Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is facing renewed scrutiny over a 1995 drunk driving arrest as he campaigns as Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate. NBC News reported that the incident, which involved speeding and a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit, has reignited controversy, especially regarding statements made by Walz's campaign during his 2006 congressional run.
On September 23, 1995, Walz was arrested near Chadron, Nebraska, after a state trooper stopped him for speeding. According to reports, Walz was driving at 96 mph in a 55-mph zone when he was pulled over.
Upon approaching the vehicle, the trooper detected the smell of alcohol on Walz’s breath. Following a field sobriety test, which Walz failed, he was taken into custody.
Subsequent testing showed that Walz had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.128, which was above Nebraska’s legal limit of 0.10 at the time.
He was booked into the local county jail and later received a $200 fine along with a 90-day suspension of his driver's license.
In the March court proceedings following the arrest, Walz's attorney acknowledged that Walz had been drinking but argued for leniency. The attorney’s admission contradicted later claims made by Walz’s political campaign. Following his arrest, Walz, who was a teacher at the time, informed his principal of the incident and resigned from his position as a coach.
The 1995 arrest resurfaced during Walz's 2006 campaign for Congress, after being highlighted by the conservative blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
The blog's exposure of the arrest prompted Walz’s campaign to downplay the severity of the incident. Campaign spokespersons characterized the arrest as a "misunderstanding," claiming that Walz had not been intoxicated but rather suffered from balance issues due to deafness.
These claims were further complicated by statements made by the campaign in which they falsely asserted that the DUI charge had been dismissed. They also claimed that the judge had reprimanded the arresting officer for mishandling the situation. These assertions, however, were not supported by the official court records.
In October 2022, the conservative news site Alpha News uncovered court transcripts from the 1995 case. These documents directly contradicted the narrative put forth by Walz’s 2006 campaign.
The transcripts revealed that Walz's attorney had indeed admitted in court that Walz's blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal limit. Moreover, the judge in the case had actually chastised Walz, rather than the officer, expressing disappointment in seeing a teacher involved in such an offense.
In the courtroom, the judge reportedly stated, "This is a real problem for me to see a teacher get picked up for this offense because you have to be a role model." The judge went on to express hope that Walz would learn from the experience, a sentiment that Walz later echoed in public statements about the incident.
The arrest was brought up once more in 2018, during an interview Walz gave to the Star Tribune. In this interview, Walz reflected on the impact of the 1995 incident, describing it as a pivotal moment in his decision to quit drinking. He portrayed the arrest as a turning point that led him to reevaluate his lifestyle and behavior.
However, the discrepancies between the 2006 campaign statements and the 1995 court records have continued to raise questions.
Critics argue that the false claims made during the 2006 campaign were an attempt to mislead the public and minimize the seriousness of the offense.
As Walz campaigns as Kamala Harris' running mate in the upcoming election, the 1995 arrest has once again become a point of contention. Major news outlets, including CNN, the New York Times, and the Associated Press, have revisited the story, further intensifying the scrutiny on Walz's past actions and the 2006 campaign’s handling of the incident.
The renewed focus on the DUI arrest has led to a broader discussion about the role of personal accountability in public office. Supporters of Walz argue that he has since taken responsibility for his actions and that the incident should be viewed as a lesson learned.
Critics, however, remain concerned about the potential implications of the misleading statements made by his campaign in 2006.
