DSA gains, anti-police political agendas, and judicial retention results should concern every American who cares about public safety.

By Chief Tom Weitzel (Ret.)

November 9^th, 2026

The votes have been counted, the political celebrations are underway, and America has a new political landscape. But for those of us in law enforcement, the November 3 midterm elections carry consequences far beyond which political party controls Congress. They will shape how police departments operate, what tools officers can use, how departments are funded, and whether police leaders can do their jobs without political interference.

I have spent nearly four decades in law enforcement, including 13 years as a police chief. I have watched policing evolve, faced difficult decisions, led officers through challenging circumstances, and witnessed firsthand what happens when political agendas interfere with professional law enforcement. I am deeply concerned about where this profession is headed.

Democrats made substantial gains in the midterms, taking control of both chambers of Congress and making significant gains in state governments. But another development deserves serious attention: the growing political influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

This election was a significant victory for DSA-backed candidates. According to NPR reporting, at least five DSA-endorsed candidates won congressional seats: Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez in New York, Melat Kiros in Colorado, Donavan McKinney in Michigan, and Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania. Their victories will give the organization a much larger presence in Congress and a chance to influence the Democratic Party’s legislative direction.

Why should police officers, police chiefs, and citizens concerned about public safety pay attention?

Because DSA is not simply advocating for modest adjustments to policing. Its published national political platform calls for defunding police departments, rejecting police budget expansions, and cutting police budgets to zero each year. Its platform explicitly identifies the eventual abolition of police and prisons as its objective.

Read that again. Cutting police budgets toward zero.

Chicago’s DSA chapter also advocates removing armed police from traffic safety, replacing armed police traffic enforcement with unarmed municipal or state agencies, and reducing or eliminating criminal penalties for simple gun possession.

These are not statements invented by political opponents. They are positions the organization itself has published.

I am not suggesting that every Democrat agrees with every DSA position or that every DSA-endorsed candidate supports every plank of its platform. But the growing number of DSA-aligned elected officials gives these ideas a larger political platform and potentially greater legislative influence.

If you care about the future of American policing, you should be paying attention.

Police departments are already struggling. Recruitment and retention remain serious challenges. The Police Executive Research Forum’s 2026 staffing survey found that sworn staffing remained below January 2020 levels despite some recovery. Departments compete for qualified applicants, experienced officers leave or retire, budgets are stretched, and demands on police departments keep growing.

Now consider what happens when politicians respond by stripping departments of the resources they need to fight crime.

Instead of helping departments recruit officers, improve training, invest in technology, and support professional police leadership, some elected officials are pursuing policies that make effective policing more difficult. We are seeing efforts to restrict investigative databases, eliminate technology, limit enforcement options, and attach political conditions to police funding.

Look at the growing political assault on automated license plate reader systems, including Flock cameras. These systems have helped law enforcement investigate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to serious crimes, locate missing persons, and develop investigative leads. They are not a substitute for police officers, detectives, or sound investigative work. They are another tool.

Yet the political push to eliminate or restrict these systems is growing. The federal Ban Flock Act, introduced in October 2026, demonstrates that this debate is moving beyond local government and into Congress.

I support accountability. I have consistently argued that these systems need strong policies, access controls, audit trails, appropriate retention limits, and meaningful discipline for officers who misuse them. But there is a tremendous difference between preventing abuse and eliminating a legitimate investigative tool.

Why should a community lose an investigative resource because politicians would rather eliminate the technology than establish responsible oversight?

The same political philosophy is showing up in the debate over traffic enforcement.

Across the country, efforts are underway to restrict or eliminate pretextual traffic stops. I understand that traffic stops must be lawful, constitutional, and supported by legitimate legal grounds. But a lawful traffic stop based on an observed violation can also let an officer identify impaired drivers, locate wanted individuals, recover illegal firearms, discover stolen vehicles, and interrupt criminal activity.

That is police work.

In Illinois, former House Bill 4603, sponsored by Democratic Representative Justin Slaughter, proposed prohibiting officers from stopping vehicles for a lengthy list of violations, including expired registration, certain speeding violations, improper lane usage, equipment violations, excessive window tint, and seat belt violations. The legislation also proposed excluding evidence obtained from stops that violated those restrictions. The bill did not advance out of the 103rd General Assembly, but it shows exactly where some lawmakers want to take policing.

Think about that. A police officer observes a traffic violation, but legislators want to decide that the violation is no longer sufficient grounds for a stop.

What happens when that vehicle is being driven by someone with a suspended license, a wanted individual, or someone transporting an illegal firearm? What happens when a seemingly minor violation provides the first lawful opportunity to uncover a much more serious offense?

We should not be legislating blind spots into law enforcement.

And the pressure is not limited to legislation. Police chiefs are increasingly expected to manage their departments according to the political preferences of elected officials, advocacy organizations, and special-interest groups. Chiefs face pressure to shift enforcement priorities, restrict proactive policing, abandon effective strategies, and stay silent when political leaders publicly criticize their officers.

A police chief’s responsibility is to the Constitution, the law, the community, and the professional standards of the policing profession. A chief should not be expected to make operational decisions based on whether a mayor, governor, county board member, or state legislator will be politically offended.

Professional policing requires independent judgment, courage, experience, and leadership. It does not require political obedience.

NOW LET’S TALK ABOUT COOK COUNTY JUDGES.

One of the most disturbing lessons from this election is what happened in Cook County’s judicial retention races.

A November 4 CWBChicago report by Tim Hecke highlighted a result voters deserve to pay closer attention to. Every Cook County Circuit Court judge seeking retention appeared on track to receive the votes needed for another six-year term, including judges whose decisions in high-profile criminal cases drew considerable public criticism.

Judge Ursula Walowski received just over 62% support with 98% of precincts reporting. Injustice Watch had reported that higher courts overturned 25 of her decisions during her first six years on the bench, substantially more than the other five criminal court judges seeking retention.

Judge Teresa Molina-Gonzalez received more than 70% support. She had placed Lawrence Reed on electronic monitoring after he knocked out a psychiatric hospital social worker in August 2025. Three months later, Reed was accused of setting a woman on fire aboard a CTA Blue Line train.

Judge Tyria Walton received nearly 78% support. She had found a woman who ran over a Chicago police officer with his own squad car not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity.

These are serious judicial records and decisions that deserved scrutiny before voters walked into the voting booth.

Let me be clear: judges must be evaluated fairly. An overturned ruling does not automatically establish judicial misconduct, and judges must follow the law rather than public opinion. But judicial retention elections exist for a reason. Voters must examine judicial performance, qualifications, records, and decisions before deciding whether someone deserves another six-year term.

So I have a question for Cook County voters: Did you do your homework?

Did you research these judges? Did you examine their records, read about controversial decisions, look at appellate reversals, and understand the consequences of retaining them? Or did you vote down the ballot based on party affiliation, familiar names, or political endorsements?

How can voters express frustration about repeat offenders, violent crime, and a criminal justice system that they believe is failing, and then give every judge seeking retention another six years without seriously examining the record?

Voters need to answer that question.

Judges have enormous influence over public safety. Their decisions affect pretrial detention, sentencing, probation, accountability, and the consequences offenders face after committing crimes. They are not legislators, and they do not make police department policies. But their decisions can have direct consequences for victims, police officers, and the communities we serve.

Judicial elections matter. Retention elections matter. Doing your homework matters.

Another remarkable contrast appears in Chicago’s election results.

While voters overwhelmingly supported reinstating gunshot-detection technology such as ShotSpotter in a nonbinding referendum, they also overwhelmingly voted to retain every judge on the Cook County retention ballot.

Those are two separate decisions, and both deserve examination. But the judicial results should concern anyone who believes voters must hold the criminal justice system accountable.

PUBLIC SAFETY CANNOT BE SOMETHING YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT WHEN YOU BECOME A VICTIM.

I am tired of hearing citizens complain about crime, slow police response times, inadequate staffing, retail theft, repeat offenders, and the lack of police visibility while refusing to participate in elections that determine the policies affecting those very issues.

If a problem personally affects you, suddenly you become interested. If your neighborhood experiences a shooting, your vehicle is stolen, your business is burglarized, or your family becomes a victim, public safety becomes a priority.

But when Election Day arrives, too many people go about their normal routines and leave policing decisions to everyone else.

You cannot sit on the sidelines, refuse to research candidates, refuse to vote for public safety, and then complain when the policies you ignored begin affecting your community.

Voting matters. Local elections matter. State legislative races matter. Judicial retention elections matter. The people elected to these positions influence police budgets, staffing, enforcement policies, prosecutors, courts, and the future of law enforcement.

Public safety is not a political spectator sport. It requires participation.

I also have a message for Democrats who won these elections: winning an election does not give anyone a mandate to undermine the police. It does not mean eliminating every police tool, restricting every enforcement strategy, or pressuring every police chief to adopt an ideological agenda.

And Republicans should understand something as well. Supporting law enforcement cannot be just an election-year talking point. It requires sustained funding, meaningful legislation, recruitment initiatives, officer safety protections, and a willingness to stand behind professional policing even when it becomes politically uncomfortable.

I am not asking elected officials to give police a blank check. I am asking them to stop treating the police as an institution that must continually surrender resources, authority, and professional independence to satisfy political demands.

We should have legitimate conversations about privacy, accountability, transparency, training, and police misconduct. Those conversations should happen. But they must be grounded in facts, evidence, constitutional principles, and an understanding of how policing actually works.

What we cannot afford is policymaking based on political slogans, ideological activism, and an assumption that restricting police activity automatically makes communities safer. It does not.

The midterm elections are over. The political landscape has changed. Police chiefs across America need to recognize that the next two years could bring an even more aggressive push to reshape policing through legislation, funding restrictions, technology bans, and political pressure.

We cannot afford complacency.

I have spent my career believing that most police officers come to work every day wanting to do the right thing, protect people, and go home safely to their families. They deserve leadership that supports them, elected officials who understand the realities of their profession, and communities willing to stand up for public safety.

“You can’t demand safer streets while backing policies that make it harder for police officers to keep them safe.”

-Chief Tom Weitzel (Ret.)

America needs strong police leadership, not politically controlled police leadership. It needs accountability, not the dismantling of law enforcement. It needs investment in public safety, not another round of restrictions that leave officers with fewer resources and communities with fewer protections.

The question following these midterm elections is not simply whether Democrats or Republicans won. It is whether the winners understand what is at stake, and whether the citizens who elected them bothered to learn what they actually stand for.

Because if the political war on professional policing continues, the consequences will not be felt in congressional offices or campaign headquarters.

They will be felt on our streets, in our neighborhoods, in our businesses, and by the very citizens who will be demanding answers when something goes terribly wrong.

And by then, it will be too late to pretend nobody saw it coming.

-30-

About the Author: Chief Tom Weitzel is a retired police chief from Riverside, Illinois; a Fellow of Law Enforcement at Awake Illinois; an Illinois ambassador for the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund; and an Advisory Council Member at Citizens Behind the Badge. Opinions are his own.