The Ballot or the Bullet: An Assassination and the Attack on an American Republic

A ballot or a bullet. This is the foundational choice upon which any republic stands or falls. In Minnesota, that choice has been violated by an assassin’s gun.

The murder of Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the attempted assassination of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, is not merely a horrific crime. Governor Tim Walz correctly identified it as “targeted political violence.”

It is a direct assault on the foundational principle of a representative democracy—a system where we settle our profoundest differences through debate and votes, not with body armor and bullets. This act of violence attempts to replace the will of the people with the will of a single gunman, a fundamental betrayal of the American experiment.

An Attack on the Institution of Government

This was not just an attack on individuals; it was an attack on the very fabric of governance. The assassin’s methods were particularly insidious. By impersonating a police officer, complete with a realistic vehicle and uniform, the suspect weaponized the public’s trust in law and order to carry out an act of terror.

As Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley noted, the suspect was so convincing that

“if they were in this room, you would assume that they are a police officer.”

This “betrayal is deeply disturbing,” Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson added.

The calculated nature of the assault is clear from both the timeline and the police encounter. After shooting Senator Hoffman and his wife at their home around 2 a.m., the suspect traveled to the Hortman residence. Responding officers arrived there around 3:30 a.m. to find the gunman coming out of the house.

He immediately exchanged gunfire with them before fleeing through the back of the home, leaving a manifesto in his vehicle that reportedly listed the names of multiple lawmakers and other officials.

The Precarious Line Between Rhetoric and Violence

In the wake of this tragedy, we are forced to confront an uncomfortable truth about our political climate. While the specific motives behind the manifesto are not yet public, the attack occurred on a day of planned “No Kings” protests—a nationwide movement organized against what it calls the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration—and fliers for the movement were found in the suspect’s vehicle.

This is not to lay blame on any peaceful protestor. But it is a moment that demands a serious, national reckoning with how we conduct our political discourse.

When political rhetoric consistently casts opponents not as fellow citizens with differing views, but as existential enemies who must be defeated by any means necessary; when it dehumanizes those in public service and frames policy disagreements as acts of tyranny, it creates a fertile ground for radicalization.

This toxic environment can lower the moral and psychological barriers for unstable individuals, making them feel that violence is not just a permissible option, but a patriotic duty.

A Republic, If We Can Keep It

The swift and unified condemnation of this attack from across the political spectrum—from Governor Walz and President Trump to former President Biden and House Speaker Johnson—is a necessary and welcome sign of unity. President Trump called the violence horrific and intolerable, while former President Biden stated,

“We must give hate and extremism no safe harbor.”

This bipartisan consensus affirms that, at a fundamental level, our leaders understand that an attack on one is an attack on the institution they all serve. But words of condemnation, while important, are not enough. This moment requires a profound, collective recommitment to the principles of civil discourse. The promise of the Constitution is a “Republican Form of Government,” guaranteed to every state. This form of government cannot survive if its elected representatives can be targeted for assassination.

This tragedy leaves us with a set of urgent, soul-searching questions:

• As a society, how do we lower the temperature of our political rhetoric without infringing on the freedom of speech?
• What is our collective responsibility to reject ideologies that promote violence as a legitimate political tool?
• Can a representative democracy survive when its leaders must live in fear of being targeted for the votes they cast?

The strength of our republic is not measured in times of ease, but in how we respond to moments of profound crisis. An attack on our elected officials is an attack on us all, and it is a test we cannot afford to fail.