A Break Down About the Power-Sharing Agreement with Rep. Zack Stephenson

[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. And I'm Michael Brodkorb. After a week off, I'm happy to return and bring the podcast back to a full quorum. Michael handled things sufficiently without me and made some impressive arguments I can't wait to discuss further. Today, we are going to kick things off by welcoming Representative Zack Stephenson back to the podcast. Yes, Representative Stephenson is serving his fourth term representing parts of Anoka and Grand Rapids, including the neighborhood where I grew up.

[00:00:42] With Representative Stephenson, we are going to break down the power-sharing agreement between House Republicans and House Democrats that was just announced this week after a long standoff between the two caucuses. We will get into how the deal went down and how or if they can all move forward this session. Following our interview, Michael and I will break down a recent KSTP poll conducted prior to the new agreement that hits on whether Republicans should honor the power-original power-sharing agreement, whether Democrats should get paid while they were boycotting the House floor,

[00:01:12] and what Minnesotans think about the controversies surrounding Representative Brad Tapkey and Senator Nicole Mitchell. Then we will get into the ever-enjoyable topic of money and politics. Thanks for joining us and enjoy the show. We are excited to be joined again by Representative Zack Stephenson. Thank you for being here. And we are just excited. We are just hours, less than a day away from a power-sharing agreement being done. Everybody back together at the Capitol.

[00:01:40] Kumbaya is going on. Tell us a little bit about how we got here, how we finally have a deal. Yeah, it's been a long road. And to go way back, of course, people forget on Election Day, we were 67-67. 67 Democrats were elected to the Minnesota House, 67 Republicans. The first time that's happened since 1979. And initially, things looked really good. There were really productive conversations between the Speaker of the House, Melissa Hortman,

[00:02:10] and then-Republican leader, now Speaker Lisa Damath, about power-sharing. But we got a couple curveballs as we headed towards the new year. First, a seat in Roseville. Turned out the candidate who won there, a Democrat, didn't live in the district. And he resigned, which brought us to 66-67. In Shakopee, we had a different story where we had an election that was exceedingly close. Brad Tabkey won on election night by 14 votes. There was a recount that confirmed he was still up.

[00:02:39] There was a trial looking into that election, which resulted in a court order saying that he won the election. But still, as we got close to the new year, there were a number of Republicans, including Lisa Damath, who were saying that they weren't prepared to seat Brad Tabkey. And that, of course, led us Democrats in the Minnesota House to come to the hard decision to deny quorum for the first few weeks of session. There were all sorts of legal challenges and twists and turns.

[00:03:06] But importantly, right before session, we made a big attempt to try and resolve the issue. We made an offer to the Republicans that said that if you treat us fairly, if we share power when it's 67-67, if you'll seat Brad Tabkey and acknowledge the fact that he won, then we will offer the speakership to Lisa Damath. And they turned that down on January 14th, which should have been the first day of session. And instead, we went through this protracted struggle and had to negotiate.

[00:03:34] We came full circle on Wednesday when House Republicans accepted essentially the same offer that had been on the table since January, and we were able to return to work. Now, I know that we've had the privilege of speaking with Leader Damath and Leader Niska. We also were able to interview Representative Tabkey shortly after or right before the case was settled in that situation.

[00:03:57] Leader Hortman has said that the Tabkey seat and the controversy surrounding that was one of the non-negotiables for your caucus. Walk us through that a little. We feel very strongly that the voters should decide elections, not the partisan games at the Capitol. And Brad Tabkey won that election. He got 14 more votes on Election Day. That was confirmed by a recount. There was a trial into the irregularities that occurred.

[00:04:23] The judge in that trial was actually selected by Representative Tabkey's Republican challenger. It was a fair trial. The judge after that trial determined that Representative Tabkey was the winner of that election, that there was no reason for him to not be seated. And so we felt very strongly that it would be an apocalyptic precedent if Representative Tabkey's election were set aside by a partisan vote, because it would have been. It would have been a straight party line vote,

[00:04:53] and really only for the purpose of opening up a competitive seat for a special election to secure potentially a real majority, because 67 votes in the Minnesota House is not a majority, even though it's one more than the 66 that the Democrats currently have with one vacancy. It's 67 votes, as we saw from the Supreme Court, is not enough for a forum. It's also not enough to pass a bill under the Constitution. You need 68 votes. No matter how many people are voting, you need 68 votes to pass a bill through the Minnesota House.

[00:05:23] So that was the most important issue for our caucus. And ultimately, when Republicans assented to seating Brad Tabkey and agreed to changes to House rules to prevent them from unseating him on a party line vote, that is what allowed us to return. And a couple of the other items in the agreement that we've read over the last couple of days, feel free to correct me if any of my research is incorrect,

[00:05:48] but it was including the election of Speaker Damus for the entirety of the two-year term here. Republicans do have committee gavels until that tie returns, which I think we can all agree while no election is certain, it is very likely that I think that is anticipated to happen with that Roosevelt seat. And then the House Fraud and Agency Oversight Committee will retain a Republican majority as we move forward.

[00:06:16] So it seems like you mentioned this is relatively similar to the agreement going forward. And we saw the agreement be agreed to. All members show up yesterday. Speaker Damus get elected, which we'll chat a little bit more. But talk to us about after a couple of three weeks here, returning to the Capitol and where we stand today. Yeah. And just to circle back to the agreement,

[00:06:41] one important thing that people need to understand is that while Lisa Damus was elected Speaker of the House, part of the agreement was pretty dramatic restrictions on the power of the Speaker. To give just a couple examples, and there's more restrictions, and I won't bore you with going into the minutiae, but just to give you a couple examples, usually the Speaker of the Minnesota House has the power to determine what committees exist and what members sit on each committee. Speaker Damus does not have that power.

[00:07:10] We establish that in the agreement. Usually a Speaker has the ability to decide which bills that are on the calendar for the day actually come up for a vote. Speaker Damus does not have that power. Even things like running the nonpartisan departments and the administration of the House, that is all subject to power sharing between the Republican and DFL parties. So that's important power sharing agreements. It certainly was a tough pill for us to swallow to have just one Speaker and have that Speaker be a Republican.

[00:07:40] But the limitations really do make Speaker Damus the least powerful Speaker of the Minnesota House in 40 years, at least, at least going back to that tie in 1979, if not earlier. And that's really significant. So to that point, explain to us then maybe how you got the Republican caucus to agree to this, as I know that the top key seat was obviously a big thing for your caucus. Electing the Speaker, Damus, was essentially a concession by the DFL caucus.

[00:08:09] But do the Republicans get anything else? Or is this, do you think, an agreement where maybe you guys won a little bit? Well, I, my caucus feels very good about the agreement. I let other people decide winners or losers, but we felt like we got what we needed out of that deal, got everything we need out of the deal. And again, this was the same offer we made on January 14th. We were the whole time were willing to do exactly what we did. Republicans were not willing to do that on January 14th. They were willing to do it on Wednesday.

[00:08:39] So ask yourself what changed during that time. I think probably the biggest thing was that more and more of the time where Republicans have a one seat advantage was disappearing. Every day that was going by was an opportunity for Republicans to have sole control of the House. But by refusing to seat Brad Tabkey, by refusing to come to this power sharing agreement, they lost the opportunity every single day. And it was both of days in a legislative session in the Minnesota legislature are precious

[00:09:07] commodities because the constitution is very clear. We are going to adjourn three quarters of the way through May. So every day that they lose is one they can't get back. I thought the deal was, the original proposal was that Damath would be speaker just for the time that she was, just during that kind of time when they were mathematically ahead. And then they would go to a co-speakership. Was there not a change regarding the fact that she would be speaker for two years?

[00:09:35] If you go back, we made a public offer to Leader Damath. That's along the lines that what you just described. Okay. And that was made on the 13th of January. Then on the 14th of January, Speaker Fortman made an offer to Leader Damath on top of that, that would have said, you can be the sole speaker of the House subject to limitations for two years. And you don't have to take my word for it because the Minnesota reformer reported that in the days following January 14th.

[00:10:04] We think that was leaked by someone in the House Republican caucus, but that it was reported back then. And that is the deal that was made on Wednesday. I will believe you, but I will fact check it too. Okay. Go look. Just so we're clear. I do believe you. Becky, not so much, but you representative. I will. So you mentioned as the days went on, things got tougher for the Republicans. I would partisanly argue that maybe it was also getting tough for your side. Walk us through.

[00:10:34] I have to imagine there were many conversations with 66 members at 66 different districts, 66 different opinions on life and politics in general, how that you guys kept the caucus together, cohesive, moving forward to get to this point, and also how those three weeks went for you working in your district and potentially getting feedback from those supportive of what you were doing and those who were not. Yeah.

[00:11:00] I don't want to understate the fact that it was a difficult decision to decide to deny quorum. Certainly among the more difficult decisions that I've been a part of in my time at the legislature, it's not something that anyone wanted to do. We all work very hard, particularly members like me who come from very closely divided districts. We work very hard to get our seats in the legislature. We want to be there. We want to be doing the work. It was just we could not agree to do that if we knew that coming in was going to result

[00:11:29] in the undoing of a legitimate election, in this case of Representative Tabke. And that really united our caucus of 66 members who do come from all corners of the state and have very different districts, but we all agreed that it was worth it to protect our democratic process to do that. And I got to tell you, once we made the decision to do it and once we actually stepped out, it didn't become more difficult as time went on.

[00:11:56] Once you've made the decision to step away like that, to deny quorum, you kind of do it with the expectation that you're going to have to do it all the way through. So we kind of knew what we were getting into at the beginning. I think what changed was, I think some people in the House Republican caucus thought that they could make quorum 67 instead of 68. And that's what we saw those first two weeks of session.

[00:12:21] And if anything, that experience actually more united our caucus because our caucus saw that as a power grab, an unconstitutional power grab. And we felt very affirmed when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled exactly that way. And that's what actually reopened negotiations, when the Supreme Court said that quorum is 68 and what the House Republicans had done those first two weeks of session was illegitimate. Were you prepared? Was the caucus prepared to hold out until March?

[00:12:51] If necessary, absolutely. We didn't want to, but we would not have gone back without assurances that Brad Tadkey's election would be respected. It was non-negotiable. There was a filing regarding by Leader Niska and then Speaker, now Speaker Damath, regarding the ability to compel quorum. You're a lawyer. You're also a legislator. Explain that.

[00:13:15] And to what degree did that Supreme Court case spur up discussions and help facilitate there being a closing of the deal? Or did it have any impact at all? So, you know, what's important to understand is what happens on the first day of session in the Minnesota House. And we all know that there's the ceremonial thing. The Secretary of State comes in, gavels us in, a prayer, whatever. The first thing we do is elect a presiding officer. But then there's a bunch of stuff we do after that's really important.

[00:13:44] We elect a clerk. We elect a sergeant at arms. We give authority to, we create committees. We pass rules. Those committees give authority to nonpartisan staff, comptrollers, accountants, all sorts of people to do things like pay people and all of that. But until all of those votes happen on the first day of session, no one has any authority to act on behalf of the House. There is no clerk. There is no sergeant at arms until we elect one.

[00:14:14] There is no comptroller until that person is vested with the authority to act on behalf of the House by the votes we take on the first day. Leader Niska, Leader Damus, now Speaker Damus, wanted to try and get those institutions of the House in operation to penalize people who weren't there. But because the House didn't have quorum, the House couldn't organize. And thus, there could be no action.

[00:14:42] That was the situation that we were in. Now, Leader Niska, Leader Damus sued to try and give themselves the authority to do those things. And we would have found out, had we not reached a deal from the Supreme Court, whether that would have been successful. I suspect not, but we won't ever really know. We felt confident in our legal position. I'm sure they felt confident in theirs.

[00:15:10] But any lawyer worth their salt will tell you that a settlement is better than even feeling very confident going into litigation because there's always downside risk. There's always the risk that you're wrong. So I think both sides were cognizant of that. And on top of that, from our perspective, we wanted to get back in. We wanted to do the work. And so as soon as we had a deal that respected the will of the voters and ensured that Representative Tabke would be seated, we were happy and excited to come back.

[00:15:39] Leader Niska has since said that they are no longer seeking any penalties against Democrats for that. And as but my question to you, and especially as a lawyer, you know how important precedence is in all sorts of cases at the legislature in law. Is there any concern that the denying the quorum, not in general, but in recognizing the leader Niska and leader Damath over the last couple of days as they were trying to make this argument

[00:16:07] with Simon on the House floor? Is there any fear that in the future, a majority or minority or a group of folks could do something of this sort and never be compelled to come back? Keep in mind that denial of quorum in Minnesota really will only come into play in situations where the House is tied because quorum is 68. And so any majority, anyone who has a majority in the Minnesota House should be able to produce a quorum.

[00:16:36] And a minority that tried to deny quorum would never be successful. They would just be allowing the majority to do whatever they want without any counterexpression. So it's a pretty narrow set of circumstances in which denial of quorum is even a thing in Minnesota. It's only happened twice in state history that stars aligned in such a way where it could happen. I think the much more troubling precedent would have been undoing an election that a judge

[00:17:01] said was fairly decided for purely partisan reasons. That would have been the bad precedent. And we avoided that precedent. Now, I am interested in the idea of trying to change Minnesota law to prevent this circumstance from occurring again. And there's a lot of different ways that we could do that. I think the most straightforward way is to just codify in statute that it takes 68 votes to vacate a seat.

[00:17:31] Because if you think about it, right now the law is if there's an election contest, it's a majority of the votes cast and the member that's subject of the contest can't vote. Okay? When you have that rule, anytime it's 67-67, the parties have an incentive to find someone on the other side, contest their election, and kick them out. Right? In fact, that's what happened in 1979. That ended the tie. That's what many Republicans wanted to do this time.

[00:18:00] It shouldn't be that way. Okay? It should... We should not create that incentive structure. So that's one way to fix it. Other people are talking about maybe the House should have some kind of tiebreaker mechanism so that it can't be 67-67. And that's another idea that's out there that's interesting to think about. But I am interested in finding ways to learn from the experience we just went through and avoid going down the same path again because it's not a good path.

[00:18:29] I think everyone can agree that the last month is not what we want. And we should learn from our mistakes. There's plenty of new mistakes for us to make. We shouldn't be making the same mistakes over and over again. One of the issues that I think came up is the House and Senate has the ability to determine their membership. Do you think that is a responsibility that the House and Senate should continue to have? Yeah. So that's in the Constitution. It's in the federal constitution for the federal Congress, and it's probably in almost every state's constitution.

[00:18:57] And I think ultimately it makes sense for that authority to rest with the House. We are an independent branch of government, and ceding that authority to the judiciary, for example, could throw the balance of powers out of whack. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some protections. My personal view, and I hinted at this just a second ago, is that we should have a system where if you're going to contest an election, you should first have to go to court.

[00:19:23] Because I think having a trial where you can have all the judicial protections, due process protections we have in our legal system makes a lot of sense for getting the evidence out there, establishing the facts, here's what happened, while still giving the ultimate authority to the House. And then I think you should make it so that it takes at least 68 votes to kick out a member. If it was just me, I'd say, look, if the court trial results in a recommendation that the

[00:19:51] member not be seated, like what happened with the Roseville seat, that should only require 68 votes. But if the court's recommendation is that the member be seated, then we should raise the threshold and say it requires 90 votes, two-thirds majority, to unseat the member. I think that's, if you set aside thinking about the specifics of what just happened and think more in the future, how should this work? That, to me, makes sense. Let's get back to some of the good stuff.

[00:20:19] So, yesterday, February 6th, Secretary of State Steve Simon gaveled in, declared a quorum for the first time in 2025, and Speaker Damath was elected. I want to note also that Senate Majority Leader, or I'm sorry, Senate President Bobby Joe Champion gave her the oath of office. And this is the first time we have a Black man and a Black woman leading the chambers, a pretty historic moment for Minnesota, for the legislature.

[00:20:47] Also, the first time, correct me if I'm wrong, but a Republican woman is the Speaker of the Minnesota House. Very exciting on both sides of that. And then the agreement was voted on, signed in, made official on that side. And now we get to move forward. Can we move forward? I think so. I think it's going to be bumpy for a variety of reasons.

[00:21:13] But let me just go back a minute and say the moment that you just described, where Sanders Champion, the first Black man to be president of the Senate, so first person of color to be the presiding officer of either chamber of the legislature, swore in the first person of color to ever be Speaker of the House at the start of Black History Month. That was a special moment. And I got to give major kudos to Speaker Damus for choosing to be sworn in by President Champion, a Democrat.

[00:21:42] I thought that sent a lot of very powerful messages, and I thought it was really appropriate and well done. It was a nice thing to do. But we have a lot of challenges in Minnesota right now. We had a budget forecast that showed a very narrow surplus in this biennium, a looming deficit in the next biennium. I suspect that when we get the next forecast in February, it will be worse because I think that some of the policy decisions coming out of Washington will make the forecast worse.

[00:22:12] And if we do have an even smaller surplus or, heaven forbid, a deficit, I think that's going to make it harder. I think when you have a 67-67 legislature, that's going to make tricky. It's some unexplored territory trying to put together a budget where you're sharing power. So I think it's going to be challenging. I think we're going to find that there are some unexpected moments that positivity and then some bumpier moments too. And that's what happened when we were negotiating this deal.

[00:22:41] There were some great moments. An example that's been reported, we were trying to negotiate how we were going to do the budget process. I'm the DFL lead on the Ways and Means Committee. I'll be co-chair when we return to 67-67, which is the committee that sets the budget resolution. Paul Torkelson is my Republican counterpart. He is currently the chair. He will be co-chair when we return to 67-67. And we were trying to figure out what we wanted in the agreement to guarantee a fair process on the budget.

[00:23:08] And Paul looked across the table and said, I'll offer you a no shenanigans handshake, his word. We're going to do this together. We're going to treat each other fairly. And that was good enough for me. I believe Paul Torkelson's a man of his word and I'm a man of my word and we shook hands. And that's a good moment, right? That's a good moment for the institution and hopefully one that sets the tone going forward. Is it always going to be like that? No, absolutely not. There's going to be some bad moments for this legislature, but I think there can be some good moments too.

[00:23:36] It seems to me that there's going to be some bruised relationships and you've been there a few sessions. Do you think that there's more of a need now, even with the mathematical closeness, that it's likely going to be a tie soon? Plus with the dynamics of the last few weeks, is there more pressure on members to get along, to try to overcome what's gone on in the last three weeks? Is there going to be like a bipartisan movie night or something where you guys are, or board

[00:24:06] games or something where you're, or you're playing trivia together? Is there something that's going to be done to try to bring some, a little bit of collaboration and cooperation back to the institution? Do you think that's going to be needed more than ever before? I think the members that are going to be most successful this year are the members who are willing to reach across the aisle. And more importantly, not you. I'm just messing. I'm just messing with you. But build trust.

[00:24:31] And there are a lot of Republicans who I've worked with who I trust because, and who I think trust me and speak for themselves. Those types of relationships are what are going to yield results. And on both sides of the aisle, there are members who have prioritized building those relationships and members who haven't. Because different people come to St. Paul with different agendas. Some people come, they just want to get stuff done. Some people come, they want to make a lot of noise. There's different perspectives.

[00:25:00] And I think the people who have prioritized building relationships are the ones who are going to be successful this year. That's a great answer. That was a really good answer. You mentioned earlier that there is a deadline to get the work done. Since this power-sharing agreement, there's been assurances from Damath and Hortman saying they still anticipate getting done by that May 19th date. I do want to touch real quick because the budget is a big thing. And there's a lot of work to be done in a condensed amount of time here.

[00:25:31] And since we have somebody who is right there in that negotiations, I want to ask you a question and hopefully not pitch you against me or leader right now. But I was at the Minnesota Chamber dinner and Leader Hortman did say that she was open to tax cuts this year. Now, this is something following the 2024 election. Michael and I have talked a lot about how Americans, Minnesotans voted with their pocketbook, that things are really expensive, that the economy has struggled on and off.

[00:25:57] And here in Minnesota, we have seen a lot of spending coming out of the legislature in the last two years. So talk to us a little bit about how I know a lot of that was there was a lot of one-time spending. But moving forward, what are your priorities when it comes to the budget? Is it tax cuts? Is it keeping status quo? Where can we move forward and what can Minnesotans expect coming out? Obviously, again, lots of negotiations need to be happening. But what are your and your caucus priorities when we're looking at the budget?

[00:26:26] Number one priority is delivering a balanced budget on time. We want no government shutdowns. We want Minnesota to have continuous government. Number two priority is protecting the institutions that make Minnesota a great place to live. We have great schools. We have a great health care system. We have great parks, great environment. None of that is free. Nothing in life is free. All that stuff costs money. And so we need to protect those institutions because they are what make us allow us to have

[00:26:56] the highest quality of life of any state in the country. And we have to protect those institutions. We also need to recognize that the economy has not been working for a lot of people. And it has been really difficult for people to deal with rising costs. And frankly, a lot of those problems are about to get worse. We are expecting inflation to pick up again as a result of some of the policies coming out of Washington, D.C. These tariffs, for example. And that could be particularly true in Minnesota, where we actually engage a lot with Canada.

[00:27:26] If there's a 25% tariff on Canada, you're going to expect your gasoline prices to go up really significantly, for example. Just to give you one little example. So we should be thinking about affordability for middle-class families with every decision we make. And tax cuts are one tool that we can work on affordability. But there's other things we can do, too. I have two kids, and I'm a middle-class family. When we passed universal school meals, that saved my family $300 a month. Tax cuts aren't the only way to work on affordability.

[00:27:54] When we work to try and bring down the cost of homeowner's insurance, we can successfully do that. That's really meaningful. That isn't a tax cut, but we can really do something for affordability with that. And I think there is some space. Now, we have a very constrained budget environment. Minnesota does not have a lot of money this cycle, this budget cycle. And I think we're going to have even less once we account for what the Trump administration is doing and what Elon Musk is doing. I think there's going to be less money for our budget. I think we're going to see that in the February forecast. But there are things we can do.

[00:28:24] I thought the governor's proposal to cut the sales tax and pay for it by broadening the base of the sales tax and extending it to things like TV advertising. Boy, that's a great policy where we tax something that middle-class people aren't paying for, TV advertising and other professional services and use it to buy down the sales tax rate. I think that's a phenomenal idea. Representative Stevens, I want to thank you for joining us. One final question.

[00:28:52] It may be the easiest question we ask you today. That sounds dangerous. Who are you rooting for this weekend in the Super Bowl? Neither. Can we just have a tie? I don't want either of these teams. A tie? I don't know. I don't want them either to win. I don't want them to win. I don't want either of these teams to win. You know what chaos comes from a tie? Come on, man. I know. But the chaos is deserved in this instance. What do you want? You want the Chiefs to win yet another Super Bowl? Or do you want the Eagles to win? What do you want? You want to know something?

[00:29:22] Your answer is better than what I thought it was going to be. That was a really good answer. Because I'm against the Eagles just because of what they did to the Vikings. So I'm going with Chiefs. But yes, this would be a situation where both teams should lose. How can we get them both to lose? When I said a tie, I guess what I was meaning was, can they both lose? I don't want either of them to win. That's right. Reverend, I've known you a long time. I've known you close to 20 years. Yeah. And I consider you a friend. And I really appreciate you coming on and having this discussion with us. We agree on a lot of things. We disagree on some other things.

[00:29:52] I really appreciate you taking time just to talk with us for a few minutes and explain it from your perspective. It's going to be a great podcast episode. I just want to say thanks again for all you're doing. Hey, thank you. I value our friendship too, Michael. I'm glad we could make this work and look forward to visiting with you yet again sometime. Thank you so much, sir. All right. See you later. Becky, we just interviewed Representative Zach Stevenson. Your take on the interview?

[00:30:16] I thought it was great to hear some insider scoop from someone within the DFL caucus of a position of leadership, a co-chair at this point or almost at this point, especially just in contrast to the conversations we've had with Leader Niska and Leader Damath over the last couple of weeks. So I really appreciate that inside scoop there, getting the details and integrity from him. But I might have a couple pent up thoughts from missing a week.

[00:30:44] And so I do have some questions, comments, concerns based on that. And it really centers around, I was messaging with you when I was re-listening to the episode last night of the conversation you had with Julius Hernandez. And you made the argument a couple of times. And it really was such a profound argument, I thought, where you said that every option the Democrats can pursue, they should be entitled to pursue. But in order for there to be a power sharing agreement, Republicans have to take tools out of

[00:31:11] their tool shed in order for Dems to come sit down. And this is obviously all centered around the Tapkey, the seating of Representative Tapkey. Now, I think listening to you and our conversations and based on my conversation or our conversation with Representative Tapkey a couple of weeks ago, I do feel confident and convinced that he won that seat, that the advisement, reading the advisement from the court, hearing the argument of the folks that they found from the missing ballots.

[00:31:41] Do I like it? Do I like how it went down? No, but I do sit there. But then as we're walking through this, as we've been reading in news articles and hearing the press conference and listening to Representative Stevenson talk about the limited scope of the Speaker of Speaker Damus role and purview over the next two years and how Democrats did get essentially everything that they wanted with the Tapkey decision and Republicans having to

[00:32:08] concede on that and Republicans maybe not gaining as much with the speakership. It just it. I think your argument there of Republicans had to unilaterally take that off the table for them to come back to the table. And it just feels a little weird to me. That still was something to even get back. They had to make that concession before really sitting down and hashing out the agreement. And I just don't love it. I would. Yes. And I would agree with you.

[00:32:37] And I appreciate you listening to the episode and for your thoughts on it. I think it's I think it's interesting. And I think it's also I'm not I'm first of all, I'm glad they're back. I'm glad there's a deal. But the reality is the point I was making it last week and I'll repeat it again today. One of the responsibilities of serving in the House and the Senate is to police your membership is to decide the membership when you run for office. Everyone signed up. So all 201 members of the all 201 members of the legislature, when there is a full complement,

[00:33:07] will have ran for office in one elections with an understanding that when they're elected to their respective House or the Senate, they get to decide the membership. And I obviously you obviously and I have maybe more agreement or some agreement on what occurred in 54A. But one thing I think we both universally agree upon is that who gets to ultimately decide that membership are the people in the House and the people in the Senate when it's a senator or House member.

[00:33:34] And so I think it's interesting that Republicans had to take that tool out of their toolbox. Now, just because they can do it doesn't mean they should. I had said on a previous episode and said this before on social media, I think Representative Tavke should have been seated. I stand by my position that a special election would have been a cleaner election, all that stuff. But I do think I do think and I'm glad you're giving it a little bit more space to talk about and giving this giving what I said a little bit more oxygen to put some attention on it, because that's what everybody signed up for.

[00:34:05] And to not have to have Republicans not being able to exercise a rule that applies to everybody else, I think should maybe be getting a little bit more attention than it should. And if we're going to be in these situations where it's going to become a leveraging point, then let's just take that responsibility away. If I understand the process correctly, if I ran for the school board, if I ran for county commissioner, I would be able to, if I ran for governor or statewide office, the court could do a number of things.

[00:34:35] But only in these kind of in these unique circumstances is the legislature allowed to police their membership and make these determinations. And while I think it's important and it's good for Minnesota that a deal came together, I do think it's important to note that in order for there to be a deal, Republicans had to take a tool out of the toolbox and not apply it to a situation where I think it could have been. I think there's an argument for it. This is the reason why you have that.

[00:35:04] This is the exact reason why you have that rule, that the House and Senate gets to police their membership. They get to police their membership. And this is the circumstance in which they get to do it. I don't think anyone was saying, I think there was an interpretation like, oh, this court order was advisory or this court order was more important. The bottom line is the House and Senate gets to police their membership. And if you don't like it, change the rules. Yeah. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this session and the next when it comes

[00:35:34] to potentially changing rules, because it certainly does seem that some things need to be codified or set into statute to ensure that there is a little bit more clarity moving forward when situations such as this may arise. And I will also say, Minnesota is a big government state. We always have been. We always will be to some degree. I know that's going to frustrate people. But the reality is that there are, it's clear in this situation that there are some competing,

[00:36:03] there are statutes, there are rules, there are House rules, there's constitutions that seem to be in conflict a bit right now. And I hope that one of the things that comes out of this is we figure out this process, rules of engagement, so we don't get in this mess again. We don't get in this mess again. But I think that it's going to be very curious to see how this process goes. Really glad we had this podcast and be able to document and talk about it, because we certainly do live in interesting times. A couple more comments I have.

[00:36:32] I just wanted to read a quote from Speaker Damus' acceptance speech yesterday, which was great and exciting. She said, as Speaker, I will foster a culture of respect and constructive debate in the House. We can agree without debating disagreeable, which sounds very familiar to us, doesn't it? We can debate vigorously while seeking common ground. We can prove to Minnesotans that when their leaders work together, their government will work better. And it was just a nice, optimistic message coming out of a very messy three weeks.

[00:37:01] Now, we did talk about this a little bit with Representative Stevenson. I think there are going to be some hurt feelings. We know that talking to Representative Taki, he feels very personally attacked with a lot of this stuff. Leader Hortman in the press conference yesterday did say that, I think we will be able to move forward or work together well, but it will take some time. Certainly, everybody's pretty angry at each other. And I think it was a nice moment of honesty there, right?

[00:37:26] Even though these are all professional adults who know that their job is to work on behalf of all Minnesotans, they knew this is bigger than them and their hurt feelings. It's been a lot. And there's been a lot that has been articulated in the court of public opinion on Twitter. There's been a lot of sometimes personal attacks and some words shared at each other. So I am very cautiously optimistic that after hopefully a week or two of them getting back

[00:37:56] together, seeing their old friends, seeing move forward, that they will work together because essentially they have to. We are still at even when we get back to a full roster here, we are at 67-67 and need 68 to pass anything. So there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. They have to work together. I thought Representative Stevenson's answer was really good about how they move forward. And I also thought it was great about how he framed it out.

[00:38:23] The members that are going to be successful are the ones that reach across the aisle. And he wasn't just talking about the Democrats, he was talking about Republicans too. As I noted, I've known Representative Stevenson, I think now actually more than 20 years. And I know that he is the type of, I know he's the type of individual and partisan and legislators, let's say he can be tough in battle, but also extend that hand. And I think it was a really good, it was a very kind of profound statement from him

[00:38:52] that I think is really going to summarize. And unfortunately, I was thinking what the dynamic is going to be. I was really impressed by his answer. Because obviously when you're wearing the jersey for your team, you got to throw the elbows occasionally. But at the end of the day, the institution has to work together. And I think that his perspective on what's going to take for the institution to be successful was absolutely spot on. I think there's going to be members who are going to reach across the aisle. That's going to be some successful. I think there's going to be bomb throwers on both sides.

[00:39:20] But his perspective was, I think, very informed. And I think it's going to be a great way to summarize how this session is going to go. It was a really good answer. I completely agree. And Lee, hey, maybe it will be a changing of the times just in general. No, we're not that optimistic. I still think it's going to get bumpy. I think that, look, and I'll be as Pollyannish as the next one. I hope everyone gets along. I'm still a realist, OK?

[00:39:47] Which brings me to my last comment I have on the interview is, I did hold back my frank opinions when it comes to the budget and the February forecast likely looking worse than the November forecast. Yeah, we're blaming this on Trump. Well, sure, there is some potential of what the federal government is doing and its impact on Minnesota's bottom line. But you knew that when you were enacting these laws two years ago,

[00:40:15] that there was a 50-50, not maybe 50-50, but there was a chance that Donald J. Trump is going to take office again. And that was going to impact the Minnesota budget. This is all from Minnesota Democrats spending $18 billion surplus, raising taxes another $2 billion. That's what's going on here. I wasn't going to give him that hard time because I do appreciate the work that he has to do here

[00:40:45] on a budget that's going to be really tough. But middle man, I was sitting on my hands there. Your observation is very well taken. And I just want to note that one of the challenges of doing this podcast, that in fact that we're both, you more than me in some situations, more Republican than not, but we want to have discussions with everyone. And sometimes we just, we want to give people a space and the opportunity to talk. And sometimes letting a few just zing by. But your observation, I caught the same thing.

[00:41:14] Your observation is well noted. And I compliment him for stating it. He is absolutely going to be a member of the legislature who is going to come ready with the points to make. He also got it an Elon Musk point, which we should talk about in a later episode. But you're not going to slip too many past Representative Stevenson. He's a sharp one. He's got a job to do. He came ready to do it. And that's not our role or how we play this.

[00:41:42] But I did have a little chuckle and made sure to take a little note there. But all in all, really grateful for him coming on. It was great to chat about it. And they're back in session. Three long weeks, but they're back in session. And I think that brings us to a really good next point is breaking down this recent KSTP poll. Now, this was conducted prior to the power sharing agreement, but has some interesting points. It was all about what is going on at the legislature.

[00:42:09] And I guess I want to give the Minnesota respondents of this some credit for hopefully knowing what they were being asked. But some interesting outcome here. So let's first hit on the quorum issue, which I am still not convinced of the Supreme Court's case. But it is over and done with. And I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV. So we're going forward with this. Forty-eight percent of Minnesota respondents in this poll said that they think a quorum requires 68 House members.

[00:42:38] They agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court. Twenty-three percent said 67. And a third, 30 percent are unsure. I want you to get through all these poll questions. But when I saw the poll on some of these questions, this is a tough subject to poll about. First of all, do people know that there's 134 members of the House and there's 67 senators? And do they know, then do the math? Do they know what quorum means? Yes. I know. It's fantastic.

[00:43:09] Do they know what quorum means? Nice. Yeah, that's really good. That's a good one. 55 percent support a GOP-DFL agreement in the House. 23 oppose. 23 percent are unsure. When we look at this, these are the two I want to break down a little bit first. That one, the power sharing agreement, it definitely feels like it favored maybe a little bit of the DFL side, wanting the GOP to come back to the table, get to that agreement and move forward.

[00:43:37] Now, they did also poll asking if the DFL should get paid while they are boycotting the House floor in session. 49 percent, almost 50 percent there, 49 percent oppose paying DFLers during their House boycott. 32 percent support paying the DFLers and 19 percent are unsure. This was sticking in the back of my mind as well. And I'm curious to get your perspective. Representative Stevenson had said that he felt that this agreement happened because time was running out for Republicans, right?

[00:44:07] That this is we're to this point where the optics are no longer starting to look well, look good for Republicans, and they were forced. I think the court of public opinion was pretty split on this. I think that they were also to the point where now that special election got moved back to March, were they going to stick it out for another six weeks?

[00:44:28] Were they going to sit there for over two months and boycott House floor, House session and doing their duties up at the Capitol and still get paid? What's your perspective on that? Do you think there was really this looks pretty split both ways with just around 50 percent kind of buying both sides? But what's your perspective? A couple of things. I was, first of all, very excited to see the poll results. And my compliments to KSTP and Tom Houser.

[00:44:55] I love he's, he just, it's always, oh, Tom Houser just tweeted about another poll. It's always like the drudge alarm. Let's get ready for it because it's always good stuff. I was surprised on the power sharing question. I surprised it wasn't higher because it's a tough question to ask. It's obviously it's a good poll and people are asking, but it's asking people, do you like apple pie or cherry pie? It's tough. So I was surprised it wasn't higher because it's a power sharing agreement. And the DFL pay, I'm also surprised wasn't higher.

[00:45:22] It was close to 50, only 30 opposed. Only 32 percent of people opposed pay the Democrats during their House boycott. I thought that would have been higher. I'm sorry. The oppose would have been higher. It was still there. And so I truly believe I'm not trying to question anything that Representative Stephenson said. Excuse me, what Representative Stephenson said.

[00:45:44] But I do think that the court hearing that was scheduled about whether the Republicans, in essence, enforced quorum in a smaller number. And obviously there was a risk and Representative Stephenson was correct. It's a risk for both the Republicans and the Democrats in that issue. I do think that that helped jumpstart some things. And I know that there is a court case. The Supreme Court actually heard oral arguments on it.

[00:46:11] I don't know if we're going to get an opinion, but they did actually have oral arguments yesterday on the issue. I do believe that was a little bit more of a catalyst. But again, the poll numbers are just incredibly fascinating. Two other key parts of this poll were targeted at individual members, one at Brad Tapkey in the House and one at Nicole Mitchell in the Senate.

[00:46:37] They asked respondents of whether they support or oppose seating DFL Representative Brad Tapkey. 47 percent support seating him, 29 opposed it, and 23 percent were unsure. And then when we come to Senator Nicole Mitchell, and again, as a reminder, since we haven't talked about this as comprehensively over the last couple of weeks as we had the Tapkey situation,

[00:47:02] she is being charged, allegedly breaking into her stepmother's home. That court case has now been moved to the end of session, which is a controversy in itself. But the Senate Republicans have pushed for her to be expelled before her trial is over. 43 percent of Minnesotans say that she should not be expelled before her trial is over, and 41 say she should be expelled immediately. So pretty 16 percent unsure there. That one's pretty close. Yes.

[00:47:31] Yeah. And again, I love polling. I love polling questions. I love that KSTB did this. As I said, I love the Tom Houser tweets when he throws this stuff up. I just wonder about the level of detail that you have to get down to, because these are great questions. And I don't want to claim that there's I don't think there's anything mechanically wrong with the poll. If you would have asked me if this was like prices, I would have been putting the I would have been putting the figures in a different order. But it's just fascinating. It's very fascinating, these numbers.

[00:48:01] And I think one thing to note is the proximity of all the numbers in terms of what I mean by that is the largest number, the largest number, how close they are to 50 percent or just a little bit over. It just shows what I think is that this state is polarized right now in a number of ways. And if you look at the makeup of the legislature, we have a we until recently, we had a tie in the Minnesota Senate. Now it's 34, 33.

[00:48:27] Right now, the Republican, the House of Representatives, Republicans have a 67 to 66 advantage. It's there's a belief based on the current betting pools that the Democrats are going to win that seat. It's going to be back to 67. But I would have thought that the numbers would have been higher. If you think about the Price is Right game, like I would have been turning to the audience and being like, and I would have been I would have probably gone with bigger numbers. I think it's a good point, too.

[00:48:53] And for those who may be listening and aren't aware, the people who are actually conducting the poll on the phone are usually simply reading questions. They're not answering backup questions. There's no more information to be found. They are asking the question as it is written, alternating the answers that are available. And so you're right. It's hard to know, even in the best polls, just how much is actually comprehended or by folks participating.

[00:49:21] But it was a fascinating poll. I loved looking at it and seeing the specifics. And more importantly, where we get to sit here and analyze it when they're all back in session and moving forward and hopefully having a successful making lots of progress. I do have one question I want to ask you because I wanted to discuss this and I should have prepped and let you know about this in advance.

[00:49:44] The Republican Party of Minnesota announced a recall petitions in these seats and they've announced that they're continuing with the recalls. So Minnesota has a pretty high recall standard and it's for nonfeasance or malfeasance. And again, you're the legal expert. You can hopefully define and explain that to me off air what the difference is between malfeasance and nonfeasance. I know a little bit, but there's going to be some recall petitions going on.

[00:50:13] And so, for instance, even though that there's been a power sharing agreement which allows the seating of Representative Tapke, there is Republican activity, particularly in his district, by Republican House members trying to recall him. And this recall effort is going on all across the state. I want to get your before I give my answer on the recalls. I want to give your take. I want to get your take with this ambush question.

[00:50:37] Wearing my very red partisan hat here, I am fully supportive of any fundraising tactic that the state party may endure or put forward that will help them raise some money that is very hard to do. And I think, to be frank, I do think there is a compelling argument to be made, especially prior to the power sharing agreement, that these, from my perspective, these members were not doing their job. They were not showing up for work every day.

[00:51:06] They were not allowing progress to be made and for business to be conducted. I think there is a very valid argument to be made. Moving forward, now that they are back, I do think there's also its big brother looking over your shoulder and reminding you that you better continue to conduct yourself accordingly.

[00:51:27] But at the end of the day, I think at this point, it is a very impressive fundraising opportunity for Republican Party of Minnesota, one that they desperately need, which we'll chat about a little bit more here in a minute. And so I don't expect any recalls to happen. Like you said, it's a pretty high threshold. But I do support there's a reason we have. What am I looking for?

[00:51:49] These things that folks can do, can seek opportunity to utilize when they believe that business is not being conducted, that there is malfeasance. This is a tool in their toolbox. I do support that being looked at and whether that will have any, bear any fruit, we'll see. But at this point, more power to them. Got it.

[00:52:15] I, you'll be shocked to know that I'm going to take a different approach, which is, I don't think that, because I don't think that the legislative, that the holdout rises to the level of a recall petition. This was activity that was done. You can disagree with the legislative activity, but by all accounts, members were meeting with their constituents. They were doing meetings. I think the Democrats did a good job of establishing that they were still doing some work.

[00:52:43] There were legal challenges to what was going on. And so I don't think any of this rises to the level of a recall effort. I don't think it meets the constitutional requirement. I think there, and I think while I completely understand and understand the tactic and the strategy, I'm not signing a local, I'm not trying to do anything in my local area to sign, promote, or advance any type of recall effort, because I just don't think it rises to that level.

[00:53:09] I think that there was a, it was a legitimate legislative disagreement and it manifested in a way that I don't necessarily like. I wish there would have been more discussion inside the chamber, but we get an opportunity each election cycle to make a determination. That's why I'm not a big fan of term limits, because we get term limits every election cycle. It's called an election and people can vote.

[00:53:32] And I just want to get your take on it because there's two sides and some people are going to, but it was just interesting for me today to see that even though there's a power sharing agreement deal, that the recalls are still going on. And there was a House Republican out in Representative Tapkey's district working to get, getting signatures signed so there could be a recall petition against him. I just think it's cold and the legislature is back and there's better fights to happen. Right.

[00:53:58] I have to say, I am assuming, I'm very curious of what the quarterly report will show for Republicans here because them continuing that effort when it is so bitterly cold out makes me feel like maybe they've had a successful couple of weeks. I did the hat top of the morning kind of thing you were doing there about wearing the hats. That was good work on your part. Speaking of money, we're going to end here by chatting through recent Minnesota reformer piece, which is getting their second shout out on our podcast today.

[00:54:27] Rep Stevenson brought them up before, but they had an article this week called the title, A Big Pile of Money Wasn't Enough for Democrats to Hold the Minnesota House. And I just found it fascinating. We've talked a lot about Republican struggles in particular from the state party when it comes to fundraising. The House caucus and the Senate caucus do have significantly better results than the state parties have had.

[00:54:52] So in this 2025 last year, House Democrats raised three times over the House GOP. So they raised just shy of $10 million and spent just over $10 million to defend their majority. And House Republicans raised $3.2 million and spent nearly $4 million to flip those key House seats to make it a tie. So here we have three times the Democrats spent to keep their majority and they didn't do it. It's a tie here.

[00:55:20] It's pretty compelling that money doesn't always speak. No, you're right. And I'll say a couple of things to this. First of all, one of the topics that we discussed and obviously interest to full disclosure. Again, I was a Republican for Harris in this state. One of the arguments that I made, and I wonder if this is an example of it, maybe where I was right, which I always love to talk about.

[00:55:40] But I had said that there had been one of the possibilities of Governor Walz being on the ticket nationally was that it would energize Republicans here in Minnesota. And so this and I think that this is an example of where the electorate in terms of that return, that ROI, that return on investment, the Republican money went farther because I think the electorate and the Republican base was particularly energized about just they're energized.

[00:56:10] And in terms of they were energized to go to the polls because of concerns, frustration to vote against Walz, even though Harrison Walz did win the state. I would also say that this is also an indication. And just to say, I think some of the smartest Republican operatives and strategists in the state are in the legislative caucuses. And so having this effort, Republicans in the state have had to learn how to spend their money more efficiently and smarter.

[00:56:39] And this year, it really showed that it worked out. And they because they were outspent, but they overperformed just from a monetary standpoint. I think what you're saying is I agree with you is that just from a raw dollar standpoint, the Republican money went farther than the Democrats did. And that should be something in a state where there hasn't been a lot of Republican things to be excited about. What the House Republicans did, their campaign operation, how they were able to win is something that people should be looking at.

[00:57:10] Absolutely. And especially when we do take into consideration those state parties and the DFL state party raised nearly $11 million and spent nearly $9 million to defend the trifecta. The Republican Party of Minnesota raised under half a million dollars, spent $70,000 or ended the year with cash on hand of $70,000. So spent a couple hundred thousand dollars in state elections, which the numbers are not surprising, but surprising and staggering all at the same time.

[00:57:39] But to your point, it really does go to show the messaging side of things. The enthusiasm that there was for Republicans, for the elected officials by the base really was significant when we look at the broad track record of what came out of the 2024 election. And can that maintain going forward? Who knows? But I think it is something that money is important.

[00:58:04] We need money to communicate and to do the work, but energy and that grassroots kind of vibe and feeling is a real thing. And the momentum that there is in the groundswell really can help push things along. And it appears for Republicans in Minnesota, it certainly did that. Yep. And then on the federal side, I think you had Republicans did better federally.

[00:58:26] Yeah, they did much better because this article noted that they had brought in close to $4 million on the federal side, which, as you correctly know, was helped by a visit by then candidate former president Donald Trump, now Donald Trump. And we had talked about that with John Rouleau and Kim Christensen. We talked with them about whether the Republican effort, would Trump be value added in this state?

[00:58:50] And it's clear that from a donor perspective and cooperation, Chairman Han and Anna Matthews obviously worked well with Tom Emmer and the Trump campaign to help bring in some big money and get the party out of debt, which was significant. But on the state side, they struggled a bit. And here's the thing. Republicans have, and I understand, and I understand, respect and appreciate Representative Stevenson's talking points about what authority Speaker Damath has.

[00:59:20] But Republicans have the speakership. And that's pretty significant, a win for Republicans in a long time. And there's opportunities for Republicans to build on that. And the last thing from this article that I just thought was interesting and very curious, we're going to have lots of conversations over the coming months on this, is surrounding Governor Walz, your guy. He has entered 2025 with over a million dollars cash on hand.

[00:59:49] So unknown at this point of whether he would be running for that rare third term, it is possible. He has said that he is going to wait until after the legislative session to decide. A million dollars certainly has potential, as this article mentioned, to scare off another challenger going up against the sitting governor, the two-term governor, who may not have been successful on the federal stage, but certainly has been here in Minnesota, was sitting on top of a million dollars.

[01:00:17] Especially when we also have combined that with the news last week with Ken Martin being elected to the DNC. Governor Walz did endorse, put his support behind his deputy chief of staff, Virgil Karbaum, to be the new DFL chair. That is yet to be determined. But that certainly some folks, I think yourself included, tips that towards maybe Walz, is he running, is he not? Leans towards, he wants this guy there so he could run again. So it's just an interesting take. A million dollars is a lot of money.

[01:00:46] We will see in mid-May, June-ish, what decision he makes for the 2026 cycle. But man, 2024 gets done and we're already looking forward towards the next election. Do you think he's going to run for the third term? I don't know. I think all signs point to yes. I think he's tired. I think there's been, I think he went through a lot the last six months.

[01:01:11] I think there's a lot of drama and chaos that this session and next is going to endure. Is he going to be able to have those significant wins leading up to 2026 to pull him over the finish line? And I say that when I want to cautiously think that Republicans are going to put up a sound challenger. I don't know. I don't know. A third term is a lot. What do you think? You got any insights for us from your... No, I don't. I think he runs.

[01:01:40] And one thing I will note too, it's a subject for another episode, which is one of the things, one of the best ways to gauge the intensity and where the wins are and what the intensity and enthusiasm is about the candidates. And I'll be very curious to see, we can talk about it more in a later episode, what candidates that we're hearing and what's being discussed. Because again, Walls doesn't run in a vacuum and there needs to be, if he decides to run, who's his challenger?

[01:02:10] And we'll see where that's looking. What names are getting tossed around and what's being discussed. But I think I'll indicate all signs point to, as you said, yes. But we'll see. All right. Last thing, Super Bowl. What food do you got this weekend? I am. I'm going to be doing, having some food with some neighbors. And I think I'm going to have an assortment of stuff. We're going to have, I think, wings, pulled pork, a whole bunch of stuff. How about you?

[01:02:38] Is your plan, are you going to stay awake for the entire Super Bowl? You're going to stay for the whole time? I would like to think so. It crosses over past my bedtime. So the likelihood is not very high. We're staying home, having a two and a half year old in a game that starts so late. We don't like to mess with his bedtime on a school night. We're just sticking out at home. We're going to have some potato skins and some chili cheese dip. Who are you rooting for? I just want both teams to have a good time.

[01:03:08] That's great. Becky. Oh, last question. I'm going to send this to my girl, T. Swift. Bedding pools right now have it leaning, I think, towards. I don't buy into this. I think it's so silly. But they have it leaning towards Travis Kelsey is going to propose after. Oh, come on. Come on. It's so silly. So much of their life is so public. They would do some cute private proposal if they do with when they get engaged. But I just love seeing that's a part of some of these bit bets right now.

[01:03:37] I'm sorry. You can bet as to whether that's going to happen? I don't know that you can in Minnesota because sports betting is illegal, but I don't know where that lies in it. If that happens, TVs will melt. The TVs will literally melt. Oh, yeah. If that happens, I might call you. Call it maybe if that happens. If that happens, okay? Becky, I want to thank you for doing this week. We want to thank all of our listeners for joining us for another episode of The Breakdown with Rod Kerr and Becky.

[01:04:07] Before you go, show us some love for your favorite podcast by leaving us a review on Apple Podcasts or on the platform where you listen. You can also go to our website and cross all social media platforms at TV Breakdown. The Breakdown with Rod Kerr and Becky will return next week. Thank you so much. Bye.