By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Democrat Xp Lee secured victory in a special election to fill the seat of the late Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman, defeating Republican Ruth Bittner. The election, held in a Democratic district, restored a legislative tie in the state house, following the assassination of Hortman and her husband in June. Lee, a former city council member and Hortman mentee, vowed to carry forward Hortman’s legacy amid national concern over political violence, which spurred the election. The accused perpetrator, Vance Boelter, is facing charges for the murders of Hortman and her husband, as well as attempted murder of other Democratic lawmakers.
Read the original article here
Democrat wins special election to fill seat of Minnesota lawmaker who was killed, a sentence that immediately highlights the gravity of the situation. It’s impossible to ignore the fact that this special election was triggered by an act of violence, an assassination that cut short the life of a public servant and, by extension, impacted the democratic process itself. The circumstances surrounding the original incident, a “politically motivated assassination” according to reports, underscore the urgency of addressing the factors that led to such a horrific act.
The use of the term “assassination” is crucial here. While headlines may sometimes employ less charged language, the reality is that a deliberate act of violence targeting a political figure, especially when linked to ideological motivations, is not simply a “killing.” It’s a targeted attack on democracy, and using the appropriate terminology is essential to acknowledging the severity of the crime and its broader implications. The fact that a Democratic lawmaker was the victim, with the implication of being targeted by right-wing terrorists, makes the use of this term even more critical to describing the crime.
The fact that a Republican even had a chance at the seat after the assassination certainly highlights a flaw within the process. The fact that the election occurred at all, with the possibility of a Republican winning, underscores the fundamental principles of our electoral systems. The system operates based on the idea that each individual seat must be fought for. The fact that the party of the victim does not get the seat by default reveals how our democratic processes function.
The fact that the election needed to happen is not, in itself, a sign of democratic weakness. It’s simply how the process works. The winner of the seat is assigned based on a plurality-wins direct election. In other words, the human person that is the winner of that election is not a member of a particular party by legal right.
The media’s response to this event deserves scrutiny. The fact that the media might frame the situation using language that might be seen as minimizing the gravity of the assassination is a common concern that is often tied to potential political bias. The fact that the media is dominated by a few powerful companies, who can then decide how and what narratives they want to push.
The lack of acknowledgement from certain political figures also raises important questions. The claim that Trump was “not familiar” with the death of a Democratic lawmaker, particularly when the circumstances involved a violent assassination, does warrant discussion. The response seems callous, even if unintentional, suggesting a potential lack of empathy or recognition of the event’s significance.
The discussion surrounding the Minnesota election reminds us of the fragility of democratic processes and the constant need to protect them. The win is just one step in what will undoubtedly be a long road to addressing the issues that led to the assassination and ensuring the safety of elected officials and the integrity of elections. This is something that the smaller progressive media outlets will be able to do, since they do not have the pressures of big companies and billionaires to answer to.