The Next Hennepin County Attorney Should Meet These 4 Tests

Hennepin County has become an unlikely focal point in broader conversations about public safety.

For those of us living in Minneapolis, that attention isn’t abstract. It reflects something more immediate—patterns that have become hard to ignore, and responses that don’t always align with what most people would consider reasonable or predictable.

Gradually, the question becomes less about what happened and more about what happens after.

That’s part of what led me to pay closer attention to the race for Hennepin County Attorney.

Several candidates have entered the race, each bringing a different perspective on how prosecution should be handled. But for many voters, it’s not always obvious how to evaluate those differences in a meaningful way.

This isn’t just another political office. The County Attorney plays a central role in what happens after an arrest. How cases are handled, whether they move forward, and what kind of consequences follow.

Those decisions, in practice, shape how people move through their communities. What they expect, what they avoid, and whether they trust what will happen if something goes wrong.

So, rather than focusing on personalities or political framing, it’s more useful to think about the role in terms of a few basic tests.

1. Does the candidate understand the system from the inside?

Charging decisions, case strategy, and follow-through all depend on a working knowledge of how the system actually functions, not just how it is supposed to function. There’s a difference between observing the system and working within it, and that difference shows up in how decisions are made.

Experience is not the only factor, but it shapes judgment in ways that are difficult to replicate from the outside.

Most people have experienced some version of this in their own work—being managed by someone who understands the theory of a role but not the reality. That gap tends to show up quickly.

2. Do charges match the crime?

This sounds obvious, but it’s not always consistently applied.

The role requires judgment and charging decisions that reflect the severity of what occurred. Not inflated, not minimized. Just accurate and proportional.

In a 2025 policy shift, the County Attorney’s office indicated it would decline to prosecute many felony cases arising from low-level traffic stops, even when those stops led to the discovery of more serious criminal behavior.

Decisions like that shape how people understand accountability and whether outcomes reflect the underlying offense.

3. How are repeat offenders handled?

A relatively small number of individuals are often responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime.

In a recent case, an individual with prior serious sexual offenses received a stayed sentence and later was accused of committing another violent sexual assault. The subsequent federal charges drew attention to how earlier decisions were made and whether those decisions interrupted a pattern or allowed it to continue.

Those situations highlight the stakes and the consequences when patterns aren’t effectively addressed.

That’s where confidence in the system starts to erode.

4. Are victims the clear priority?

At its core, this role exists within a justice system that is meant to respond to harm.

That doesn’t eliminate complexity. But it does require clarity about who the system is ultimately accountable to and whether victims feel that the process reflects the seriousness of what occurred.

These questions show up in practical ways—in what people expect to happen after a crime and whether what happens next feels connected to what occurred.

____________

For many voters, these questions also extend to how a County Attorney approaches high-profile or politically sensitive cases, particularly when issues of public trust or institutional accountability are involved.

This role is often discussed in political terms, but it is a non-partisan office that requires judgment, consistency, and a willingness to apply the law based on the facts of each case—not on external pressure or broader narratives.

The effectiveness of this role also depends on working relationships—with prosecutors, investigators, law enforcement, and others responsible for carrying cases forward. When those relationships break down, it becomes more difficult to carry out the core responsibilities of the office.

And that’s how I’ve been thinking about this race.

Not in terms of likability or party affiliation, but in terms of whether the person stepping into this role understands what’s at stake and is prepared to make decisions that are consistent, grounded, and defensible in practice.