A controversial social media post by a state employee has sparked a political firestorm in Minnesota.
According to USA TODAY, more than 50 Minnesota state legislators have called on Governor Tim Walz to take action against a Department of Natural Resources employee who made a violent comment about former President Donald Trump.
The employee posted "Too bad they weren't a better shot" on their personal Facebook account following a July 13 assassination attempt on Trump. The legislators, who initially requested action on July 26, have renewed their plea with a letter sent to Governor Walz on September 30.
The letter expresses frustration with Walz's perceived inaction, arguing that his refusal to address the situation is troubling given the growing public demand for an end to political violence. The legislators contend that by not taking action, Walz is failing to act in the interests of Minnesotans who desire peaceful political discourse.
Republican state Senator Steve Drazkowski emphasized the importance of holding taxpayer-funded employees to a high standard of behavior. He argued that allowing state employees to publicly incite or celebrate political violence sets a dangerous precedent and degrades civic dialogue.
Representative Bernie Perryman, also a Republican, echoed these sentiments, stressing that political violence has no place in the state or nation. She criticized the governor's inaction, suggesting it fails to uphold a basic cornerstone of the democratic republic.
The case presents complex legal considerations due to the employee's status as a public sector worker. Charlotte Garden, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, explained that the First Amendment comes into play when dealing with public employers, unlike private sector situations.
Garden drew parallels to the 1987 Supreme Court case Rankin v. McPherson, which involved a similar comment made by a county employee about a failed assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan.
The court's ruling in that case established that comments on matters of public interest by employees without policymaking functions could be protected under the First Amendment.
Two key questions arise from this precedent: whether the comment is a matter of public opinion and how it impacts the functionality of the office. While providing an opinion on an assassination attempt was deemed a matter of public interest in the Reagan case, the impact on the department's functionality can vary.
Despite potential legal constraints, the legislators argue that Governor Walz still has options available. They assert that no law prohibits him from calling for the employee's resignation, criticizing their behavior, or commenting on the actions of state employees.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has previously condemned the employee's statement on social media, describing it as "reprehensible and inconsistent with (the DNR's) views and values." The department cited the Minnesota Data Practices Act as limiting its ability to comment further but stated that it is actively investigating the incident.
In conclusion, Governor Tim Walz faces mounting pressure from state legislators to address a controversial comment made by a Department of Natural Resources employee about former President Donald Trump. The incident has raised questions about free speech limitations for government employees and appropriate responses from state leadership. While legal considerations complicate potential actions, lawmakers argue that the governor still has options to address the situation and uphold standards of civil discourse.
