Omar Accuses Judge of Being Part of Conspiracy to Block “Progress” in Effort to Eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department

Rep. IIhan Omar (D., Minn.) lashed out at Hennepin County District Judge Jamie Anderson for blocking a ballot measure that would replace with Minneapolis Police Department with a new department of public safety. Omar alleged that Anderson was part of a “network” working to frustrate “progress.” Underlying this dispute is an interesting question of the court’s role on the ballot question and, while she is wrong in her attack on the court, Omar may have a legitimate objection if the ballot question is blocked despite revisions.

I have previously noted how Democrats are now increasingly attacking judges in the same way that former president Donald Trump did during his term. I have criticized both sides for such attacks.

In a town hall meeting on Tuesday in Minneapolis, Omar said that powerful figures were conspiring to spend big money and use their influence to block such measures:

“The leaders who are opposed to progress in this city are not nameless or faceless. Using your network to obstruct the kind of progress so many people in this city want and were looking forward to is not something that should go unnoticed…This ballot measure should be on the ballot. As you can tell, I’m pretty upset about it..

“We have people pouring in so much money to make us enslaved to a charter that the majority of us [oppose]. This is the opposite of what democracy should produce. The people had a vision for what they wanted, and there’s a judge, there’s a mayor, there is a police chief, and their monied friends who are telling us we can’t have a city that is flexible to our needs and to our demands. How else are we supposed to make progress if we can’t do that?”

The comments were directed first and foremost against Hennepin County District Judge Jamie Anderson on Tuesday who struck down Question 2 on the Minneapolis ballot for the Nov. 2 election after concluding that the wording was “unreasonable and misleading.”

The measure would replace the police department and allow the creation of a public safety alternative, “including licensed peace officers if necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the department.”

Anderson has repeatedly rejected language for the ballot. She held that “the Court finds that the Current Ballot Language is vague, ambiguous and incapable of implementation, and is insufficient to identify the amendment clearly.”

Here is the latest version approved by the city council:

Department of Public Safety

Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach to the delivery of functions by the Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance; which will not be subject to exclusive mayoral power over its establishment, maintenance, and command; and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers), if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explanatory note below, which is made a part of this ballot?

Explanatory Note:

This amendment would create a Department of Public Safety combining public safety functions through a comprehensive public health approach to be determined by the Mayor and Council. The department would be led by a Commissioner nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. The Police Department, and its chief, would be removed from the City Charter. The Public Safety Department could include police officers, but the minimum funding requirement would be eliminated.

Even on the third attempt, it is still poorly crafted. However, I am not sure it is so confusing as to be blocked by the court. It clearly conveys that the replacement of the department and does acknowledge that the city may or may not include police officers. It also clearly states that it would reduce the power of the mayor.

While I do not agree with Omar’s attack on the court, she may have a point in objecting to the judicial block on the ballot question. This would seem an issue where the court should only act to block a political vote when the voters would be misled or misinformed. This is hardly the model of clarity but it does convey the essence of the proposal. There is a type of countermajoritarian danger in courts being too aggressive in blocking ballot questions.

The measure is an outgrowth of the local “defund the police” movement. Despite the criticism of the movement by many of us, the voters have a right to make such judgments on their own public safety and protection.

101 thoughts on “Omar Accuses Judge of Being Part of Conspiracy to Block “Progress” in Effort to Eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department”

  1. “A Comprehensive Public Health Approach”

    “911. What is your emergency?”

    Caller: “Someone is breaking into my home.”

    “Well, we have meals on wheels, three social workers, a mental health expert, and 10 diversity officers — all on call. Who would you like us to send?”

    Caller (now panicking): “Excuse me?!”

    “We have meals . . .”

    New caller (deep, male voice): “Never mind. Just send the coroner.”

  2. Who cares if she is upset. Big deal. She can get over it. Removing public safety is a bizarre notion and dangerous. This is not the spontaneous sentiment of real citizens. This is part of a bigger, well funded and well organized effort by radical groups who do not have the best interests of our citizens or our nation in mind. Organizations such as the Tides Foundation manage BLM and other radical Marxist causes and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to tear down this nation and all that it stands for.

    If the citizens of The United States of America really knew what was happening behind the scene they would be shocked. This is not a traditional Republican or traditional Democrat issue. This is a fight for our nation against forces that have hijacked our normal political parties. It is time to move on from the ridiculous sniping.

    It saddens me to see Minneapolis subjected to this terror. I love the city and have no immediate plans to return for business or.pleasure. Who would? Would you like to be at a restaurant knowing that someone could disrupt your dinner or mug you on the street without consequences? They won’t stop here. They have money, time, and the organization to tear us down.

    What is more shocking is how corporate news organizations are in their pocket. They don’t provide reliable news. The suppress and manipulate news stories and spoon feed their listeners with the talking points that are handed to them.

    When you consider the hundreds of orchestrated, coordinated and funded riots last year, the many many police officers and citizens who were harmed or killed, the billions of dollars in damage and stolen goods, you should consider really who is BLM? They don’t hide the fact that they are Marxists. Their statement about the Cuban unrest began with “We condemn the United States of America…”

    How does this fit the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism? This is from the FBI website: “Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

    What really got me last year was watching a clip of a grandmother with a walker trying to cross the street as she was being harassed by “mostly peaceful protesters.” Really? It was disgraceful.

    It doesn’t take a ton of research to find this information. But, you won’t hear about this from corrupt corporate “news” organizations.

    1. This is not a traditional Republican or traditional Democrat issue. This is a fight for our nation against forces that have hijacked our normal political parties. It is time to move on from the ridiculous sniping.

      That is a very good point E.M. I was raised n Minneapolis. I still have friends there that I communicate with regularly. Many are lifelong Democrats, some very liberal, but we still have common ground on our love of this country and the security of our rights. Where we differ is on policy. This blog, 10 years ago was much the same way. We debated policy and for the most part, it was the standard tug-of-war over over what we all believed would be good for our country and our national security. This blog has changed, not our host mind you, but the members and not for the better. We’ve really gone from debating policies that would be good and consistent for our citizens within our constitutional republic, to fighting over the existence of the idea of citizenship and a constitutional republic.

  3. As much as I detest the attack on the Judge, it is within Omar’s right to do so to said Judge. Yet, Omar missed the bigger point, nobody is precluded from voting on the measure. What has been ruled upon is that the question is too vague. Clean up the definition and clarify what the the proposed law actually does. Why do the proponents fail to spell out in clear language by stating they may get rid of the police. I think the Judge is forcing them to do exactly that measure.

    The Professor is correct when he notes that the people have the right to decide their future. Whatever their choice, they deserve it.


    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  5. Would China, Russia or North Korea allow a woman in a burqa to run the country?

    Would China, Russia or North Korea allow the forward deployment of a full division of invaders on their southern border?

    What would happen to a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in China, Russia or North Korea if he committed an egregious act of insubordination and conspired with the enemy?

  6. Omar was in the Sudanese army. She’s no American citizen. She was placed just as Rasheed, Barry and a few more to take down America. Now with Jobama Biden at the helm, it seems it will not end….

    1. I am no fan of Omar, but she left Somalia with her family at age 8 and was in a Kenya refugee camp until they came to the U.S.. So how could she have been in the Sudanese army?

      1. Karen Ann, it doesn’t matter. These comment threads are a fact-free zone where anything that ‘sounds right’ to Trumpers is perfectly acceptable.

  7. Why are actual Americans taking orders from a woman in a burqa?

    She and her turncoat allies have a full division awaiting forward deployment in Del Rio, Texas, that’s why.

    The Naturalization Acts and intent of the American Founders have never been legally abrogated.

    Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

  8. It does read kinda strange.

    And, it needs to be written so your average American can plainly understand what it is saying. Sounds like too much legal mumbo-jumbo.
    The Explanatory note does help, but I dont think it goes far enough.

  9. The word mugged has become a soften the blow word. The news reports should read that your loved one was struck in the face so violently that she may never breath properly through her nose again. Breaking news tonight! You great grandfather received a blow to the ocular bone that will hinder his sight for the rest of his life. We could send a two hundred pound social worker to the scene but we tried that and his face was beaten to a pulp by two criminals. Well I guess we will have to give the social worker a means to protect himself and others. Maybe we should call the social worker a cop.

  10. I don’t disagree with the Professor on the surface merits, but honestly: does Omar belong in Congress in the first place? Are we still this deluded about what the Democratic party has become? We now have Labour people overseas looking at us and going, WTF? There’s a fundamental issue here that is not being addressed. So long as people cling to the notion that they are still voting for the party of JFK, this will continue to be a problem. Have fun shaking that sand out of your hair down the line.

  11. Money is power. This whole thing is about who gets the money, the police departments or the social justice warriors. As long as their social justice goals are achieved who gives a damn about the safety of the everyday citizen. Who cares about the response time when your aged Asian mother is being mugged. I could be wrong, perhaps a social worker could stop the violence. As a Soprano might say, “I wouldn’t make book on it. Of course, if you’ve never been hit real hard in the head you wouldn’t kapish.

  12. I agree with Turley on this one. Let them go forth and let the voters decide if they wish to eliminate public safety, If there is a blood bath so be it; The voters get a society they deserve including being represented by one of the most despicable human beings ever to be elected to Congress. I regard her as a truly evil and disgusting person, but her constituents reelected her. Let them bear the results of that decision.

  13. Anonymous:

    Here is the most fair article I could find on the allegations. The investigation was inconclusive. There was a photo of Elmi holding Ilhan Omar’s daughters, calling them “my nieces” along with allegations. Public records showed that at one point, all 3 of them lived together, Omar, Elmi, and her husband Hirsi. Reporters tried to ask her father, but he would not speak to them. No one in her family would address the question. It’s a serious question, that does need to be answered. The paper did not have the resources to send reporters to Mogadishu.

    The article concluded the same as Politifact and Snopes, that there is insufficient information to either prove or disprove. There were also serious questions raised about her tax filings, where she filed a joint tax return with Hirsi while she was actually married to Elmi.

    All she’s said on the matter is that it’s not true, and that Elmi is a “British citizen.” But that’s all she’s said. She’s a Congresswoman. She had a responsibility to cooperate with the investigation. Instead, she stonewalled. If anyone accused my husband of being my brother, I would show them my birth certificate, his birth certificate, my marriage certificate, and our families would put it to rest. They would show photos of the family growing up, which did not include my husband. Heck, we could take a test if needed to show no relation. Such an allegation could be quashed in 5 minutes. Since she came here as a refugee, she might not have paperwork or photos. But she does have a family, and if needed, she could take a simple 23AndMe or Ancestry DNA test. Easy peasy lemon squeezie.

    An accusation like this would have been easy to put down. The fault for its never being resolved lies squarely on her own shoulders. She’s a public figure. Her marriages were not conventional. Her tax filing had legal problems. People are going to ask questions.

Comments are closed.