Assessing Walz, Harris, and the rule of law

The rule of law — and what it truly means in 2024 — figures to define a key portion of the presidential race. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the new Democratic pick for vice president, will play a role in the coming rhetorical crossfire over which party will get it right on crime and punishment at all levels.

In its crudest form, this becomes a partisan fight over which hideous videotaped violence the opposing parties will run over and over to drive turnout is found by voters to be more compelling.

For those who consider themselves fair or nonpartisan, there is no rule against making yourself face up to different forms of ugly transgressions at the same time.

Walz was in his second year as governor when images of a police officer killing unarmed and immobilized George Floyd in Minneapolis triggered looting, arson and mob violence. The state was still beset by COVID-19 when the added crisis struck. Walz was criticized for not doing more and acting faster to control the streets when local authorities found themselves engulfed. But Walz was reelected in 2022.

Ex-President Donald Trump’s partisan targeting of Walz in the wake of the Minneapolis explosion proved typically exaggerated. Without evidence, Trump claimed repeatedly he was the one who got the National Guard deployed to quell the disorder in Minnesota. Actually, it was Walz, who had been in the Guard himself for 24 years, who called them in — but yes, later than he might have.

Police officer Derek Chauvin was later convicted on a second-degree murder charge and federal civil rights violations, and is serving 22-plus years in prison. The day of Chauvin’s murder conviction, cops in precincts with riot gear at the ready, as far away as New York City, breathed collective sighs of relief when the verdict was announced.

Floyd was killed in May 2020. The following Jan. 6, after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden, his adherents unleashed an unprecedented insurrection against the Capitol to stop the vote from being certified. At the time, Trump, still legally in office, proved reluctant to call in the National Guard or even ask his supporters to end their siege.

At the top of this year’s ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign has cited her prior credentials from California, first as San Francisco district attorney and then as the state’s attorney general. That has conservatives seeking to spin her record to support the standard soft-on-crime allegations against Democrats.

Ironically, before the 2020 primary, when Harris had a short-lived presidential candidacy, her law enforcement background was seen as a drawback by some progressives championing de-incarceration.

Now, the landscape is different. Harris’ foe, Trump, stands convicted of New York State felonies. And he’s still federally indicted. The worst of the charges involve his unheard-of scheming to stay in power by nullifying true election results.

Needless to say, that’s not how leaders of this republic are expected to conduct themselves. The oaths sworn by public officials talk about faithfully executing the law — not some of the laws.

But it’s a fact of political life that the people have their own preferences as to what crimes should be priorities. And that may depend on whose “side” they believe they are on in society.

Voters this year must choose which candidates are likelier to promote what they see as equal justice under the law. It’s a good time to consider what that means specifically — both at home and in Washington.

Columnist Dan Janison's opinions are his own.

By Dan Janison

dan.janison@newsday.comDanJanison

Dan Janison is a member of the Newsday editorial board.