Thread by @jasonsamuels

Election day is coming up and I’m planning to vote #YesOn2, but I’m also a politics nerd and a history nerd, so I wanted to know more about what Minneapolis voters were thinking in 1961 when they added the police charter provisions that are now up for a vote to change. 1/

I was particularly curious about opposition at the time. Inspired by @anton612’s brief history published @WedgeLive (wedgelive.com/a-brief-histor…) & armed w/ a @_newspapers 7 day free trial, I went spelunking through early-1960s @StarTribune pages & learned some interesting things 2/

It was a political charade. Mayor P. K. Peterson introduced the plan in March, just as he mounted his reelection campaign. The City Council voted to put it on the ballot on April 14, just two months before the June election. 3/

The Police Federation was heavily involved in municipal politics, and this was controversial at the time. Police openly campaigned for the charter amendment and supported incumbent aldermen who put it on the ballot in their reelection campaigns. 4/

Soon after successful passage of the 1961 charter provisions, the Police Federation proposed another charter amendment which would have set minimum pay for police officers in the charter. That effort was unsuccessful, as described in this @mnhs article: collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagaz… 5/

Newspaper coverage at the time seemed slanted in favor of the amendment. It’s telling to see how it’s described in comparison to another charter amendment on the same ballot which would have increased library funding. 6/

The amendment was broadly supported by the political establishment of the time, including both incumbent mayor P. K. Peterson and his challenger Arthur Naftalin. Another mayoral challenger, labor leader David Roe, offered qualified support. 7/

Some opposition was mentioned in the papers. A co-chair of the Roe for Mayor campaign raised the spectre that this sort of approach has been the beginning of the “police state” mentality in some countries. The Citizens League and League of Women Voters were also critical. 8/

More about the @CitizensLeague concerns can be read in Citizens League Report No. 126, Charter Amendment to increase the number of police in Minneapolis, March 1961 citizensleague.org/wp-content/upl… Their records @MNHistoryCenter would be interesting to dig thru www2.mnhs.org/library/findai… 9/

I couldn't find much about @LWVMpls specific concerns, just some mentions in the paper of them. But I did find a finding aid for their historical records held @hclib Mpls Central, these would be interesting to look thru as well: archives.hclib.org/repositories/2… archives.hclib.org/repositories/2… 10/

Some of the specific arguments that were published in the paper against the amendment in 1961 included: “This sort of approach has been the beginning of a ‘police state’ mentality in some countries” 11/

“the expansion would result in a ‘crash’ training program. They are opposed to the earmarking of funds because they argue the practice reduces flexibility. … They argue that a large department is no guarantee that the manpower will be used effectively.” 12/

“Roe said he believed there is a need for more policemen, but he objected to the mayor’s plan of fixing the strength on a ratio basis. He said the department needs reorganization and a chief who is a good administrator.” 13/

“Roe announced qualified support of Peterson’s proposed charter amendment … said he was opposed to the plan’s fixed ratio … ‘The answer is to attack the sources, not just catch criminals. We’ve got to start attacking the reasons.’” 14/

There was far more support than opposition though, and Amendment 17 was approved by 65.6 percent of Minneapolis voters on June 13, 1961. So, then what happened? Newspaper reports from subsequent years indicate that it didn't all pan out as promised. 15/

In the months after passage, the city struggled to find enough qualified applicants to fill almost 200 new police jobs. Numerous stories describe how the age limit was lowered and the residency requirement relaxed to try to increase the applicant pool. 16/

In the following years, crime rates continued to rise. As a measure to decrease crime, the police expansion authorized by Minneapolis voters in 1961 was a dismal failure. 17/

Here's ol' P. K. Peterson's 1963 rematch election ad hammering mayor Naftalin for failing to reduce crime despite the police manpower increase. 18/

Having read up on the history, I'm now even more convinced we need to #VoteYesOn2 to #ExpandPublicSafety in Minneapolis. The charter provisions added in 1961 were an ineffective boondoggle. They never made us any more safe. This vote is an opportunity to correct that mistake. 19/

I hope this thread helps inform others out there. If you're interested in reading more about the history of the 1961 Minneapolis charter amendment campaign, newspaper clippings and other materials referenced in this thread are available here: drive.google.com/drive/folders/… 20/

And now comes the awkward part at the end where I shamelessly promote this writing and research by tagging people who might be interested. @BullyCreative @dbrauer @Yes4Minneapolis @reclaimtheblock @javimorillo @WentRogue @NaomiKritzer @atrupar @jasoncomix @willstancil 21/

Local journalists who may want to know more about 1961 Mpls charter history, @webster @deenafaywinter @mukhtaryare @toreyvanoot @chaostrib @bbierschbach @shijundu @stribrooks @AndrewMannix @mollypeonies @bzosiad @MollyJongFast 22/

And of course our leading mayoral candidates and other local political folks who should be well informed about how the 1961 police charter provisions came to be. @kateknuth @SheilaFTP @Jacob_Frey @lisabendermpls @MaryMoriarty @asmaresists @ErinMayeQuade @nowah @andreaforward8 23/

Thanks for reading. Special thanks to @BreeMinneapolis for the list of folks to tweet it at. Go learn from the mistakes of history and avoid making them again. 24/24