Thanks for a great summary. I have not educated myself on this race. This was a great kick-start. When I research canidates I will be focusing on: the candidates’ political philosophy and their ability to manage a large prosecution office.
It's always been a struggle for me to learn about local candidates. Local media, including the Strib, do not paint an adequate picture. For the Hennepin County Attorney's race, on the surface it seems like there are a few capable candidates, and one that I definitely won't be voting for. Endorsements are telling:
As someone who rejects DSA ideology, I will not vote for a DSA, and am very skeptical about candidates endorsed by DSAs. Socialism has failed miserably in other countries, and we have only to look at Mpls council DSAs to see the impact of their policies.
Terry, thanks for this piece. The Primary is going to be interesting. On the one hand, we have Cedrick Frazier, who (it has been no secret) represents continuity with the policies and performance of Mary Moriarty. On the other hand, there are no fewer than four running as counterpoints to Moriarty - in one way or another. All five are being very, very careful not to say anything that will label them irrevocably as what they actually are - so as to avoid missing out on any stray votes from those who don't follow these things. Presumably, Frazier and one from among the other four will go on to the General Election. Frazier, not because Moriarty has done a good job, but just because she has been a darling of the ascendant DSA/Progressive voters in Hennepin County, and has that "lane" to himself. Each of the other four seems to be emphasizing different "flavors" of being "not-Moriarty", and mentioning in a positive light at least one thing about her or the Progressive Prosecutor movement generally. This is all just good campaigning strategy on their parts - or at least it will have been good strategy for the one who goes on to the General. One or more of the other three may regret not having gone "all in" on self-identifying as the much-hoped-for (in at least some circles) clear alternative. I imagine campaign messages may shift after Aug. 11, at which point it will be incumbent on the non-Frazier survivor, in order to get out the vote, to make clear that he or she is actually the "anti-Moriarty", and. likewise, for Frazier to make clear to Moriarty's many supporters that he is the "second term" that they want.
I have taken the strongest stance against Moriarty's administration. While I have said that a policy or two have some merit, I have firmly stated that I will not keep her policies. Her practices had eroded the confidence of the public and have to be changed, which I have made clear in every forum. I have also promised to take politics out of the office--other candidates didn't admit that was an issue until I raised it. I believe my candidacy is the clear alternative.
Thank you for your response. I have to admit that, say, a year ago, I expected this campaign to have *several* candidates falling all over themselves, and each other, to be the most noteworthy "not-Moriarty". And perhaps, had she decided to run herself, that would have happened. However, with her not running, it is not what has been happening.
I don't know if you have seen the "pick your County Attorney candidate" quiz that is making the rounds. It purports to be based entirely on public statements that have been made by the five candidates. I took it yesterday morning. It did, if fact, designate *you* as *my* preferred candidate - but with only an under-50% agree-with rating and by only the slimmest of margins, with quite small distinctions among my agree-with %'s assigned to the five. For what it is worth, even though I know it is where he belongs, it did *not* even have Frazier in 5th place for me (4th... and I'm not going to say who was 5th). For me, taking the test and seeing my results was just further corroboration that the 5 of you are in fact all "pulling your punches" in the primary campaign - Frazier perhaps most of all. But it did also (barely) corroborate for me what you have said here - that among the five, you seem to be doing this least, and seem most likely to be the candidate I am looking for.
I appreciate your doing that. As recently as, oh... 15 years ago, one of the ironclad laws of political campaigning for a competitive office was that a campaign *must* "distinguish over" their opposition. Preferably by walking the tightrope of not casting aspersions, making personal attacks, or just "going negative", but by forthrightly stating where one stands, especially when it is known where the opponent(s) stand(s). Today, the gold standard seems, instead, to be to offend no one. I "get it" - That mindset is based in the needs of a campaign run under RCV rules, but we don't have that here, so, truly, the "gloves should be off". So again, thank you for your efforts to be forthright about your intentions if elected.
Cedric has zero experience as a prosecutor. This should tell everybody all they need to know about the DFL/DSA endorsement
Thanks for a great summary. I have not educated myself on this race. This was a great kick-start. When I research canidates I will be focusing on: the candidates’ political philosophy and their ability to manage a large prosecution office.
Thanks Terry. It’s obvious you spent lots of time preparing and writing this important information
It's always been a struggle for me to learn about local candidates. Local media, including the Strib, do not paint an adequate picture. For the Hennepin County Attorney's race, on the surface it seems like there are a few capable candidates, and one that I definitely won't be voting for. Endorsements are telling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Hennepin_County_Attorney_election
For the at large school board races, some of the names were new, others not, especially in local DFL and activist circles.
-Collin Beachy: incumbent, current board chair, DFL endorsed. MFE union endorsed.
-Christin Crabtree: DFL endorsed, longtime activist for homeless, experience with school advocacy. MFE union endorsed.
-Michael Baskins: like you said, ran for Ward 2 city council in 2023 and 2025.
-Clifton "CJ" Henderson: only has an Instagram page with no information (@cj4mps)
-Stephanie Johnson: no website, unclear who she is
Thank you, Mara. This information is helpful to have.
As someone who rejects DSA ideology, I will not vote for a DSA, and am very skeptical about candidates endorsed by DSAs. Socialism has failed miserably in other countries, and we have only to look at Mpls council DSAs to see the impact of their policies.
I made one update to this newsletter. The term is four years, not six as originally published.
Terry, thanks for this piece. The Primary is going to be interesting. On the one hand, we have Cedrick Frazier, who (it has been no secret) represents continuity with the policies and performance of Mary Moriarty. On the other hand, there are no fewer than four running as counterpoints to Moriarty - in one way or another. All five are being very, very careful not to say anything that will label them irrevocably as what they actually are - so as to avoid missing out on any stray votes from those who don't follow these things. Presumably, Frazier and one from among the other four will go on to the General Election. Frazier, not because Moriarty has done a good job, but just because she has been a darling of the ascendant DSA/Progressive voters in Hennepin County, and has that "lane" to himself. Each of the other four seems to be emphasizing different "flavors" of being "not-Moriarty", and mentioning in a positive light at least one thing about her or the Progressive Prosecutor movement generally. This is all just good campaigning strategy on their parts - or at least it will have been good strategy for the one who goes on to the General. One or more of the other three may regret not having gone "all in" on self-identifying as the much-hoped-for (in at least some circles) clear alternative. I imagine campaign messages may shift after Aug. 11, at which point it will be incumbent on the non-Frazier survivor, in order to get out the vote, to make clear that he or she is actually the "anti-Moriarty", and. likewise, for Frazier to make clear to Moriarty's many supporters that he is the "second term" that they want.
I have taken the strongest stance against Moriarty's administration. While I have said that a policy or two have some merit, I have firmly stated that I will not keep her policies. Her practices had eroded the confidence of the public and have to be changed, which I have made clear in every forum. I have also promised to take politics out of the office--other candidates didn't admit that was an issue until I raised it. I believe my candidacy is the clear alternative.
Thank you for your response. I have to admit that, say, a year ago, I expected this campaign to have *several* candidates falling all over themselves, and each other, to be the most noteworthy "not-Moriarty". And perhaps, had she decided to run herself, that would have happened. However, with her not running, it is not what has been happening.
I don't know if you have seen the "pick your County Attorney candidate" quiz that is making the rounds. It purports to be based entirely on public statements that have been made by the five candidates. I took it yesterday morning. It did, if fact, designate *you* as *my* preferred candidate - but with only an under-50% agree-with rating and by only the slimmest of margins, with quite small distinctions among my agree-with %'s assigned to the five. For what it is worth, even though I know it is where he belongs, it did *not* even have Frazier in 5th place for me (4th... and I'm not going to say who was 5th). For me, taking the test and seeing my results was just further corroboration that the 5 of you are in fact all "pulling your punches" in the primary campaign - Frazier perhaps most of all. But it did also (barely) corroborate for me what you have said here - that among the five, you seem to be doing this least, and seem most likely to be the candidate I am looking for.
I appreciate your doing that. As recently as, oh... 15 years ago, one of the ironclad laws of political campaigning for a competitive office was that a campaign *must* "distinguish over" their opposition. Preferably by walking the tightrope of not casting aspersions, making personal attacks, or just "going negative", but by forthrightly stating where one stands, especially when it is known where the opponent(s) stand(s). Today, the gold standard seems, instead, to be to offend no one. I "get it" - That mindset is based in the needs of a campaign run under RCV rules, but we don't have that here, so, truly, the "gloves should be off". So again, thank you for your efforts to be forthright about your intentions if elected.