology,” claiming that Ellison “was immoral to embrace policies that led to an increase in crime in at-risk communities.”
While the Minnesota attorney general has prosecuted almost 50 people of violent crimes as-needed under Ellison, Ellison argues that it’s a misrepresentation of the office to center it on criminal prosecution. The AG focuses on “corporate accountability,” not crime, Ellison argues, pointing to four statutes that would need to be changed to allow the Minnesota attorney general’s office to shift focus. But Schultz is campaigning on the promise that the uptick in crime seen in Minneapolis (as seen in cities across the country, not just those that have implemented justice reform policies) is a “man-made disaster” he can tackle as an attorney general by hiring aggressive criminal prosecutors, and increased the prosecutorial staff as much as twenty-fold.
