Readers Write: Mary Moriarty’s new race policy, the rule of law, Red River flood prevention

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Do you believe the criminal justice system treats people of color fairly? If so, you will be mad at Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty for deciding to take race into account in prosecutorial decisions (“Moriarty policy centers race in cases,” front page, May 2, and “Feds probe Moriarty’s new race policy,” front page, May 5). I served on the Supreme Court Racial Bias in the Courts Task Force, and the groups that worked to carry out its recommendations, for 20 years. We found racial unfairness problems at every point in the criminal justice process. There were many recommendations for prosecutors. The two biggest can be stated as, “Look racial issues straight in the eye,” and, “Speak the truth.” Moriarty has done this. She will be blamed for it, because many people believe it’s wrong to point out problems that come from racial bias. It’s not nice. Moriarty makes those people angry, but she is doing the right thing.

I remember training lawyers in Alexandria, on Interstate 94, where the speed limit is 70 mph. I asked a traffic court attorney: How fast can you go without getting a ticket? “White drivers can go 80. Black drivers, 74.” This is not nice, but that’s how it is.

Moriarty is making criminal courts look in the mirror. Good for her.

John Stuart, Minneapolis

The writer is a retired state public defender.

•••

Moriarty stated, “It would be a constitutional issue if the policy actually said, ‘Let’s say you have a Black defendant and a white defendant, we are telling you to treat the Black defendant in a different way.’” I’m looking forward to her explanation to the Department of Justice on how “considering race” in her policy could possibly mean anything else.

Jessica Swartz, Minneapolis

•••

The whole concept that “overrepresentation of Black people in prison shows systemic racism” is flawed.

It starts and ends with comparing the percentage of Black people in prison to their percentage of the population. That assumes young Black people offend at the same rate as old Asian people, or any other population segment.

This logic is as flawed as thinking the justice system is sexist because males are over 50% of the prison population.

This is 2025, not 1965.

David Houg, Chaska

•••

Moriarty made front-page headlines again on May 2. But her new policy for negotiating sentencing isn’t one that “centers race.” Race is just one factor of four, three of them quite common: criminal history, racial identity, age and serving public safety.

Prosecutors everywhere use the three common ones to negotiate plea deals. For example, what if two people separately steal a bag of groceries? One is a young, single mother and first-time offender; the other, a 30-year-old, well-employed man convicted of a dozen such thefts. Should they be punished equally?

The article’s opposing evidence about Moriarty’s “race” policy also is problematic. First, David Zimmer of the Center of the American Experiment, a conservative think tank, explains data showing Black defendants in Minnesota are heavily favored over whites in sentencing. But this appears in his own organization’s publications, not in any online professional journal. Viewpoints opposing Moriarty also are available from well-known legal scholars but not used. Last is support for Moriarty’s position: University of Minnesota law professor Perry Moriearty argues that “thousands” of expert studies — reviewed by other experts before publication — prove race in legal decisionmaking isn’t properly acknowledged, and, she states, it’s time to consider it.

Moriarty’s sentencing policy is not an unjust “break” for people of color. Rather, it is a simple double-check on how to make sure justice is done in applying all four of these sentencing considerations.

Richard Jewell, Minneapolis

•••

I had been led to believe that Moriarty was a liberal progressive. Apparently I was ill-informed. Adopting the criminal justice standards of the 1960s American South, Moriarty says justice in Hennepin County demands that racial identity be taken into consideration. Hopefully this distorted sense of “justice” will be ended soon.

Ronald Haskvitz, Minnetonka

On National Law Day, May 1, at the Hennepin County Government Center Fountain Plaza, my husband and I (not lawyers) were inspired to hear hundreds of attorneys led by retired Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chutich re-recite the Attorneys’ Oath, taken when they became lawyers. Amid growing threats to the rule of law in the U.S., it was reassuring to know that all of those in that plaza were united in their support for judicial independence, the Constitution and the principles that undergird our democracy.

Since President Donald Trump seems unsure about his duty to support the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment, assuring the rights of due process (“Trump demurs on due process,” May 5), it’s clearly time for him to do as those lawyers did. He should re-recite the oath he took when he was inaugurated as president: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He should also read that document.

Susan Everson, St. Paul

•••

Regarding “Trump demurs on due process”: When the president of the United States is asked if he should uphold the Constitution of the United States, and he says, “I don’t know,” someone should remind him that he took an oath to do so.

“I don’t know” is simply not good enough. Upholding the Constitution is his primary job.

Mark Dunnett, Lakeville

A project is taking shape on the western side of the state that’s garnered national and international attention. The Fargo-Moorhead Area Diversion project will provide permanent, reliable flood protection to the increasingly flood-prone communities along the Red River of the North.

We recently had the opportunity to host Gov. Tim Walz and show him the incredible progress that’s already been made. We were fortunate to gain his support for the last portion of funding that must be completed.

The FM Area Diversion project is the first-ever public-private partnership done in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and it’s the first water management public-private partnership ever done in North America. As such, communities across the U.S. are watching so that they, too, can implement infrastructure challenges faster and for less expense.

The project is more than 60% completed. An additional $60.4 million is needed from the state of Minnesota for the components that require completion ahead of Federal Emergency Management Agency certification. This funding amount is small — less than 2% of the total cost — in terms of the overarching project, but it’s necessary for completion. This funding also builds on the agreements that came out of the historic Governor’s Task Force in 2017 that propelled the project to where it is today.

This has bipartisan support in the Minnesota Legislature, which recognizes the need for and importance of completing this project.

We urge the Legislature to pass a bonding bill this year that includes the funding needed to protect communities throughout the western side of the state.

This letter was submitted by Moorhead Mayor Shelly Carlson, Clay County Commissioner Kevin Campbell and Kristine Goeden, administrator for the Buffalo-Red River Watershed District.