Slain Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman, husband and dog to lie in state
The affidavit says Boelter wanted to "kill, injure, harass and intimidate'' more than 45 Minnesota state and federal officials and prosecutors say he also intended to target several other Midwestern lawmakers.
Hortman will be the first woman and one of less than 20 Minnesotans to lie in state at the Capitol, according to a release from the state's House of Representatives. Members of the public will be able to pay their respects from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. local time.
The tribute will come on the same day Boelter is expected to appear in federal court, where he faces half a dozen charges including multiple counts of murder and stalking.
A private funeral for the Hortmans, which will be livestreamed, will follow on June 28, officials said.
The couple had two children and lived in Brooklyn Park, a suburban city about 10 miles north of Minneapolis, according to Hortman's profile.
Hoffman and Hortman are both members of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), a political party exclusive to the state. Hortman was elected in 2004 and was Speaker-Emerita of the House of Representatives, which is narrowly controlled by Republicans.
Police: Break-in at home of slain Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman
Hortman served the people of Minnesota with compassion and grace, Gov. Tim Walz previously said.
"Our state lost a great leader and I lost the dearest of friends," Walz said. "She woke up every day determined to make this state a better place."
Contributing: Jeanine Santucci, Eduardo Cuevas, Christopher Cann, Terry Collins and Jorge L. Ortiz, USA TODAY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Democrats are fighting fire with fire over redistricting – but will democracy burn?
The mid-decade redistricting war looming between Republicans and Democrats is exposing an idea that's corroding American democracy – voters may not matter that much in determining who controls the US House. After Texas Republicans unveiled a Donald Trump-fueled plan to pick up five additional US House seats last month, the California governor, Gavin Newsom, unveiled a plan on Thursday to throw out districts drawn by an independent commission and put in place new ones that would add five Democratic seats in response. Republicans are also expected to push ahead with plans to redraw maps in Ohio, Missouri, Florida and possibly Indiana, in their favor. Each of those machinations could be enormously consequential in next year's midterm elections because Republicans only hold a three-seat majority in the US House of Representatives. Republicans hold the power to redraw more districts in their favor in a redistricting war. 'Gerrymandering is bad enough once a decade,' said Richard Pildes, a law professor at New York University. 'But if we open the door to continual efforts throughout the decade to squeeze out every additional seat based on changing calculations to the parties, it's very bad for voters who have enough trouble developing connections with their representatives and it's very bad for democracy more generally because it promotes cynicism about the process.' While technological advances have made extreme partisan gerrymandering the norm for decades, rejiggering the lines in the middle of a decade is 'taking it to the next level', said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in the political reform program at the New America thinktank. 'It makes elections seem pretty secondary to the machinations of legislators and courts, which is probably not the best for democratic legitimacy,' said Drutman, who supports democratic reforms such as proportional representation and multi-member House districts. 'It continues to undermine the idea that elections have any meaning.' The US constitution requires lawmakers to redistrict at least once every 10 years, and if lawmakers gerrymander, they face the challenge of ensuring that their map can endure across an entire decade. That allows for a sliver of competition – even if gerrymandered districts lock in a partisan advantage at the beginning of a decade, shifting demographics and political trends might make a district more competitive over time. Mid-decade redistricting takes that off the table. 'It presumably increases the potency for gerrymandering because you can do the gerrymandering based on very recent data and the map doesn't have to endure for as long,' said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, an election law professor at Harvard. 'The worst case isn't just a one-off mid-decade re-redistricting it's a continuous re-redistricting. Before every election, you check out which of your side's incumbents had a closer call than you wanted last time and you make their district three or five or seven points more Democratic or Republican.' In recent years, Democrats have pushed to end extreme partisan gerrymandering, advancing efforts that require lawmakers to abide by certain fairness requirements when they draw district lines or give mapmaking power to independent commissions. The sweeping voting rights legislation that failed in the US Senate during the Biden administration would have required independent redistricting commissions in every state. But even the most ardent champions of those reforms have called for Democrats to counter Republican-led gerrymandering with their own, coming around to the idea that while long-term reform is still a worthwhile goal, the immediate danger is too grave. 'We're doing something now that is responsive to what is going on with this White House,' the former US attorney general Eric Holder, who now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said during a Sunday interview on Meet the Press. Common Cause, a watchdog group that has been one of the most prominent advocates for gerrymandering reform, announced on Tuesday that it would not stand in the way of retaliatory gerrymanders as long as they met certain fairness criteria. Others have been more critical. 'If the only way to protect democracy is to undermine it – what exactly are you protecting?' Chuck Todd, the former host of NBC's Meet the Press wrote in his newsletter this month. Alex Lee, a Democrat in the California state assembly, offered a similar argument on X last month. 'Fundamentally gerrymandering UNDERMINES democracy. The right answer is to abolish politicians picking their own voters & drawing maps nationally for good. It is dangerous to kick off a race to the bottom w/ gerrymandering.' Stephanopoulos said the current congressional map was essentially balanced between Democrats and Republicans in the aggregate. 'I'd rather have fair maps in every state aggregate into a fair US House. If we can't get that because the Congress won't require fair maps and neither will the supreme court, then the worst case, I think, is one side gerrymanders and the other side doesn't, and we get a highly distorted US House. 'That then means that the majority of Americans aren't represented by a majority of legislators, and Congress passes laws that don't reflect what the majority of Americans want and so offsetting gerrymanders at least prevents that worst-case outcome.' The mid-decade redistricting battle may also only exacerbate another escalating problem in US politics – reducing competition in the US House districts, which has been steadily decreasing. Only 27 out of 435 districts – roughly 6% – were considered competitive in the 2024 midterms. Had the proposed map in Texas been in place during the 2024 elections, neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris would have carried a district by less than 10 points (Trump would have carried 30 and Harris eight). 'Ultimately it's not a sustainable solution for anybody. It's a mockery of democracy,' Drutman said. 'At some point I think people have to realize there are better ways to do elections.'
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Who is Gavin Newsom? The trolling Democrat feuding with Donald Trump
A speech by the governor of California in which he vowed to 'match fire with fire' against Donald Trump has widely been seen as a stake to the claim of Democratic presidential nominee in 2028. Gavin Newsom announced plans on Thursday to use his state's powers to fight against what he calls White House-led efforts to 'rig the system' by redrawing voting lines. This process happens every decade by law, but Texas Republicans backed by Trump have moved to trigger it five years early. This will give the party more Congress seats well before his term ends, while current political maps mean Democrats could gain control of the house and block most of Trump's agenda. Newsom first responded with an X post calling the president Donald 'Taco' Trump and mocking his crude, hyperbolic writing style. 'CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!)' he wrote. 'BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR 'MAGA.' That conference saw him and a coalition of Democratic leaders announce plans to redraw California's political map and call for new laws to stop presidents meddling with voter boundaries. In response, Trump branded Newsom an 'incompetent governor' and suggested he should be arrested. Newsom has repeatedly been touted as a future leader of the Democratic Party. While he has fallen out of the limelight at times, he remains favourite to be the party's next nominee for the presidential race, ahead of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pete Buttigieg. Born in San Francisco in 1967, he reportedly struggled in school due to severe dyslexia but was gifted at sports. He attended Santa Clara University on a baseball scholarship and had a promising career in the game before an injury ended it, leaving him to focus on his political science major. Three years later he opened a wine store which later expanded into a chain of bars, restaurants, hotels and vineyards, making him a millionaire. DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!). BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR… — Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) August 12, 2025 His first move into politics saw him serve as a city supervisor and volunteer on Willie Brown's successful campaign for mayor. Brown elevated Newsom to the Board of Supervisors, where he raised his profile by pushing for major reforms to how San Francisco handles homeless people. In 2003, he made a successful run for mayor, and made a name for himself nationally by allowing city officials to issue same-sex marriage licences despite it still being against state law at the time. He was elected as lieutenant governor in 2011, before coasting to victory in the 2018 run for California governor on a platform based on affordable housing and city-wide universal health care. One of Newsom's first moves was to place a moratorium on executions in the state. In March 2020, he was the first US governor to impose strict Covid restrictions. Later that year he faced a campaign to kick him out of his seat and trigger a new election over his handling of Covid restrictions. It gained momentum after he was pictured at a birthday party with maskless guests from more than three other households, in defiance of guidelines issued by his administration. Meanwhile, critics heaped pressure on him over California's exceptionally high homelesness rates. Together with anger over other issues such as a $31 billion fraud scandal at California's unemployment agency, these issues pushed more and more voters against him. A petition to have Newsom recalled hit 1.7 million signatures, sparking a recall election in 2021, but he easily survived thanks to overall popularity in the state. The 57-year-old went back on the offensive following the devastating LA wildfires, accusing Trump of withholding federal support for political reasons. He then accused the president of 'instigating violence' by sending in the US National Guard to deal with protests over the fire response in LA. While Newsom remains a persistent frontrunner for the Democratic leadership, polls are mixed when it comes to the strength of his position. Only 27% of voters surveyed at the end of May for AtlasUS said they had a positive image of him, with 54% saying they had a negative image. Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez enjoyed a 46% positive versus 44% negative rating. The most recent polling among California voters gave Newsom an approval rating of 44% to 54%, and found he is favoured for the Democrat's 2028 nomination. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Inside Putin's £400,000,000 'doomsday' plane built to withstand a nuclear blast MORE: Everything we know about Trump and Putin's Alaska summit today MORE: Trump wants Putin and Zelensky in the same room 'to see if they get along'
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
Democrats are fighting fire with fire over redistricting – but will democracy burn?
The mid-decade redistricting war looming between Republicans and Democrats is exposing an idea that's corroding American democracy – voters may not matter that much in determining who controls the US House. After Texas Republicans unveiled a Donald Trump-fueled plan to pick up five additional US House seats last month, the California governor, Gavin Newsom, unveiled a plan on Thursday to throw out districts drawn by an independent commission and put in place new ones that would add five Democratic seats in response. Republicans are also expected to push ahead with plans to redraw maps in Ohio, Missouri, Florida and possibly Indiana, in their favor. Each of those machinations could be enormously consequential in next year's midterm elections because Republicans only hold a three-seat majority in the US House of Representatives. Republicans hold the power to redraw more districts in their favor in a redistricting war. 'Gerrymandering is bad enough once a decade,' said Richard Pildes, a law professor at New York University. 'But if we open the door to continual efforts throughout the decade to squeeze out every additional seat based on changing calculations to the parties, it's very bad for voters who have enough trouble developing connections with their representatives and it's very bad for democracy more generally because it promotes cynicism about the process.' While technological advances have made extreme partisan gerrymandering the norm for decades, rejiggering the lines in the middle of a decade is 'taking it to the next level', said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in the political reform program at the New America thinktank. 'It makes elections seem pretty secondary to the machinations of legislators and courts, which is probably not the best for democratic legitimacy,' said Drutman, who supports democratic reforms such as proportional representation and multi-member House districts. 'It continues to undermine the idea that elections have any meaning.' The US constitution requires lawmakers to redistrict at least once every 10 years, and if lawmakers gerrymander, they face the challenge of ensuring that their map can endure across an entire decade. That allows for a sliver of competition – even if gerrymandered districts lock in a partisan advantage at the beginning of a decade, shifting demographics and political trends might make a district more competitive over time. Mid-decade redistricting takes that off the table. 'It presumably increases the potency for gerrymandering because you can do the gerrymandering based on very recent data and the map doesn't have to endure for as long,' said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, an election law professor at Harvard. 'The worst case isn't just a one-off mid-decade re-redistricting it's a continuous re-redistricting. Before every election, you check out which of your side's incumbents had a closer call than you wanted last time and you make their district three or five or seven points more Democratic or Republican.' In recent years, Democrats have pushed to end extreme partisan gerrymandering, advancing efforts that require lawmakers to abide by certain fairness requirements when they draw district lines or give mapmaking power to independent commissions. The sweeping voting rights legislation that failed in the US Senate during the Biden administration would have required independent redistricting commissions in every state. But even the most ardent champions of those reforms have called for Democrats to counter Republican-led gerrymandering with their own, coming around to the idea that while long-term reform is still a worthwhile goal, the immediate danger is too grave. 'We're doing something now that is responsive to what is going on with this White House,' the former US attorney general Eric Holder, who now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said during a Sunday interview on Meet the Press. Common Cause, a watchdog group that has been one of the most prominent advocates for gerrymandering reform, announced on Tuesday that it would not stand in the way of retaliatory gerrymanders as long as they met certain fairness criteria. Others have been more critical. 'If the only way to protect democracy is to undermine it – what exactly are you protecting?' Chuck Todd, the former host of NBC's Meet the Press wrote in his newsletter this month. Alex Lee, a Democrat in the California state assembly, offered a similar argument on X last month. 'Fundamentally gerrymandering UNDERMINES democracy. The right answer is to abolish politicians picking their own voters & drawing maps nationally for good. It is dangerous to kick off a race to the bottom w/ gerrymandering.' Stephanopoulos said the current congressional map was essentially balanced between Democrats and Republicans in the aggregate. 'I'd rather have fair maps in every state aggregate into a fair US House. If we can't get that because the Congress won't require fair maps and neither will the supreme court, then the worst case, I think, is one side gerrymanders and the other side doesn't, and we get a highly distorted US House. 'That then means that the majority of Americans aren't represented by a majority of legislators, and Congress passes laws that don't reflect what the majority of Americans want and so offsetting gerrymanders at least prevents that worst-case outcome.' The mid-decade redistricting battle may also only exacerbate another escalating problem in US politics – reducing competition in the US House districts, which has been steadily decreasing. Only 27 out of 435 districts – roughly 6% – were considered competitive in the 2024 midterms. Had the proposed map in Texas been in place during the 2024 elections, neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris would have carried a district by less than 10 points (Trump would have carried 30 and Harris eight). 'Ultimately it's not a sustainable solution for anybody. It's a mockery of democracy,' Drutman said. 'At some point I think people have to realize there are better ways to do elections.'
