A Break Down About The Minnesota Standoff: Political Drama Ahead of the 2025 Session

[00:00:12] Welcome to The Break Down with Brodkorb and Becky, a weekly podcast that breaks down politics, policy, and current affairs. I'm Becky Scherr.

[00:00:19] And I'm Michael Brodkorb.

[00:00:20] The legislative session has not even started, but things are already heating up. Today we are going to continue our conversation surrounding the residency issue in HD 40B that has led to Republicans holding a one-seat majority over the Democrats for the time being.

[00:00:34] We are excited to welcome Republican Majority Leader Harry Niska back to the podcast to help us break down all of the chaos that is unfolding in the days leading up to the start of the 2025 Session.

[00:00:45] With Leader Niska, we will break down the Democrats' recent decision to not show up to work on day one and the Republicans' plan to move forward without them.

[00:00:53] We will then hit on what Governor Walz and Secretary of State Steve Simon think about the matter and the potential legal and political ramifications of it all.

[00:01:03] And because we like to keep things balanced, we will bring on our favorite resident Democrat, Julius Hernandez, to give us a different perspective on the situation at hand.

[00:01:12] Then we will get into the controversies related to the special elections in HD 40B and Senate District 60.

[00:01:19] For one, the MNGOP have filed a lawsuit, and for the other, a potential residency issue is in play for one of the new candidates.

[00:01:26] Thanks so much for joining us, and enjoy the show!

[00:01:29] So, Michael, before we get to all things Minnesota-related, we want to touch on a national subject.

[00:01:35] Do you want to kick things off for us?

[00:01:37] Jimmy Carter passed away a few days ago, and he is now lying in state at the U.S. Capitol today.

[00:01:45] He passed away on December 29th at the age of 100.

[00:01:49] And I just have to say to you that I got to meet Jimmy Carter once, came to Minnesota in the 2000s.

[00:01:56] He was here for, I think it was for a Habitat Humanity event, and he was near the Capitol area, and it was pretty special.

[00:02:04] I wasn't, contrary to probably the ageism that I experienced, I was not able to vote in the 76 or 80 election.

[00:02:11] I didn't vote until the 92 election, but Jimmy Carter is someone who I think tried to lead.

[00:02:17] First of all, people can disagree with his various policies on a variety of subjects,

[00:02:24] but there's no question that Jimmy Carter tried, led with his heart and his beliefs.

[00:02:29] And I think that he did a lot as president to try to increase the standards and the ethics inside the White House.

[00:02:42] He came in at a time of tremendous conflict in the aftermath of Watergate and Nixon.

[00:02:47] He ran against Jerry Ford, President Ford in 76, and beat him.

[00:02:51] And so I think that Jimmy Carter, we can disagree about policies and perspectives,

[00:02:56] but I think in his heart, he was a good person, and he tried to lead that way,

[00:03:00] and he had a charm and wit about him that, and he was, and again,

[00:03:06] I know people disagree with his policies and stuff, but I just want to acknowledge

[00:03:09] that he is someone I think who tried to be, and I think was, led a type of life of service.

[00:03:18] And I want to go back, I don't know who said it first, but someone on social media once said,

[00:03:22] you should try to live your life as if your funeral is going to be televised.

[00:03:26] And Jimmy Carter's funeral is going to be televised, and him lying in state,

[00:03:31] and there's going to be an entire discussion of that.

[00:03:33] And so my thoughts and prayers to the Carter family during this difficult time,

[00:03:37] and Jimmy Carter had a place in American history,

[00:03:40] and I hope history is kind to him as they are to all of our leaders,

[00:03:46] and I just wanted to just take a moment to just acknowledge he is my wife's favorite ex-president

[00:03:52] because of his dedication to volunteering, Habitat for Humanity, his servant life.

[00:04:00] And yes, I'm sure that I'm going to get comments and DMs about all the other things

[00:04:04] that people want to complain about with Jimmy Carter.

[00:04:06] That's fine. Go ahead and do that.

[00:04:07] I'm not doing that today.

[00:04:09] I just wanted to acknowledge his passing because this is a political podcast,

[00:04:12] and it's a historic moment, and I just wanted to share my little thoughts on former President Carter.

[00:04:20] No, I love that.

[00:04:21] And obviously this was before my time that he was president,

[00:04:26] but I think it is the type of president that reading in history books growing up

[00:04:32] is why I fell in love with government and democracy and how our nation was founded

[00:04:38] and that we had presidents that we could look up to and strive to be more like.

[00:04:44] And Jimmy Carter certainly embodied that.

[00:04:46] Again, I'm not saying that I believe in a lot of his policies or bills that he championed,

[00:04:52] but the fact that he is almost as much well-known now as his efforts volunteering in Habitat for Humanity

[00:04:59] as he is for his presidency is just a true testament to who he was and what he really believed to his core

[00:05:08] and something that we just don't necessarily see from our presidents these days.

[00:05:14] Not to name any names, but it's not exactly what I think of when I think of Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

[00:05:20] And so it's just a, he gives you the warm and fuzzies.

[00:05:24] And I think that's something that I wish we could get back to when it comes to the leader of the free world

[00:05:30] and everything that it means for our nation.

[00:05:32] And so it is nice to read the stories and to hear the tributes that have been offered about him from other leaders

[00:05:39] and his friends and family.

[00:05:41] Yeah, big week.

[00:05:42] And I appreciate you kicking us off the show with that.

[00:05:44] One important Minnesota angle was he, of course, picked United States Senator Walter Mondale to be his running mate.

[00:05:52] And one thing, a couple of things.

[00:05:54] I think Carter really worked, the relationship between Mondale and Carter transformed the role of the vice president.

[00:06:02] There was, Walter Mondale came in with the blessing of Jimmy Carter

[00:06:08] and really transformed the responsibilities of that office,

[00:06:11] elevated the stature of that office to what I think it is now.

[00:06:14] He also, Jimmy Carter also did a lot of things regarding just how he would serve in office.

[00:06:20] And if you look about, look at that 76 campaign.

[00:06:24] Again, I was in 76 at the election.

[00:06:27] I was two and a half years old when Jimmy Carter was elected,

[00:06:31] three and a half years old when Jimmy Carter was elected.

[00:06:33] And so it's interesting to see how he ran that campaign,

[00:06:37] his charm, his appeal as a Southern Democrat running in that state and winning the presidency.

[00:06:43] That was his charm and his appeal and his kind of homespun kind of demeanor,

[00:06:48] which he carried all throughout his life.

[00:06:50] He'll be missed.

[00:06:51] And thank you for allowing us to have a few minutes just to talk about his passing.

[00:06:55] Absolutely.

[00:06:56] Absolutely.

[00:06:56] We are excited to welcome back one of my favorite people around.

[00:06:59] And of course, one of our experts on the matter at hand,

[00:07:03] Republican Majority Leader, I'm going to call you right now,

[00:07:06] Harry Niska, Leader Niska.

[00:07:08] So it's been a big week.

[00:07:10] Democrats announced on Monday that they are currently planning on not showing up,

[00:07:15] at least for day one, if not for two weeks,

[00:07:18] as we are in between the special election, which is also up in the air.

[00:07:22] We'll get to more of that later for the residency issue in House District 40B.

[00:07:28] Talk to us a little bit about what Leader Hortman says,

[00:07:31] why they are doing this, and does it hold up?

[00:07:35] As far as I can understand, Democrats are demanding two things that they're not entitled to.

[00:07:41] And if they don't get those two things, then they're not going to show up on day one.

[00:07:45] The two things that they're demanding is that instead of proceeding with the members

[00:07:50] of a legislative body who show up on day one and doing the things that normally happen when

[00:07:56] there are vacant seats and one party has the ability to organize,

[00:08:01] they are demanding that we not do that.

[00:08:04] And they are demanding that we, in addition to not doing that,

[00:08:07] that we don't carry out our constitutional duty,

[00:08:10] if it comes to that in the Shakopee case,

[00:08:14] to deal with a challenge that might come before the House.

[00:08:17] They want us to prejudge that and to just say that we are going to decide in favor of Brad Tabke

[00:08:23] in that case.

[00:08:24] And if we don't do those two things,

[00:08:27] the two things that no one,

[00:08:28] no minority is ever entitled to demand coming into a legislative body,

[00:08:33] then they say they're just not going to show up for work on day one,

[00:08:35] on the day that the statute, Minnesota statutory law says the House must convene.

[00:08:41] Sixty-seven Republicans are going to show up.

[00:08:43] We hope that 66 Democrats will show up.

[00:08:46] But according to Hortman and Leader Hortman yesterday and Representative Long,

[00:08:51] they are not going to show up.

[00:08:53] So Hortman said in the press conference yesterday,

[00:08:55] if there's no power sharing agreement, we will not be there.

[00:08:57] We are not going to show up and have them, meaning Republicans,

[00:09:01] illegitimately seize power.

[00:09:02] Now, we've spent a lot of time talking to you.

[00:09:04] We've spent a lot of time speaking to former Speaker Kurt Dowd on the matter,

[00:09:09] reading state statues, seeing what the reporters are saying.

[00:09:12] Go a little into this illegitimately seizing power and how, from my perspective,

[00:09:17] and I assume yours, that's just not the case.

[00:09:21] Yeah, the idea that a legislative body doesn't convene and do whatever a legislative body can do

[00:09:27] on the date that it's supposed to do it just makes no sense.

[00:09:30] That's what every legislative body everywhere in the entire democratic world does.

[00:09:36] And a power sharing agreement only happens in a very rare situation where that body shows up

[00:09:44] and they can't do something basic.

[00:09:46] In 1979, they couldn't elect a speaker because it was tied 67 to 67.

[00:09:51] Other legislative bodies have done that.

[00:09:53] The Senate may have to do that.

[00:09:55] When it shows up on the same day and is tied 33-33,

[00:09:59] they are going to have to work out something about how they organize.

[00:10:02] But that's when a power sharing agreement happens.

[00:10:07] And we were obviously planning for that possibility.

[00:10:11] It was pretty open and honest and obvious to everyone.

[00:10:14] That was only a possibility.

[00:10:16] Starting on election night, both Leader Damath and Leader Hortman, then Speaker Hortman,

[00:10:24] were on Almanac very shortly after.

[00:10:27] And they were talking about, for example, the possibility of a member switching parties.

[00:10:32] And both of them were very open about the fact that would change the calculus.

[00:10:35] And then there wouldn't be a power sharing situation.

[00:10:39] And that's what would have happened, right?

[00:10:41] If a Democrat would have joined our caucus or a Republican would have joined their caucus,

[00:10:46] obviously nobody would have been talking about reneging on a power sharing agreement

[00:10:49] because that's not a situation where a power sharing agreement is necessary.

[00:10:55] The idea that there's reneging or that Democrats are entitled to any of the things that they're

[00:11:01] demanding in exchange for just showing up for work doesn't really hold up.

[00:11:07] Representative, I was curious.

[00:11:08] Is there any historical context or examples that you can think of legislators not showing up?

[00:11:15] Now, we've heard a little bit stories of other states this is happening in.

[00:11:19] The only thing that I can remember, and I'm remembering this from my government class in

[00:11:23] college, wasn't there, I believe there was a legislator who hit a bill regarding moving

[00:11:28] the state capitol from St. Paul down to St. Peter.

[00:11:32] Maybe that's an urban legend.

[00:11:33] But I'm not aware of any mass or a strategic decision by legislators to not show up to work.

[00:11:41] Is there anything in your experience, in your legislative review of history or anything that

[00:11:46] you've come across where there's any precedent or example of this happening?

[00:11:50] In other states, it has happened, especially in states where there's a supermajority quorum

[00:11:55] requirement.

[00:11:56] So I remember there was an instance in Texas where they have a higher threshold for quorum

[00:12:00] where the Texas Democrats left and went out of state.

[00:12:04] Similar things have happened in other states.

[00:12:07] In Minnesota, there have been times where people have delayed showing up for a call of the House

[00:12:12] or a call of the Senate just to slow things down.

[00:12:15] But in terms of a one side saying, we don't even the way how this body would organize, and

[00:12:23] so we're just not going to show up in the first place because we don't like the natural consequences

[00:12:28] of democracy and election law and how all of those things interplay.

[00:12:33] We think that the results are bad from our perspective, so we're just not going to show up.

[00:12:37] I've never heard of an instance like that.

[00:12:39] Certainly not one where you have clear law that says on this day, the legislature meets

[00:12:46] in this place, and one party decides they don't like the results of following that law, so

[00:12:51] they're just not going to do it.

[00:12:52] One quick follow-up question.

[00:12:54] Procedurally on that day, if something were to happen, let's say they don't show up, what

[00:12:59] institutional authority or power do you have to go and gather them and compel them?

[00:13:07] Is there some, do you dispatch the Sergeant at Arms, Tommy Lee Jones and the Fugitive,

[00:13:13] and say, we want a hard target search for every outhouse, former house, and bring them

[00:13:17] in?

[00:13:17] What procedurally can you do to compel them to come in?

[00:13:22] So the details of that are a little unclear, but the Constitution is clear that there is authority

[00:13:27] of each house to do that.

[00:13:29] The tradition of the House is to say, you do a call of the House and you ask the Sergeant

[00:13:34] at Arms to bring in the absent members.

[00:13:36] We do have to organize potentially to clear up some of the authority around that.

[00:13:41] There is a temporary resolution right now.

[00:13:43] As we speak, none of us are really even members of the legislature because our terms ended earlier

[00:13:49] this week and the new terms don't start until Tuesday.

[00:13:53] I think if none of the Democrats show up, potentially they're not members of the House.

[00:13:58] I'm not sure how they think they're going to get paychecks.

[00:14:01] As Leader Hartman said, they're going to get paid and they're going to plan to take

[00:14:05] paychecks even if they don't show up for work.

[00:14:07] But there are a lot of things we can do and we're going to make sure that we do have the

[00:14:11] ability to organize and to move forward with the people's business on day one, like state

[00:14:15] law requires us to do.

[00:14:17] I do want to touch on the quorum issue because Hartman says she is confident that Secretary

[00:14:22] of State Steve Simon is going to determine that 67 members does not meet quorum.

[00:14:28] However, when we look at Mason's rules, which are currently the 2023-2024 rules that are,

[00:14:36] from my understanding, the temporary ones until permanent ones are in, and I saw some tweets

[00:14:41] that you put out last night, which if you're not following Harry Niska on Twitter, please

[00:14:45] go do it.

[00:14:45] It is a fascinating and great follow.

[00:14:48] You tweeted some differences between the Minnesota Constitution and U.S. Constitution, all of which

[00:14:53] kind of allude to the fact that there would be a quorum.

[00:14:58] Talk to us a little bit about what that looks like.

[00:15:01] And, you know, Secretary of State's office says, didn't really give an answer.

[00:15:06] Supporting Hortman just said that they're consulting with nonpartisan staff legal counsel,

[00:15:10] reviewing rules, laws, everything of that sort.

[00:15:13] Sure.

[00:15:14] So the key language here is from the Minnesota Constitution that says a majority of each house

[00:15:19] constitutes a quorum to transact business.

[00:15:21] So it's a question of what a majority of each house is.

[00:15:26] Some, or the assumption has been in the past in Minnesota that majority of each house would

[00:15:32] be 68 for the house, as long as the house is defined as having 134 members.

[00:15:37] But on day one, on January 14th, the house will have 133 members.

[00:15:44] Maybe it will have 67 members if 67 members actually take the oath of office.

[00:15:49] And so the question is whether the quorum requirement is reduced by when you're interpreting

[00:15:56] that language, whether the quorum requirement is reduced by vacancies.

[00:15:59] And the U.S. Constitution does have almost identical language in the U.S.

[00:16:04] house has interpreted that language to mean that when the membership has been reduced, for

[00:16:09] some reason, the quorum requirement gets reduced to a majority of that reduced number.

[00:16:13] In the past, it's always been assumed that quorum number is 68 in Minnesota.

[00:16:18] Obviously, when it comes to operations of a body itself, at the end of the day, the body

[00:16:24] is the final authority on a lot of issues that relate to how you interpret law that applies

[00:16:31] to that body.

[00:16:32] And we certainly would hope that Secretary Simon wouldn't take that ceremonial role that's

[00:16:38] given to him in the statute to open the house and use that to somehow thwart the ability of

[00:16:44] the house to decide how it can and whether it can even be organized based on 66 members

[00:16:50] deciding not to show up.

[00:16:52] I was told there would be no math.

[00:16:54] It's very easy math.

[00:16:56] Thank you.

[00:16:57] Even lawyers can do this level of math.

[00:16:59] Thank you.

[00:16:59] I know we just have a couple more minutes with you.

[00:17:02] I do want to get into just briefly potential ramifications should Democrats follow through

[00:17:08] of this.

[00:17:08] Aside from what actually means for house conducting business on day one and in the two weeks ahead

[00:17:15] of the special election, Damath and Republicans have said there is the possibility of moving

[00:17:21] forward with recalls.

[00:17:22] Talk to us a little bit about that.

[00:17:25] If that would be something that is possible under statute and law and if that's something

[00:17:30] that Republicans or anyone would seek to push forward.

[00:17:35] So the Minnesota Constitution has recall provisions for legislators, members of the House or the

[00:17:40] Senate and says that they can be subject to a recall petition for misfeasance or nonfeasance.

[00:17:45] Nonfeasance means not refusing to do a duty that you are required to do.

[00:17:50] Obviously, the Minnesota statutes 3.05 says the House convenes on this date.

[00:17:56] If you don't show up for that and you don't show up for no good reason, basically, because

[00:18:00] you just don't want the House to operate, then you repeat that and repeat that.

[00:18:05] I think in the context of a legislator, I'm not sure what nonfeasance of office would mean

[00:18:10] if it doesn't include that.

[00:18:11] I do think that there's a real concern that voters in each district can decide whether

[00:18:17] they want to then go forward with a recall petition.

[00:18:20] There is also, you talked about the 40B, the timing of the 40B election.

[00:18:24] One really important thing about that is that's the subject of a case in the Minnesota Supreme

[00:18:29] Court right now.

[00:18:29] It's being challenged that Governor Walz didn't have the authority to issue the writ on the

[00:18:35] date that he did.

[00:18:35] Under the statute that applies to election contests, the House can expedite the time which

[00:18:42] he can issue that writ by passing a resolution saying that the House isn't going to take any

[00:18:46] further action on the election contest.

[00:18:49] Obviously, we would like the people of 40B to have representation as soon as possible within

[00:18:56] the bounds of the law.

[00:18:57] That requires the House to organize and pass that kind of a resolution, which is something

[00:19:01] that we're talking about doing on day one, if we are able to, when we do get organized

[00:19:06] on day one.

[00:19:07] It would be really Democrats who are trying to delay the people of 40B being represented

[00:19:12] in that circumstance if they choose not to show up and slow down that timeframe.

[00:19:17] The Minnesota Supreme Court is taking that case seriously.

[00:19:19] They have an argument scheduled for that on the 15th, on the second day of session.

[00:19:24] And yeah, there are a lot of consequences if Democrats choose not to show up.

[00:19:28] Obviously, it's not going to be very productive doing the work that Minnesotans expect us to

[00:19:33] do, trying to work on investigating the fraud in the executive branch, trying to work on

[00:19:37] reducing taxes, trying to work on reducing energy prices, grocery prices, public safety,

[00:19:44] all the things that Minnesotans expect us to actually be working on instead of worrying

[00:19:48] about whether someone's a committee chair or not a committee chair or the co-speaker or

[00:19:53] just the minority leader.

[00:19:55] At the end of the day, obviously, in the current alignment, Republicans and Democrats are going

[00:19:59] to have to work together on these substantive things.

[00:20:02] We think, frankly, this just shows that probably the only productive way to do it is to have

[00:20:06] responsible Republican leadership in the House working with Governor Walz and however the Senate

[00:20:11] ends up and trying to find some Democrats in the House who are willing to work with us

[00:20:16] on whatever we're able to work out that could get Republican votes in the House.

[00:20:19] Nothing like a whole lot of chaos before session has even started.

[00:20:22] We really appreciate your time today, Leader Niska.

[00:20:25] If there's as things evolve, hopefully we'll get to chat with you a little bit more, but

[00:20:29] we'll stay tuned.

[00:20:30] We'll continue to talk about this.

[00:20:32] And hey, we have one of our resident Democrats coming up next to get a different perspective

[00:20:37] on it.

[00:20:37] So thank you so much for your time.

[00:20:39] And thanks for having me.

[00:20:41] Thank you, sir.

[00:20:42] We are now excited to be joined by our resident Democrat or one of the Julius Hernandez.

[00:20:49] Julius, we just spoke with Leader Niska.

[00:20:51] As you can expect when it comes to the situation going on in the House right now and all of the

[00:20:58] chaos leading up to a session that has not even started, you guys might have some differing

[00:21:02] of opinions on this matter.

[00:21:04] So very interested to get your perspective.

[00:21:06] Let's start with on Monday of this week, Leader Hortman came out and said, if there's no power

[00:21:13] sharing agreement, we are not going to be there.

[00:21:15] We're not going to show up and have Republicans illegitimately seize power.

[00:21:19] Do you agree with the strategy and messaging from the Democrats to not show up day one, at

[00:21:25] the very least, potentially the first two weeks of the legislative session until we resolve

[00:21:29] that special election in 40B?

[00:21:31] Yeah, 100%.

[00:21:33] It's so it's honestly ridiculous.

[00:21:35] It's ridiculous to me that anyone would say that it's that Democrats should show up to

[00:21:42] work and legitimize this like illegitimate power grab that Republicans are doing it.

[00:21:47] If let's just I don't like dealing in hypotheticals too much, but let's just deal in one.

[00:21:51] If this was the other way around, Republicans would do the same exact thing because they

[00:21:56] would say that Democrats are trying to take power illegitimately when there was an agreement

[00:22:00] in place between the two parties.

[00:22:02] So yeah, they should absolutely not show up to the Capitol.

[00:22:05] They can still do work in their districts.

[00:22:07] They can still go talk to constituents and they can also inform them.

[00:22:10] The reason we're not at the Capitol is because Republicans are trying to subvert the will of

[00:22:14] the Minnesotan voters that said this is a tied chamber.

[00:22:17] When all is said and done, it will be a tied chamber and we're not going to show up until

[00:22:22] the agreement that was put in place is honored.

[00:22:24] And this operates as a tied chamber.

[00:22:26] I have so many comments already off this, starting with let's go back to your hypothetical.

[00:22:33] Okay.

[00:22:34] Can can we agree that if the roles were reversed, Democrats would be also operating under the

[00:22:40] assumption that they have the majority?

[00:22:43] Well, so no.

[00:22:45] And here's why.

[00:22:46] Here's why I think why.

[00:22:47] Let's be let's be let's be wait.

[00:22:49] Let's be really clear about why Republicans are have not won a majority in the House, let alone

[00:22:56] a statewide race in two decades in the House.

[00:22:58] They haven't won since what?

[00:22:59] 2017 or 2018 is the last time they had a majority in the House.

[00:23:02] And so the DFL is in a completely different standing where they people actually want them

[00:23:08] to govern and they are.

[00:23:09] And there they've been we had we just had a trifecta and you guys couldn't even take

[00:23:13] one chamber of any of those.

[00:23:15] And by the way, when all the votes are counted, you guys still lost the popular vote among

[00:23:20] all the House races votes combined.

[00:23:23] But what I would say is there's a difference between a party that has been in power for

[00:23:26] two decades and has held more majorities in all the chambers combined than one that hasn't

[00:23:32] had one in a very long time and is attempting to take it when they didn't even win the popular

[00:23:37] vote of all the races combined.

[00:23:39] It's a very different it's a very different like standing.

[00:23:43] I love this already because I could not be on the opposite side of this all from you.

[00:23:49] Popular vote, popular vote.

[00:23:51] That is not a thing when it comes to the Minnesota legislature.

[00:23:54] So let's go back to it.

[00:23:57] Sure.

[00:23:58] Republicans haven't had the majority.

[00:24:00] And oh, my gosh, my mind is just spinning right now.

[00:24:02] So many things I want to say first.

[00:24:03] When it comes to 40B.

[00:24:05] Now you know what it's like, Becky, when you talk and I hear my head's just spinning.

[00:24:09] And when it comes to 40B, and we'll get into all of the chaos going on with the lawsuit

[00:24:14] in that district after we get through this part.

[00:24:17] But that's not Republicans fault.

[00:24:19] That's not Minnesota voters fault.

[00:24:20] That's the Democrats for not properly vetting their candidate and having a candidate who was

[00:24:25] not able to run in that seat or win that seat or be seated in that seat.

[00:24:30] So that is the issue of the Democrats.

[00:24:32] That's nobody's fault but theirs.

[00:24:36] And to your comment of them showing up and still being able to do their job by meeting

[00:24:40] with constituents, if they don't show up to get sworn in, are they not in power?

[00:24:46] Are they not actually there?

[00:24:48] Are they not actually working?

[00:24:49] You have to be sworn in to have these seats.

[00:24:52] Otherwise, we have 67 Republicans representing the state of Minnesota.

[00:24:57] Well, let me ask you a question.

[00:24:58] And it was a good point you made about 40B.

[00:25:01] I want to clarify with this one.

[00:25:03] You will not see me defend the candidate in 40B.

[00:25:05] It's wrong.

[00:25:06] That's a matter of fact.

[00:25:07] It was wrong.

[00:25:08] He lied.

[00:25:09] Whether the DFL leadership knew about it or not is up for question.

[00:25:12] And it's a legitimate question to be asked.

[00:25:14] But that's not what the matter of fact is at this point.

[00:25:21] And we'll get to the 40B.

[00:25:23] But let me go back to the question I was going to ask you.

[00:25:25] Does all of this change the fact that the House at the end of the day will be tied?

[00:25:36] And does that legitimize Republicans to go ahead and steal the speakership illegitimately and keep it for two years under the premise that this will be a tied house?

[00:25:47] Right or wrong?

[00:25:48] In my opinion, and here's what I'll say.

[00:25:50] My opinion to this question is one I formed, which is at the end of the day, this house will be tied.

[00:25:54] And there was a power sharing agreement that gave Hortman and Damath the ability to both lead the House together.

[00:26:02] And the other part of that is why did illegitimate Speaker Damath go on TV yesterday and say that she is not considering right now whether they're going to go back to the power sharing agreement once the House goes there?

[00:26:14] So the question is, does it legitimize their ability to take the House if they go to work?

[00:26:19] And should Republicans take this as an opportunity to subvert the will of the voters by taking the House for themselves and the position of power of the speakership?

[00:26:28] I think all fair questions.

[00:26:30] I think my response to that is that it takes for granted that this seat in 40B is a Democrat safe seat.

[00:26:37] If we were looking at a seat that was more of a battleground seat, you couldn't say that.

[00:26:42] And I feel like it gives some credence to it.

[00:26:45] It gives some power to saying it's OK if you don't operate fully under the residency issues or under the laws set forward for candidacy requirements because we'll just do a special and we can all fix it later.

[00:27:00] Right.

[00:27:01] Like, I completely understand what you're saying, but I don't think it sets a good precedent to to look at it that way just simply because this is a safe DFL seat.

[00:27:12] And so I think they get a little wishy-washy about that.

[00:27:16] I do want to ask you, though, because obviously you have some thoughts on your quote, illegitimate Speaker Damath.

[00:27:23] But she just as Hortman was strong in her press conference on Monday, Leader Damath was also strong in her press conference on Monday, saying that 67 Republicans are willing to show up and present or do their job and show up for the Minnesota people.

[00:27:37] Sixty seven or 66 Democrats are not willing to show up.

[00:27:41] They're not willing to just have the gavel down, to get sworn in, to start the organizational power that we need,

[00:27:49] which means that essentially two weeks go by in a relatively short session that absolutely nothing can get done.

[00:27:57] From 67 to 66, there is an organizational majority.

[00:28:01] We all understand that to pass most laws aside from speakership and what that is.

[00:28:06] The 68 votes do come into play.

[00:28:10] But what's your take on the Republicans planning to move forward with this?

[00:28:14] Good for them.

[00:28:15] It's the only time they're going to ever have any semblance of power in the House.

[00:28:18] And so good for them.

[00:28:20] You know what?

[00:28:20] It's it to me, it's if you want to play if you want to play pretend, then play pretend.

[00:28:25] But the reality is, again, that these they are operate.

[00:28:29] You're right, Brecky.

[00:28:30] We're operating under the premises of the DFL safe district.

[00:28:32] And I agree with you.

[00:28:33] If this was if this situation was happening in a battleground district, I and I told Michael this yesterday on the phone,

[00:28:39] I would absolutely be fine with Republicans taking the majority because at that point, we don't know what's going to happen.

[00:28:45] And then if we get to a tied house in a in a in a battleground district, it'd be a different story.

[00:28:51] But like you said, this is a safe DFL district.

[00:28:54] No Republican is going to win.

[00:28:56] And so we're not operating under the premise of uncertainty.

[00:28:59] We're operating under the premise of certainty, which is this will be a tied house.

[00:29:03] And by the way, Republicans keep saying that they have a majority.

[00:29:07] 68 votes is a majority.

[00:29:09] 67 is not.

[00:29:11] So it doesn't it really doesn't matter to me if they want to show up and play pretend that work.

[00:29:16] They can.

[00:29:17] But I am more than happy to see Democrats not show up and not allow them to make an illegitimate power grab.

[00:29:24] So I'm going to start with one question and then I want to get back to your 68 equals a majority because I got some questions about that.

[00:29:31] Don't you think, though, that it sets a questionable precedent if we say in this situation, we still are tied and just go to a special election because of the residency challenge.

[00:29:43] And it's going to be tied anyways.

[00:29:44] Don't you think that opens up for in future elections for if they can't find a candidate to file, they just throw any name on the ballot.

[00:29:52] It moves forward.

[00:29:53] Then we go to a special election because what's going to be a Democrat anyways.

[00:29:57] So it gives them an extra six, eight, nine months to find a candidate to fill that.

[00:30:02] Because then it would be precedent under state law.

[00:30:05] Then it would be precedent under case under history for them to say in this situation, it was going to still be tied.

[00:30:11] It was still going to be go towards the Democrats or whatever it looks like.

[00:30:15] I just that's what makes me uncomfortable here.

[00:30:18] I understand.

[00:30:19] I understand the question.

[00:30:20] And I actually think you make a fair point.

[00:30:22] But what I would push back with is the idea that both of the parties are going to then at some point put someone in there just to put someone in there that doesn't live in the district for this precedent of getting special elections.

[00:30:34] And I think is a little far fetched only because you see the backlash that the DFL is getting now.

[00:30:39] They have learned their lesson, right?

[00:30:40] Because now they're going through that.

[00:30:42] No, hold on.

[00:30:43] Let's be very clear.

[00:30:44] They have learned their lesson.

[00:30:45] They're getting the backlash.

[00:30:46] They're going through a situation where they're losing their ability to govern.

[00:30:50] And also, they are legitimizing Republicans looking like an organized and solidified party.

[00:30:56] It doesn't make any sense for the DFL to do that anymore.

[00:30:59] And to be quite frank with you, again, the questions about if they knew and why they didn't they do anything are very fair.

[00:31:05] And they should be answered.

[00:31:06] They should.

[00:31:07] With truth and honesty.

[00:31:08] But I think that the idea that somehow they're going to continue to fake election residencies so that they can get special elections in the future doesn't really make sense to me in the long run.

[00:31:19] And I think it's not a PR crisis they're willing to deal with more than once.

[00:31:23] I appreciate your confidence in the political party.

[00:31:27] And Republicans could do the same thing.

[00:31:28] But again, the reality is we this is the situation we're in.

[00:31:32] And I see that I see the question.

[00:31:34] But I think if you're a caucus, if you're the leader of the caucus, are you going to say, let's put up someone who makes people not confident in their elections?

[00:31:43] Right.

[00:31:43] Like the DFL.

[00:31:44] No, because the listen.

[00:31:45] Wait, hold on.

[00:31:46] I wasn't agree.

[00:31:46] I was agreeing with your.

[00:31:48] OK, yeah.

[00:31:48] You're lying.

[00:31:49] Sorry.

[00:31:49] I thought you were saying no.

[00:31:50] But I'm saying like it doesn't.

[00:31:52] The DFL has the Democrats nationally and the DFL have run on this idea that Republicans are undermining elections for the last four years.

[00:31:59] And that's that is and for them to then go and start undermining elections would not make sense.

[00:32:05] And it would make them look illegitimate even more than maybe this situation does now.

[00:32:09] So I agree.

[00:32:10] I agree with the premise of the question.

[00:32:11] I don't think, though, that it's I don't think that it's something that's realistic for the DFL as a long term strategy in the future.

[00:32:19] So that's what I'll say about that.

[00:32:20] I have one question for Julius and I'll turn it over.

[00:32:22] Then I have a question for both of you.

[00:32:23] Julius, if you've gotten some branding opportunity with the word illegitimate because you're thrown in around a lot.

[00:32:29] Like, are you getting paid on this podcast every time you mention it?

[00:32:32] I just want to say I did start saying that before the official line of the DFL was illegitimate.

[00:32:38] It honestly, a lot of syllables and it just it threw me off when I first started using it.

[00:32:43] No, listen, it is what it is, right?

[00:32:44] They're illegitimate.

[00:32:45] I don't know.

[00:32:46] Can I ask you both about this, about the bigger perspective is on Democrats not showing up?

[00:32:51] Let's just talk about and what if they don't show up specifically.

[00:32:55] We discussed this with Leader Niska a moment ago and there is some, there may be some procedural and administrative things they can do to compel Democrats to show up.

[00:33:08] Number one, your thoughts on the visuals of them not showing up because I'll have a comment on that later.

[00:33:13] But I want to get you guys' perspective on them not showing up and should the House do everything they can to compel them to show up?

[00:33:20] I'll start.

[00:33:21] I think the visuals are great for Republicans, awful for Democrats.

[00:33:25] I think it is so easy to take a picture of that House chamber and say your candidate X, Y, Z didn't show up for two weeks.

[00:33:35] And then the Democrats have to explain in my world of political communications, you're explaining you're losing.

[00:33:42] And so when it comes to elections in two years, those ads print themselves of that visual.

[00:33:47] The optics surrounding this are going to be really hard to compete with.

[00:33:51] And what was the second part of your question?

[00:33:53] Should, remember, because I asked Representative Niska, Leader Niska.

[00:33:56] Oh, what would be compelled to come back?

[00:33:57] Should something be done?

[00:33:58] I think he was unclear about what could be done, but sergeant at arms, something.

[00:34:03] Yeah, this is where I get a little weird because I certainly have visions of very traumatic kind of dragging members to the House chamber, which I don't think is allowed under state law or statute.

[00:34:20] But I do know that there's some situations such as in Wisconsin where troopers were sent out to go get members and bring them in.

[00:34:30] And so I don't know what level I feel like bringing them in.

[00:34:35] I feel like this is if you want to make your bed lay in it.

[00:34:38] And I don't know what that looks like then two weeks in when it goes back to 67, 67.

[00:34:45] But I'll hold that part for my next topic of the quorum and what that looks like.

[00:34:51] I'll let Julius get to his optics and what he thinks on the compelling side.

[00:34:56] Yeah, I'm not 100% certain what the House procedures and what that looks like.

[00:35:01] Here's what I will say.

[00:35:02] If Republicans are fine, want to send cops to drag members to the House, please do it.

[00:35:08] I would love to see it because when then it becomes a PR fight and what looks worse, people not showing up or people getting arrested to show up.

[00:35:15] It doesn't in my mind, they're not bold enough to do that.

[00:35:18] And also, I would still like to see what the other procedural things are.

[00:35:23] I'm sure a lot of these people are willing to sacrifice their pay to not show up for the next two weeks.

[00:35:27] And again, that's fine with me.

[00:35:30] Don't legitimize their attempt to play pretend for two weeks and have the majority for two weeks and then go back to having to figure out what the House looks like tied.

[00:35:39] It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[00:35:41] I don't think they'll compel them in any way procedurally.

[00:35:45] I just think it becomes a very slippery slope.

[00:35:47] I think we talked about Michael and what Becky said.

[00:35:49] But it's attack them on social media to say, hey, your representative's not there.

[00:35:54] And some of these, you know what?

[00:35:55] And I think, honestly, what I will say I didn't have the opinion of yesterday that I do have the opinion of now is some of these swing district DFLers might have to show up.

[00:36:05] But also in two years, are people going to remember this when they go to a ballot box?

[00:36:10] I don't know.

[00:36:11] We're giving a lot of voters who don't really engage super frequently credit, too much credit maybe, or maybe not enough.

[00:36:17] So it really depends.

[00:36:18] Julius, I feel compelled to tell you this because I tell this to my children and all members of my family.

[00:36:23] When I speak to you on the phone, our conversations are off the record.

[00:36:26] You can't later source them and reference back to a conversation.

[00:36:30] All of our conversations are off the record.

[00:36:31] Fair enough.

[00:36:32] Okay?

[00:36:32] I'm going to tell my kids that.

[00:36:34] Good point.

[00:36:34] They're not allowed to discuss anything inside our house.

[00:36:37] They all have NDAs.

[00:36:38] So let's just be clear about it.

[00:36:39] The second thing is, this has been just a fantastic debate between you two.

[00:36:45] Here's one thing I want.

[00:36:46] If this situation, and I'll get into this in a second, but I really, I have some visual concerns, which I'll get into a second.

[00:36:53] But you know what I would love?

[00:36:55] Is if the House Republicans got Tommy Lee Jones to come to the front side of the capitals.

[00:37:00] Let's see if I can pull this off.

[00:37:01] So I know this quote.

[00:37:02] All right, ladies and gentlemen, the fugitive has been on the run for 90 minutes.

[00:37:07] It's average foot speed over uneven ground barring injuries is four miles.

[00:37:14] That gives us a radius of six miles.

[00:37:16] What I want from each and every one of you is a hard target search.

[00:37:20] Every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse, and doghouse in that area.

[00:37:26] Checkpoints go up in 15 miles.

[00:37:28] Your fugitive's name is Dr. Richard Kimball.

[00:37:31] Go get him.

[00:37:33] Now that's what I would love to see.

[00:37:35] Now, if I got that quote that's going in the show, if I got it wrong, it's not.

[00:37:39] But I got to tell you something.

[00:37:40] Getting Tommy Lee Jones standing out on the front side of the Capitol saying checkpoints go up in 15 miles.

[00:37:45] Your fugitive's name is Dr. Richard Kimball.

[00:37:49] Go get him.

[00:37:49] That'd be fantastic messaging.

[00:37:51] I'll see what I could do for you.

[00:37:52] Let's talk about that for a second because one of the things that I've discussed is from a comms perspective, and Becky, you touched on this for a minute.

[00:38:00] From a comms perspective, from a research perspective, one of the best things you can have in a debate is an empty seat in an empty chair.

[00:38:09] And so I would argue that the visuals of 66, 67 House members not showing up and simultaneously wanting to get paid, I think is a very easy argument to sell.

[00:38:24] And so what I think is, I understand Julius is making some intel, he's attempting to make some intellectual points.

[00:38:31] And in many ways, I can understand the intellectual point he's trying to make.

[00:38:34] But Becky, you and I both understand the PR point.

[00:38:38] And the PR point is, I think it's tough to win a PR battle when there is a visual of 66, 67 empty seats and Republicans there.

[00:38:48] Because having listened to Speaker Hortman's press conference yesterday, one of the things that she noted is that Republicans have fought in the previous sessions on administrative matters and on rules.

[00:39:01] And so I would argue that from a PR standpoint, the better play would be to show up and fight rather than not show up to office.

[00:39:13] Now, I understand that doesn't give me the Tommy Lee Jones fugitive scenario that I've just discussed, but I'm all about what's best for democracy.

[00:39:21] And I think showing up and fighting is better.

[00:39:23] What's your guys' perspective on that?

[00:39:53] I agree.

[00:39:56] I agree.

[00:40:25] Democrats still have the majority in the Senate.

[00:40:27] They still have the governorship.

[00:40:29] It's not like allowing Republicans to be able to ramroad all of their agenda through here.

[00:40:36] The governor is still the ultimate backstop here.

[00:40:39] They still have the courts.

[00:40:40] Take the L.

[00:40:41] Show up for your job.

[00:40:42] Get paid by the taxpayers for doing what you're supposed to do.

[00:40:45] Otherwise, in two years, it's going to be real, real tough.

[00:40:48] Let me also just say one thing.

[00:40:49] I agree with your point.

[00:40:50] Let me also say this.

[00:40:51] I would not encourage.

[00:40:53] Let's say they don't show up.

[00:40:55] Aside from them getting Tommy Lee Jones for some theatrical moment, I would not advise Republicans to invest in any type of procedure to compel them, to force them back.

[00:41:07] I don't think that's a good look.

[00:41:37] I think having 66 or 67 members not showing up.

[00:41:42] I think that's going to be an unnecessary drama.

[00:41:44] But I want to give Julius the full opportunity to look foolish again.

[00:41:48] As the partisan hack I am for the DFL, I think there's a couple of things that go through my mind from a PR perspective, right?

[00:41:57] How many of these districts are even in play in the next two years?

[00:42:02] It's a slim margin.

[00:42:04] 66 or 67.

[00:42:04] 67.

[00:42:05] Yeah.

[00:42:06] But it's like, how many of these are actually purple districts, right?

[00:42:10] I agree with Becky the point of how much money is going to be spent in some of these, especially in Shakopee, right?

[00:42:16] Where that's already a contentious thing.

[00:42:18] But isn't the question that I pose and that makes me stand firm on the idea that they should not show up and I think it will work out for them in the long term is the argument I would be making is why?

[00:42:34] Okay, so let's say they show up, they elect Lisa Dameth as the House Speaker.

[00:42:39] The House goes back to being tied.

[00:42:41] Isn't the job of the House of Representatives, the Minnesota House of Representatives, to also equally represent the districts and the party that those districts are elected from?

[00:42:53] If it's a 67-67 tie in two weeks, Lisa Dameth should say, okay, we'll go back to our power sharing agreement and they will look like the adults in the room.

[00:43:04] But if Lisa Dameth keeps the speakership for the next two years, even though it's a tied chamber, then all we have to keep saying is she should not be Speaker.

[00:43:16] She was not chosen to be Speaker based off of the lack of a majority from the MNGOP in the House.

[00:43:22] And so that would be my point.

[00:43:24] You guys have much more life experience, especially Michael, in terms of years.

[00:43:28] And so maybe, listen, I might be thinking wrong on this.

[00:43:31] And honestly, I haven't seen, I will say what I haven't seen is a clear plan on how they plan to address this after the special election and what that looks like.

[00:43:40] But I also haven't seen it from Republicans.

[00:43:41] Again, Lisa Dameth says she wasn't even prepared to speak about if they were going to go back to the power sharing agreement.

[00:43:46] And so it begs the question, both of them don't really have a game plan after two weeks.

[00:43:50] It's just what's going to happen after that.

[00:43:52] And I think what I will admit is you guys are right.

[00:43:55] It sounds like it's going to be a lot bigger of a headache for the DFL.

[00:43:59] But will the residual issues in the next year and a half of a lack of cohesive governance hurt Democrats or Republicans more?

[00:44:08] And I think that's the biggest question of who's going to hurt more.

[00:44:13] Last comment on that before we move on is I would say that has potential to maybe hurt Leader Dameth, but probably not Republicans as a whole, as much as this hurts Democrats as a whole.

[00:44:24] And I think it's just a little bit more convoluted.

[00:44:26] And I don't necessarily know that how into leadership elections and all of that the average voter is.

[00:44:33] But it's a fair point.

[00:44:34] Yeah.

[00:44:34] Do you want to get your take, though, on quorum before we move forward?

[00:44:38] Because as we spoke to Leader Niska, he'd had some tweets about quorum as defined by the Minnesota and U.S. Constitution.

[00:44:45] There was a tweet from Rob Doerr, a Republican activist today, who talked a little bit about Minnesota statute and the rules of the current House.

[00:44:53] And under his tweet and my understanding of this, and feel free to disagree, but until permanent rules of the House have been accepted, the temporary rules are in play, which are the 2023-2024 rules of the Minnesota House.

[00:45:07] Under those rules, they say that Mason's rules govern the House.

[00:45:12] And in Mason's, it states that a quorum is a, quote, majority of the members qualified when there's a vacancy.

[00:45:19] So my understanding of that is when there's a vacancy, the majority of members qualified is 67 versus 66, which would grant the legal under the House authority to Republicans to do this.

[00:45:38] And so that's where I understand the power sharing agreement.

[00:45:42] I understand being upset about this.

[00:45:43] I understand that on election night, it looked like it was 67-67, and for a period of time, that's not going to be true.

[00:45:51] But the quorum says, or Mason's rule says, that a quorum in this case could be or should be 67 of the 133 qualified members because there is one vacancy.

[00:46:05] So I just want your take on that because we know that right now this all kind of also hinges on what the Secretary of State's office looks at a quorum to be when he gavels in the ceremonial gavel of the House on January 14th and whether he will determine that 67 members is or is not a quorum.

[00:46:24] His office has said that there hasn't given an answer.

[00:46:27] They're consulting with nonpartisan staff, legal, looking at all of this kind of stuff.

[00:46:31] So just in your interpretation, and I'm totally putting you on the spot if you hadn't seen this before.

[00:46:36] I completely get that.

[00:46:36] But just your take on what Mason's rules, which are currently operating under the temporary rules of the Minnesota House.

[00:46:43] Yeah, like I said, I'm not a procedural expert.

[00:46:47] And so if that's what the rules say, and I did see the tweet about it this morning, actually, and I was aware of what he was saying in the tweet.

[00:46:56] But here's what I'll say.

[00:46:57] If the majority is 67, show up and work.

[00:47:00] If Republicans really want to put the pedal to the metal, show up and work.

[00:47:04] But again, the reality comes down to, okay, you guys have 67 people for two weeks.

[00:47:10] You have 100% of members of the House that are going to vote in your favor.

[00:47:13] If you do any work, you elect a speaker, you start passing bills, you get committee ships.

[00:47:17] And for the next two weeks, anything you pass into law is going to be a veto by the governor.

[00:47:22] And even when you have 100% of members voting in your favor, you still can't get anything passed.

[00:47:27] So to me, if that's the rules, that's the rules.

[00:47:30] Hey, and if Democrats don't show up anyways, then that's maybe a little bit of a different story.

[00:47:35] If they do show up, I don't know what that looks like either.

[00:47:38] But the rules are the rules.

[00:47:39] If they can show up and work, get to work.

[00:47:41] Show people that you can actually maybe do something.

[00:47:42] But I think it's still a question to beg of like, they were not elected the majority by the people of Minnesota.

[00:47:51] And so you have to question how do you message through that if you're a DFLer.

[00:47:55] Because if that is the case, and that's what stays in effect until this special election,

[00:48:00] then I would be of a different opinion that maybe you do have to show up to work.

[00:48:03] And maybe now you go into Michael's strategy of just do everything you can administratively to stop them from gaining anything or doing anything or gaining a speakership, whatever that looks like.

[00:48:15] So it's such a unique situation.

[00:48:18] But I think that the merit of the arguments are what are going to end up ultimately winning, maybe more so than the procedures of the House on a temporary basis.

[00:48:28] So it'll be fascinating.

[00:48:30] I don't want to opine too much on the rules of the lower body.

[00:48:35] But I do think I was surprised about the Democrats' position that a quorum was 68 based on my understanding of the rules or some would say the guidelines of the lower body.

[00:48:47] But yeah, I think this is going to be a very interesting fight.

[00:48:51] And by the way, Becky, your sass and your smarts, this is, I'm just telling you, this is, and Julius, you're coming with the fight, the spiciness.

[00:48:58] This is one of my favorite episodes.

[00:49:00] And hearing that, knowing that we have the, I've just been smiling because we're going to be breaking down quorum and nerd stuff for the next few episodes.

[00:49:09] And I'm so damn excited.

[00:49:10] Let me, and I appreciate that because Michael doesn't say too many good things.

[00:49:13] You won't be invited back.

[00:49:15] He doesn't say too many good things.

[00:49:16] But the other question I have too, is that are those temporary?

[00:49:20] And this is something that probably someone needs to be asked is, are those temporary rules also based on base?

[00:49:25] Yeah, no, I'm okay.

[00:49:26] I'll ask Becky maybe.

[00:49:27] But are these temporary rules under the assumption that Brad Tabkey's race is done and finished?

[00:49:35] Or if that's still up in the air as well?

[00:49:37] I think it's temporary.

[00:49:39] So there's temporary.

[00:49:41] It's temporary to start.

[00:49:42] And then at some point later on in the session, official rules and permanent rules come into place.

[00:49:48] As in that kind of your experience, they start temporarily just so they have some kind of operating rules.

[00:49:53] And then they'll move into a more permanent structure, which a lot of times mirrors what the temporary rules were.

[00:49:59] Correct?

[00:50:00] From my understanding, yes.

[00:50:01] And I think that so I don't know exactly what that looks like when it comes into the Tabkey seat and that ongoing controversy surrounding that.

[00:50:11] I do know that there is potential, depending on what moves forward, what is accepted as quorum.

[00:50:18] And this organizational rules need to be passed for the House to move forward.

[00:50:22] And so this is also, I think, a potential issue for the Democrats is if it does come down to whatever it's, whether that Secretary of State Steve Simon or the Supreme Court or whatever it looks like, there is potential that Republicans possibly, in my understanding, could adopt permanent rules in the absence of Democrats.

[00:50:46] And in which case, it has potential to change things.

[00:50:50] Now, I don't know that they're going to do anything wild and crazy with that because, again, every pendulum swings back and forth.

[00:50:57] But rules need to be adopted.

[00:51:01] It's part of the organizational and the administrative part of what often happens in the first days and weeks of a legislative session.

[00:51:09] And so that's up to the Democrats, again, if they're potentially willing to forego having a say in some of these administrative matters that the House needs to do to move forward and hereby the Republicans would need to do to move forward.

[00:51:23] And that might be something that they have to risk.

[00:51:26] Yeah.

[00:51:27] My, just before we move on, my favorite type of crisis is a constitutional crisis.

[00:51:31] And I think we're getting excitingly close to a constitutional crisis.

[00:51:37] And having a podcast where we can break down a constitutional crisis is pretty much like Christmas morning to me.

[00:51:43] Also like Christmas morning, I want to put both of you on the spot now.

[00:51:46] We talked about Secretary of State Steve Simon's office looking into it and not supporting or disagreeing with the Democrats at this point.

[00:51:53] But when we look at Governor Walz, according to Leader Hortman, Walz is, quote, fully supportive of the DFL refusing to show up on the first day of session while continuing to collect their paycheck.

[00:52:06] Additionally, Leader Damus said this week that she has asked for a standing meeting with Governor Walz, as she is presumptively the Republican majority leader, the Republicans speaker at this point.

[00:52:17] Has not gotten anything back from the governor's office aside from the acknowledgement that the request was received.

[00:52:23] I like to put you on the spot, Michael.

[00:52:25] You endorsed Governor Walz.

[00:52:26] What do you think of him being supportive of the Democrats' actions here and potentially not setting up meetings with Leader Damus?

[00:52:34] First of all, I'm going to be intellectually consistent in saying, number one, I completely stand by my endorsement.

[00:52:39] Number two, I have never been a fan, and this is a document, of another body offering a commentary on what or isn't the position.

[00:52:48] So I do think it's – I do think that there should be some clarification.

[00:52:52] I think the governor's office needs to clarify their position.

[00:52:55] I think the Secretary of State's office needs to clarify their position.

[00:52:58] I will tell you both something that I think that this – to use that kind of Ron Burgundy, boy, this escalated quickly.

[00:53:05] And I think one aspect of where I think this escalated quickly was on this quorum thing.

[00:53:11] And I love, Becky, that we focused on this in this conversation because it is such a nerd-based subject.

[00:53:18] But it appears to me, at least my take, is that it didn't seem like the House Democrats had gotten a clear answer in preparation before going in front of the podium as to what Steve Simon's – Secretary of State Steve Simon's answer would be.

[00:53:33] And so I think we're in that kind of gray area, and that's why I think this could trend toward some type of constitutional crisis.

[00:53:41] I think right now the best thing that I think would be for kind of overall governance would be let's everyone go to their neutral corners.

[00:53:48] Let's get the governor.

[00:53:50] Let's get the Secretary of State to weigh in and disclose their conversations and offer their positions.

[00:53:56] I think as Speaker Hortman should be given every deference to her as a legislator and as the speaker, the same should be afforded to incoming Speaker Lisa Dameth.

[00:54:07] And that should be done.

[00:54:08] We should keep going forward.

[00:54:09] One final point I'll say.

[00:54:11] I would love for the Republicans and the Democrats to work this all out and have there be some type of agreement.

[00:54:18] And so when I say that them showing up and fighting, I would love if this could get worked out.

[00:54:25] I just think that – I'm not saying I want the Democrats to show up and fight, nor do I want the Republicans to show up and fight.

[00:54:32] I'm just saying I think it's more of an intellectually – I think it's a better PR argument if they're there fighting rather than being absent.

[00:54:39] So that's – just want to clarify those points because I thought Julius was mischaracterizing my position.

[00:54:44] Fair.

[00:54:45] I think that's all fair.

[00:54:46] I do anticipate that we hear from the governor and secretary of state very soon on the matter.

[00:54:54] I'm sure they're both meeting with everybody and reading everything and figuring out really what happens.

[00:55:00] We are sitting here a week, a little over less than – again, thought there would be no math here – but about a week out from the start of the legislative session.

[00:55:10] And it's only a matter of days until this needs to be figured out.

[00:55:13] And I'm sure Republicans, Democrats, Walls, Simon's office are all doing their due diligence to do it.

[00:55:19] And we'll be here to talk about it.

[00:55:22] So I do want to move on because we have spent a lot of time on that and will continue to do so.

[00:55:27] But there are two special elections that I want to hit briefly, both with some new shenanigans.

[00:55:33] Starting with the House District 40B.

[00:55:35] So again, this is the Roosevelt seat.

[00:55:37] Curtis Johnson deemed not valid under the residency requirements, which is causing all this chaos in the Minnesota House.

[00:55:43] The Republican Party of Minnesota and the Minnesota Voters Alliance have issued – filed a lawsuit.

[00:55:48] They filed a petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court.

[00:55:50] A hearing has been officially called, as Rupniska had mentioned earlier, for January 15th, which is the second day of session.

[00:55:59] And here, again, this kind of goes back to what we talked about last week, that the argument is about – is surrounding that writ of special election that Governor Walls issued.

[00:56:08] And whether it is valid due to the vacancy supposedly given by Curtis Johnson when he said he would not be accepting the seat.

[00:56:15] Or, in this case, the petition is arguing that the earliest date that the special election should happen is February 5th.

[00:56:22] Because, again, under state law, the 22 days after the start of the session is what gets us to February 5th.

[00:56:29] Any thoughts?

[00:56:30] Any – I'll start by just saying bravo to the Republicans and the Voter Alliance for getting a lawsuit.

[00:56:36] Last week, I was uncertain of whether timing would allow if this would actually happen, if a hearing would be able to happen before the special election on January 28th.

[00:56:45] But bravo!

[00:56:47] Becky, since we're discussing shenanigans, what kind of shenanigans are these?

[00:56:52] Legal shenanigans?

[00:56:53] Evil shenanigans?

[00:56:54] That's right.

[00:56:55] That's a movie reference from – I was playing a movie reference there, yeah, so shenanigans.

[00:56:59] Yes.

[00:57:00] So, Julius, why don't you take this off since we're going to classify these as evil shenanigans?

[00:57:04] There's a lot there.

[00:57:06] And I'm not a legal expert, so it's like a difficult question to answer.

[00:57:12] But here's where – what is the original date scheduled for?

[00:57:16] It's the 20 – for the special election.

[00:57:17] The 24th is the 14th, but in this seat, there's only one Democrat, one Republican.

[00:57:21] So the special is on the 28th.

[00:57:23] Okay.

[00:57:24] So then let's say the special election goes to the 5th.

[00:57:27] That's what?

[00:57:27] That's eight days difference in, again, a DFL safe seat.

[00:57:34] So Julius, let me ask you a minute.

[00:57:36] You keep – and I'm going to push back.

[00:57:38] You keep saying a DFL safe seat as if that should factor into the application of democracy.

[00:57:45] You're right.

[00:57:45] In terms of the – in terms of the eyes of the – in terms of the eyes – oh, yeah, of course you did.

[00:57:50] In terms of the eyes of the law, it shouldn't make a difference.

[00:57:53] But in terms of the evil shenanigans that Republicans are pulling in this state – you like that one?

[00:57:59] I got that in there good, didn't I?

[00:58:01] In terms of the evil shenanigans that Republicans are pulling in this state, what difference does it make for them?

[00:58:06] Another week of Democrats not showing up to the House.

[00:58:08] And another week of them playing pretend like they are going to have the majority in the House of Representatives.

[00:58:14] Again, the argument that's going to win here is the argument of merit on some of these issues.

[00:58:19] Again, like we said, it doesn't factor in whether it's a DFL safe seat or not.

[00:58:23] But why do you want another eight days?

[00:58:25] Because you want another eight days to have a PR crisis maybe.

[00:58:27] But you also want to have another eight days to act like you are a governing majority in the House of Representatives.

[00:58:34] Newsflash, you're not.

[00:58:35] You won't be in a week, in a month.

[00:58:38] Okay?

[00:58:38] And whether – why are you going to the courts to solve an issue for a race that you're going to lose?

[00:58:43] It does not matter.

[00:58:45] Strongly disagree.

[00:58:46] I look at this very much apart from the PR crisis going on at the House currently.

[00:58:56] This is a completely different look and a completely different misuse or misapplication of the law and potential abuse of power under Governor Walz by calling a writ a special election before he should.

[00:59:11] But this seat is not – was not vacated when Curtis Johnson said, okay, I'm not going to accept the seat.

[00:59:17] He wasn't sworn in.

[00:59:18] He didn't have the seat.

[00:59:20] The seat is not his to vacate.

[00:59:21] And so Governor Walz saying it was immediately vacated and when he wrote that letter, he wasn't taking office for another three weeks.

[00:59:30] Jamie Becker-Finn was still the seated and duly elected representative in that seat.

[00:59:35] So this is Governor Walz and the Democrats misusing the dates, the 22 days that it's supposed to happen after a special election to have – or after the start of session to have a special election because they want that extra eight days with the Democrats being tied in the Minnesota House.

[00:59:55] And so I think this is the Democrats taking advantage of the situation, not the Republicans.

[00:59:59] So much so, if you look back at previous situations – and we talked about this again last week when Kurt Dowd resigned his seat – it was six weeks after that he resigned during session.

[01:00:11] And it was six weeks after he resigned his seat that Governor Walz – or the special election was there.

[01:00:17] So it was some 30 days after that the writ of special election was written.

[01:00:21] And there was no urgency by Governor Walz in that situation because it was a Republican safe seat.

[01:00:26] And so this is where I think, again, it comes down to the precedent and law is written to follow.

[01:00:34] Governor Walz not following law should be challenged in this case because if it goes unchallenged, it again sets a precedent that this can happen in future cases.

[01:00:43] When are we going to get it to?

[01:00:44] What happens again in a different one?

[01:00:46] And if a candidate dies or some other challenge happens on November 9th, does that mean that we get to have a special election in December before session even starts?

[01:00:54] And let me say something, too, that I think is another point not being brought up, which is we all, I think, agree in a sense that if you're in this position, either party, you have the procedures, you have the laws, you have all of these different tools that you can use to benefit your side because of the way things are written and the rules that are put in place.

[01:01:16] So what I agree with you, I agree with what you're saying.

[01:01:19] Democrats want or Republicans want those extra eight days.

[01:01:22] Good for them.

[01:01:22] I don't think it makes a difference what the outcome of the seat.

[01:01:25] But if the law allows for them to get those extra eight days and the courts decide that, please, by all means, take it.

[01:01:31] Eight days doesn't really make a huge difference.

[01:01:32] I don't think either way in terms of governing.

[01:01:35] And my argument to that would be, why are you spending another eight days in chaos?

[01:01:38] If you really cared about governing, you would get over it and move on in a DFL safe district.

[01:01:44] But here's what I also want to say.

[01:01:46] This is what happens when you win elections.

[01:01:48] Republicans can't win elections in this state.

[01:01:51] They haven't in two decades.

[01:01:52] And so now, in the case of Kurt Dow and this situation, the governor has a mandate by law to make the rules about when a special election is called.

[01:02:00] It's not the rules.

[01:02:01] It's violating the law.

[01:02:03] That's until the courts say so.

[01:02:04] That's your opinion.

[01:02:05] Right.

[01:02:05] But also, the other thing, until the courts say it, I'm going to assume that's an opinion right now.

[01:02:11] But the other question I want to ask, and maybe not to ask, but throw out there, is does it make a difference in state law when they receive?

[01:02:19] Because I don't know when they receive their election certificates.

[01:02:21] Does that make a difference?

[01:02:23] Did Curtis Johnson receive his election certificate and say, no, I don't want it because, obviously, this is all going on?

[01:02:29] Does that make a difference in when he's able to call a special election?

[01:02:32] And so there's so many flip-flop arguments you could be making.

[01:02:36] If Jamie Becker-Finn still has her seat, then does that make the House still tied in the case of this election?

[01:02:43] There's so many underlying factors to be played in, however scenario you put it in.

[01:02:49] And do I understand the premise of the argument that this election should be on February 5th?

[01:02:54] The courts will decide that.

[01:02:55] And if they do, then I'm more than happy to be like, hey, you guys should make the election February 5th.

[01:03:00] But again, they haven't decided that yet.

[01:03:02] And here's what I want to ask both of you, because I think you guys are the partisan GOPers in this show.

[01:03:09] And you guys know these people probably a little bit better.

[01:03:14] What does the eight days do for Republicans?

[01:03:16] If they are so focused on governing, why would they spend another eight days waiting for someone who can represent that district to be elected?

[01:03:26] What's the point?

[01:03:27] For them, all I have to say is you guys keep throwing it into chaos.

[01:03:30] You're using the courts to stop effective governing for an entire month of session.

[01:03:35] Again, I think from my perspective, and I'm not speaking on behalf of the House leadership by any means,

[01:03:40] from my perspective, it's less about those eight days and not allowing a Democrat member to be seated eight days earlier,

[01:03:49] and more about the fact that law, as interpreted by House leadership or Republican leadership and myself,

[01:03:57] means that is invalid.

[01:04:00] And that is not legal under law.

[01:04:02] That law says that the writ of special elections should be issued 22 days after the start of session,

[01:04:09] which means that the special election at the earliest could occur on February 5th.

[01:04:15] And so I think, again, this is trying to uphold the law and less about representation across the district or across the state.

[01:04:25] Because I agree, sure, we all want all residents of Minnesota to have representation that they're due.

[01:04:32] However, again, in this issue, it comes down to it being the fault of, again, whoever it is, Curtis Johnson, the DFL,

[01:04:40] however far up it goes, they effed up.

[01:04:44] They need to deal with that.

[01:04:46] And the law needs to be followed to fill this seat.

[01:04:50] And if it's going to be an exception made here,

[01:04:53] it starts a wiggly little line of what can be allowed in the future.

[01:04:57] And so for me, it's not about Republicans saying we want another eight days without it being 67-67.

[01:05:04] It's we want to uphold the law.

[01:05:07] And I want to be consistent myself and say that I don't have a problem.

[01:05:11] I think filing a lawsuit is operating within the rules.

[01:05:15] If you think, and so I know that Democrats and Republicans do that in situations.

[01:05:20] We have election laws that are challenged and perceived.

[01:05:23] I don't think filing a lawsuit, because I just want to be consistent, I think that's the right of someone to do.

[01:05:32] I don't think it's a meritless lawsuit, but I think the courts will come to a determination.

[01:05:36] And I don't have the experience or the knowledge to challenge what they come up with.

[01:05:41] But I think it's justified to file a lawsuit in that matter to question this.

[01:05:46] I think we're in really a murky area.

[01:05:48] And I think that we're going to get some clarification in the courts and through the legislative process and through House legislative staff, Senate staff.

[01:05:57] And I think ultimately, I think that's well within the bounds of how the system should work out.

[01:06:02] Julius, I'm going to say to you one more thing.

[01:06:04] Next time you come on, I'm going to wear my ski goggles, because I'm afraid my eyes are going to pop out of my head from rolling my eyes so much.

[01:06:11] Just, I got to have some, maybe wear some safety glasses next time.

[01:06:15] We would be doing this right if I didn't stress you out, huh?

[01:06:17] Well, it's not a matter of stress.

[01:06:19] It's just my eyes are rolling so much, I'm afraid they're going to pop out on video.

[01:06:23] I do.

[01:06:24] So we'll chat about that more as we hear that initial hearing.

[01:06:27] Again, Julius, you're right.

[01:06:29] The Supreme Court will make a ruling on this.

[01:06:31] We will have a better determination going forward of what that writ actually means and when it can be issued.

[01:06:37] But we do have a potential residency issue in Senate District 60.

[01:06:41] Now, this is the seat that is now open to the unfortunate passing of Senator Gary Dietzik, who we chatted about last week.

[01:06:52] So I want to set the table here and just see.

[01:06:55] It doesn't need to be a full conversation, but just to mention it because you literally can't make this stuff up.

[01:07:01] So right now, there are some allegations against Mohammed Jamma.

[01:07:06] Sorry if I'm not saying the names proper, that his name properly.

[01:07:10] But he is a potential top contender in this district.

[01:07:13] He is one of the 10 Democrats who have filed to run in this seat.

[01:07:17] There are some allegations that he does not potentially meet residency requirements.

[01:07:22] A former DFL House candidate and resident of 60, her name is Sonia.

[01:07:27] I'm going to say Sonia N because I can't even pretend to know how to pronounce her last name.

[01:07:31] I'm sorry, Sonia.

[01:07:32] She filed a challenge about his residency to the state Supreme Court, alleging that he registered to vote on Election Day, November 2024, in neighboring Senate District 63.

[01:07:43] Now, Jamma's campaign manager has claimed that he has lived in Senate District 60 for more than six months, which would be the meeting the residency requirement, but is not registered to vote there.

[01:07:55] And he said, quote, he did vote in 2024, but used old address because this was during the process of moving.

[01:08:03] So we're looking here as either you don't meet residency requirements or potentially committed voter fraud.

[01:08:11] If you were in the process of moving during an election day, then you don't meet the residency requirements.

[01:08:16] If you have lived there for six months but voted at an old address, that's illegal.

[01:08:22] Yeah.

[01:08:22] We have a problem.

[01:08:23] By the way, I want to point something out.

[01:08:25] Anytime we deal with these type of residency things, I want to point out, I was living in South Minneapolis, 50th and Challen, bought a house in October of 2004.

[01:08:34] So my wife and I were still living in there, and we hadn't moved in officially to our house in Eagan.

[01:08:43] And so I voted in Minneapolis because that's where I was residing, even though the sale of my house was prior to the election because that's where I was residing.

[01:08:53] And because I wasn't technically living there.

[01:08:55] But if I'm doing the math correct, and I'm going through my head, he voted in 63 on election day.

[01:09:02] And so then if you do the math, I'm not the farmer's almanac, but I think that's more than, I think we're less than six months.

[01:09:10] That's two months.

[01:09:11] Because you have, so he would have had, in order to be qualified to be a resident in this special election, he would have had to reside in 60 for, by the time of the election, for six months.

[01:09:25] Yes.

[01:09:26] Yes.

[01:09:26] Yeah, I'm sorry, but the math does not work out.

[01:09:28] The math does not work out.

[01:09:29] Julius, this is your party.

[01:09:31] Are you involved in these types of evil shenanigans, or what can you offer on this?

[01:09:34] This is also evil shenanigans by both Democrats and mostly Republicans.

[01:09:39] And here's why.

[01:09:40] Let's, well, hold on.

[01:09:41] I think this is all weird, and it's stupid.

[01:09:43] It sounds like he's been living there less than six months, so he either committed voter fraud, which, and also I want to add some context, too.

[01:09:49] I'm pretty sure Minnesota isn't now an automatic registration state.

[01:09:52] So when you move and you register your address, or you move to the new address, it automatically registers you.

[01:09:58] Because when I moved two or three years ago to the apartment I live in now, I got a thing in the mail saying that I was registered to vote here, which was a different precinct or something.

[01:10:10] I'll be checking the voter file after this.

[01:10:13] Yeah, go ahead.

[01:10:13] But also, so that sounds like it's sketchy in and of itself, but I want to also add some quick context.

[01:10:21] He's nowhere near a frontrunner for that seat primary.

[01:10:25] Neither is the one who filed the lawsuit against him.

[01:10:28] And so even though it's sketchy and weird and probably a bit of a coincidence in terms of timing and is wrong.

[01:10:35] Coincidence?

[01:10:36] Wait, plain wrong that he is claiming that, which I said about Curtis Johnson, too, right?

[01:10:40] It's also really stupid that Republicans are using this as a story to amplify like these lines.

[01:10:45] Oh, my goodness gracious.

[01:10:45] No, please.

[01:10:46] You are telling me that it is.

[01:10:49] Elias, I want to point something out to you.

[01:10:51] You made Becky point earlier.

[01:10:53] I'm pointing out and my eyeballs are going to roll out.

[01:10:56] Okay.

[01:10:56] Does it have nothing to do with this?

[01:10:57] But they are using it as a story.

[01:11:01] They are using it as a story.

[01:11:03] Wait, let me finish the statement.

[01:11:04] They are using as a story to claim that there's a lack of integrity in elections.

[01:11:11] Let's be really clear.

[01:11:12] What Curtis Johnson did was wrong and what this guy doing is wrong and probably illegal.

[01:11:16] But that doesn't change the matter of the fact that the only people that are trying to like so doubt in the minds of voters are Republicans using the story about a guy who's not even going to make it past the primary.

[01:11:30] I have seen no Republicans talking about this.

[01:11:33] I read a One Man Post article.

[01:11:35] Walter Hudson and Pam Altendorf.

[01:11:37] Rep. Altendorf and Rep. Hudson are using this again to sow doubt about election integrity.

[01:11:47] And this is what they're doing with 54A.

[01:11:50] And this is what they're doing with 40A.

[01:11:51] So let me just be clear here.

[01:11:53] The context also adds that this is a nothing in a bucket of nothing.

[01:11:57] It's all about the DFL through the first mud here by filing this challenge.

[01:12:02] I will say that the only implications coming out of this are that the challenges to the Supreme Court to declare him ineligible, saying that they need to delay the printing of ballots, which would in turn potentially delay the special election primary scheduled for January 14th.

[01:12:18] There are a lot of things that I'm going to that's just a lot of things that I'm going to defend.

[01:12:22] And one of them and this is not putting on a Republican head or Democrat head.

[01:12:26] This is putting on just a fair referee cap.

[01:12:29] If there's a news article that's printed about someone not residing in the district and the Democrats or the Republicans make hay about it, that's fair game, Julius.

[01:12:38] OK, I'm not saying it's not.

[01:12:39] I'm not saying you are.

[01:12:40] You're playing for this.

[01:12:42] I just said no, I didn't blame Republicans.

[01:12:44] I just said they're sowing doubt about election integrity, which is what they do.

[01:12:47] They run interference so that they can look better.

[01:12:50] And they're using a whole bunch of nothing for nothing.

[01:12:52] It's fair game.

[01:12:52] It's fair game.

[01:12:53] I'm just saying it's stupid.

[01:12:55] It's dumb.

[01:12:56] I'm glad you're using your grown up words.

[01:13:00] By the way, if somebody says shenanigans one more time, I'm going to pistol whip them.

[01:13:03] I'll be sure.

[01:13:04] That's a movie line, too.

[01:13:06] No, Becky, I got to tell you something.

[01:13:08] I'm like, I'm glad we're not doing a live show right now, because I think one of us would have reached across the table at Julius and taking his microphone away.

[01:13:15] Goodness gracious.

[01:13:17] Listen, if you guys brought me in here to be a hack, that's what I'm going to be.

[01:13:20] And also, you are a hack.

[01:13:21] And hey, so are you guys.

[01:13:24] So are you guys.

[01:13:24] You can't call me a hack.

[01:13:25] So are you guys.

[01:13:26] Maybe not you, but Becky is really spinning the talking points here.

[01:13:29] And listen, hey, listen, here's the truth.

[01:13:32] The American, the Minnesota public deserves good, honest conversation about where both sides are coming from so that they can come to their own conclusion.

[01:13:41] Becky, I don't blame you for being for spitting talking points.

[01:13:44] I just think you're wrong.

[01:13:45] And they're going to say the same thing about me.

[01:13:47] You made Becky point today.

[01:13:49] I've never seen you more animated.

[01:13:51] I've never seen you more animated.

[01:13:53] In almost, in over two, in two plus months, two plus years of doing an episode, I've never seen her point before.

[01:14:00] But man, she pointed and I would not want to be on the receiving end of that, Julius.

[01:14:04] No, I love, listen, I love when she's fired up.

[01:14:07] I was really like, oh man, I'm going to, I might get it here.

[01:14:10] And listen, you gave me a good beating.

[01:14:12] I haven't been able to have the Republican partisan hat on when it comes to national politics for the last few months.

[01:14:20] But this I feel strongly about.

[01:14:23] Plus, the law is the law and there's lots of Democrats breaking the law.

[01:14:26] So it's easy to go against.

[01:14:28] Are we keeping score now?

[01:14:30] I got a whole whiteboard in my room.

[01:14:33] Speaking of keeping score.

[01:14:35] Damn it.

[01:14:36] That was a perfect segue.

[01:14:39] We have the ultimate score, the final scoring results of the breakdown with Brad Corp and Becky and our football league, our Pickens League.

[01:14:49] And I just want to say, I want to assure you a smooth transition to the leadership role.

[01:14:56] I'm not going to stand here and complicate that.

[01:14:58] You have won fair and square and you're not going to have Michael to kick around anymore.

[01:15:04] Okay.

[01:15:04] And so I'm proud of you.

[01:15:06] Until next year.

[01:15:06] You won.

[01:15:07] And I just wanted to make sure we were clear about something.

[01:15:10] There's a lot of choices you have now in your life.

[01:15:12] You have got to, we are doing the podcast at least through another season because this is, we can't let it end on a tie.

[01:15:20] We can't have a rubber match, right?

[01:15:21] We can't let it end on a tie.

[01:15:23] And so you won fair and square.

[01:15:24] I, in fact, in the interest of full disclosure, I gambled on the last day and boy, not only was I one game behind Becky, I ended the day, I think in fourth place.

[01:15:35] Yeah.

[01:15:35] I just, I had to go, I had to throw the Hail Mary, but I'm not going to be one of those timid souls that knows neither victory nor defeat.

[01:15:42] I came up short.

[01:15:43] I did so valiantly.

[01:15:45] Becky share is the champion of the breakdown with broad Corbin, Becky's pick them league.

[01:15:51] And congratulations.

[01:15:53] There is discussion amongst an advisory group on a trophy.

[01:15:58] So stay tuned between now and the super bowl for the informal or formal presentation of some form of trophy that's being done.

[01:16:08] And by the way, any trophy that you receive will certainly acknowledge that I won last season, but congratulations.

[01:16:16] I'm proud of you.

[01:16:17] The one thing I have to say to my family members and others, screw you really.

[01:16:22] A lot of people were cheering against me and including family members and others who knew the score.

[01:16:28] And it's pretty fair that Becky was the crowd favorite this year.

[01:16:30] And so I hope you got what you want, which is Becky has the winner, but she wanted fair and square, man, you have no idea how many Sundays after the election, I just cursed your name in my house.

[01:16:44] And I don't mean like cursed, like full on F word because Sunday.

[01:16:48] So I have a sword jar in the house somewhere, but on Sundays, it doesn't count during the football season because I would go bankrupt.

[01:16:54] I took advantage of that because Sundays I was dropping your name and it was never nice.

[01:16:59] But I think that helped build some sympathy and some support for you with others who were on this, who were with me on Sundays and saw that.

[01:17:06] So you had a lot of people cheering.

[01:17:08] I'm proud of you.

[01:17:09] Congratulations.

[01:17:10] You earned it fair and square and I'm coming for you next year.

[01:17:14] No, Dan.

[01:17:15] Just, and now that Becky is the Supreme Leader of CBS Pick'em's League.

[01:17:20] She's not Eisenhower, okay.

[01:17:21] Now that she's the Supreme Leader, I'm just curious if the person on this, in this group who ended up dead last in the league will be receiving a participation.

[01:17:29] A participation trophy?

[01:17:29] Absolutely you will.

[01:17:30] Okay, cool.

[01:17:31] Absolutely.

[01:17:31] And by the way, you guys will both lose to me next year.

[01:17:33] No, you won't.

[01:17:34] I was saving democracy this year.

[01:17:35] Challenge accepted.

[01:17:36] But Becky, you did a great job.

[01:17:37] It was fun.

[01:17:38] And I want to thank you for participating.

[01:17:40] I also want to thank you both for joining this today.

[01:17:43] This is hands down my favorite episode.

[01:17:45] Every new episode is my favorite, but this one truly is.

[01:17:47] And I want to thank you and all of our listeners for listening to this episode of The Breakdown with Broadcore and Becky.

[01:17:52] Before you go, show some love for your favorite podcast by leaving us a review on Apple Podcasts or the platform where you listen.

[01:18:00] You can also visit our website and follow us across all social media platforms at at BB Breakpot.

[01:18:06] The Breakdown with Broadcore and Becky will return soon.

[01:18:09] Thank you so much for joining us.

[01:18:11] Thank you.

[01:18:12] Bye.

[01:18:12] Bye.

[01:18:13] Bye.