A break down with Rep. Harry Niska, the Deputy Leader in the Minnesota House Republican Caucus

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

[00:00:18] And I'm Michael Brodkorb.

[00:00:20] We are excited to bring you another episode focused on the local angle. Today, we welcome Representative Harry Niska back to the show, but with a new title, Deputy Republican Leader. With Deputy Leader Niska, we are going to discuss all things Minnesota legislature.

[00:00:33] We will start with his new role, being selected by his fellow caucus members, and break down how the planning for the 2025 session is going with a tied house.

[00:00:42] We will hit on the ongoing issues with missing ballots in House District 54A and the residency challenge in House District 40B that we broke down last week.

[00:00:51] We will also break down the new and bleak budget forecast and get into a little bit of the session preview conversation. Thanks for joining us and enjoy the show.

[00:01:00] Happy Thanksgiving! Belated!

[00:01:02] Happy Thanksgiving to you. Did you have a nice Thanksgiving?

[00:01:05] It was great. It was delicious. We were out in Wisconsin. It was a quick 24 hours, which was a lot of driving there and back, but worth it to spend some time with the in-laws. And we had a fantastic Thanksgiving. How was yours?

[00:01:19] I had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I want to note just a couple issues that happened.

[00:01:23] And number one, I'm not going to name them by name, but I had a relative that really, really breached some protocol in the clearing of the tables. As we've discussed, I'm a big fan of Thanksgiving.

[00:01:34] This is a relative who I'm not going to name, but I was in the middle of my first helping when I had to take a phone call to call another relative, speak with another relative.

[00:01:43] And this person decided why I was gone for that just brief moment to clear my plate.

[00:01:49] So when I came back from my phone call, my plate was also gone.

[00:01:53] Then what happened was the in-laws were assigned cleanup.

[00:01:59] So once my plate was delivered back, the in-laws stepped in and started doing cleanup on the rest of the Thanksgiving meal.

[00:02:08] Now, let me just tell you something, my kind of my feeling on Thanksgiving.

[00:02:13] Thanks. This isn't a state dinner. Okay.

[00:02:16] I'm not this. I'm not the, I'm not the queen of England.

[00:02:20] I'm not the king of England. Okay.

[00:02:21] This is a state dinner.

[00:02:23] This isn't a state dinner.

[00:02:24] This is a family function.

[00:02:25] This is a, just a normal Thanksgiving food needs to sit out for a while.

[00:02:29] It doesn't need to be bused that quickly.

[00:02:31] And so what I've discussed with my family and next year, we're going to fix this problem is people need to not be so fast about the cleaning up the food.

[00:02:41] Thanksgiving meals can, Thanksgiving is just supposed to sit in the buffet.

[00:02:44] It's supposed to, you're a lot of people to come in for, you're a lot of people, first of all, to have first, then seconds.

[00:02:50] And then in some instances, third, fourth and fifth, but you just don't clean it up.

[00:02:54] This isn't, it's a cruise ship.

[00:02:55] It's not a state dinner.

[00:02:57] You don't have to clear it up.

[00:02:58] And that was the only thing that really dampened my Thanksgiving was this rogue relative of mine who decided to clear my plate and look like a show off.

[00:03:07] And it really just threw off the rest of my night.

[00:03:10] I, then I had to get the food out of the refrigerator and then I had to go through it.

[00:03:13] Just, it prolonged my eating experience, but I eventually caught up, but it was just overall, it was a great Thanksgiving.

[00:03:20] Here's the other thing I would point out to you.

[00:03:22] Here's the other thing I would point out to you.

[00:03:23] We also made a decision based on the football games.

[00:03:26] Now, I don't know if you saw what happened in the Chicago bears game.

[00:03:31] The Chicago bears played the lions on Thursday.

[00:03:34] The lions always play on Superbowl.

[00:03:37] The lions always play along with the Cowboys always playing Thanksgiving.

[00:03:40] So there was a 12 o'clock game, 12 o'clock NFL NFL game.

[00:03:44] So I think normal Thanksgiving time to eat is sometimes between one and three.

[00:03:49] That's where I would generally like to do it.

[00:03:50] Sometimes between one and three, we were a little late this year, but what happened was there was a huge blow up at the end of the bears lions game.

[00:03:59] And so this other decision that I made this year was if the Vikings ever play on Thanksgiving and they're the noon game, I want to be eaten during that game.

[00:04:10] Because if I had come to the end of that game and that would have happened to the Vikings, I would have been so angry.

[00:04:16] I'd have been throwing food and I wouldn't have been able to enjoy my meal.

[00:04:19] And so a couple of things that I learned on Thanksgiving, number one, you got to give your relatives some instructions on when to bus tables.

[00:04:27] And number two, if the Vikings are playing on Thanksgiving, you got to have it.

[00:04:31] You got to eat earlier because if something traumatic happens in that game, it could really throw off your eating schedule.

[00:04:39] A very good learning holiday for you.

[00:04:42] I have to say, I do agree with your sentiment of, of the food being out.

[00:04:47] I'm a, I do like the desserts, but I would rather have a second or third helping of the main course and have a dessert three hours later.

[00:04:56] So when people are eating pie, I'm still wanting my mashed potatoes and gravy.

[00:05:00] I still need some of that stuff.

[00:05:02] Definitely support.

[00:05:03] It needs to stay out for an appropriate period of time until everybody is done.

[00:05:06] And it is confirmed that nobody wants seconds or thirds or fourths.

[00:05:11] I'm really glad I had my doubts as to whether you would, you have a long.

[00:05:15] I said war crimes.

[00:05:16] I'm really proud of you.

[00:05:16] I just want to focus on the positive.

[00:05:18] I'm really proud of you.

[00:05:19] Thanks for agreeing with me and thanks for joining on the side of reason.

[00:05:22] And let's talk to Representative Harry Niska.

[00:05:24] All right.

[00:05:28] We are pleased to be joined today by newly elected Deputy Republican Leader Harry Niska.

[00:05:35] Representative or Deputy Leader, I guess we should say.

[00:05:38] Talk to us a little bit about how this came to be.

[00:05:40] You're only in your second term and your caucus members elected you to be number two behind speaker designate Lisa Dameth.

[00:05:49] Sure.

[00:05:50] Just Harry is still fine.

[00:05:52] That's what I prefer.

[00:05:53] But yeah, obviously going into the election, there were hopes and considerations about Republicans being in the majority in the House and some discussions among us as caucus members about what we would do in that eventuality.

[00:06:06] And there were definitely some other members who encouraged me if we were in the majority to run for majority leader.

[00:06:12] And so that was something that I was considering as we went into election day.

[00:06:16] And then we ended up not having a majority or potentially being in a tie situation, depending on a couple of races that are in litigation.

[00:06:24] And at our caucus meeting, then we had an election for a leader, which would be a speaker designate if we have a majority.

[00:06:32] And we also had an election for a deputy leader, which is similar to us being having a majority leader if we were in the majority.

[00:06:39] And I was nominated and stepped forward and was elected in that election.

[00:06:44] I know Michael and I are two of many people very supportive of this move.

[00:06:49] We've had you on before.

[00:06:50] We've talked about your role in debates and committees in the House in general.

[00:06:56] And I think I'm going to toot your horn for you right now.

[00:07:00] I think it's fantastic.

[00:07:01] I think you have been a really strong, articulate leader.

[00:07:04] You have fought really hard.

[00:07:05] And in a way that I think a lot of times we see missing from some of these debates with really factual, substantial, historical things to back up.

[00:07:16] The arguments of the Republican policies, why we're pushing on what we're pushing, why the Democrats are wrong in their policies.

[00:07:23] And I just think it's a really great move.

[00:07:26] I'm really excited to see what you do in this position.

[00:07:28] And I've spoken to so many other Republicans who feel the same way.

[00:07:32] So bravo.

[00:07:33] And I'll let Michael toot your horn as well.

[00:07:35] No, I think it's wonderful.

[00:07:37] I think we've had you on multiple times, as Becky said.

[00:07:39] And I think you've, in a very short time at the legislature, you've made a mark.

[00:07:43] And someone who's been looked upon as obviously being a leader in a legislative body where there's 134 members.

[00:07:50] But I think it's great for the Republican ticket, the Republican brand.

[00:07:54] And good to have someone out there messaging like that, just so I understand correctly.

[00:07:58] Exactly.

[00:07:58] So in this power sharing agreement occurring as this, you have, there is someone who has the exact same title on the Democratic side, correct?

[00:08:06] First of all, you guys are making me very uncomfortable as a Minnesotan of Finnish dissent.

[00:08:11] I appreciate that.

[00:08:12] Yes, my, I am the co-chair of the Rules Committee.

[00:08:16] The other co-chair of the Rules Committee is Jamie Long, who is the majority leader.

[00:08:20] I suspect that signals that they are essentially also operating in a majority type of posture.

[00:08:27] And Melissa Hortman is their speaker designate.

[00:08:30] And Jamie Long is their chair of the Rules Committee, former majority leader.

[00:08:34] I think it's fair to think about that structure as being essentially a mirror, two mirror image, majority-like caucuses.

[00:08:42] And we both have the responsibility of governing if we end up in a 67-67 tie.

[00:08:48] So I think it's appropriate for both parties to think about themselves as a majority party.

[00:08:52] Neither party is really a true minority party in this setup.

[00:08:56] So in a comic book world, he is bizarro Harry Niska.

[00:09:01] So bizarro Superman, like, and he, you would be bizarro.

[00:09:05] That's the thing here.

[00:09:06] That's, so that's the thing.

[00:09:08] We got a dual opposites.

[00:09:10] I'm not sure which one of us might be more either flattered or insulted by that.

[00:09:14] Look, we run, this is a, we want to be respectful to Democrats and Republicans.

[00:09:18] We're not saying who's the, who's, we were not saying which one flies up or which one flies down.

[00:09:22] We're not saying which one's in the Legion of Doom and which one's in the Hall of Justice.

[00:09:26] We're just saying there's a bizarro Harry Niska and there's a bizarro Jamie Long and it's great.

[00:09:32] I have nothing to add to that conversation.

[00:09:34] Oh, read a comic book.

[00:09:36] But we do want to hit briefly on, on the power sharing agreement and how that looks.

[00:09:41] And we know there's still so much up in air and we'll get into some of those cases,

[00:09:46] those different seats in litigation in a moment.

[00:09:49] But as Michael was saying before the show, you've done quite a bit of research,

[00:09:53] which I expect nothing less in the past of when a tie occurred and what happened.

[00:09:58] I know the bare minimum, which is one party got the gavel and one party got the committees.

[00:10:04] But talk to us a little bit about what was done in the past and

[00:10:07] how these conversations are shaking up as we head towards January 14th.

[00:10:12] Sure.

[00:10:12] Yeah.

[00:10:13] As you alluded to that things are proceeding under two tracks.

[00:10:15] One is there are a couple of seats in the court process, which might eventually lead to

[00:10:21] either a temporary or maybe even potentially an enduring Republican majority.

[00:10:25] There's not really a path right now to a DFL majority in the House in this, in this election cycle.

[00:10:30] So we're operating under two paths.

[00:10:32] Obviously, one party being in the majority party is a normal situation.

[00:10:37] So it doesn't require a lot of procedural planning.

[00:10:40] That's a pretty easy template.

[00:10:41] But we're, as you suggested, also working very hard about the likelihood of it ending up in a tie

[00:10:48] where we have a 67 to 67 vote for speaker on the first day of session,

[00:10:54] which is a problem that we have to be able to break.

[00:10:57] And it's happened once before in Minnesota, like you mentioned, in 1979.

[00:11:01] After the Minnesota massacre of 1978, Republicans came from a tiny minority in the House to a tie in the House

[00:11:09] at the same time as they won the governorship in both U.S. Senate seats.

[00:11:13] And that resulted in a situation where one party, a Republican speaker was elected,

[00:11:19] but then Democrats had the chair of the Rules Committee.

[00:11:22] And then there was like an alternating based on importance of committees after that.

[00:11:29] A lot of that was driven by a belief at that time that you couldn't have a true shared speakership role.

[00:11:36] And I think other states have shown, even with similar kinds of language, both in their constitutions and statutes,

[00:11:43] that there are ways to get to more of a shared responsibility and power of the speaker role between the two parties.

[00:11:51] And I think we're learning from the lessons of 1979, mostly negative lessons,

[00:11:56] because I think that was a situation where nobody really was able to have,

[00:12:01] not that they necessarily needed to trust each other,

[00:12:05] but they weren't able to have structures that really lent themselves to the parties being able to trust

[00:12:11] that the other party wasn't playing some sort of games.

[00:12:15] The famous book on this was obviously written by the Republican speaker,

[00:12:19] and the villain of the book is the Democrat leader and his telling of it.

[00:12:24] And frankly, I think that sort of checks out from what I've heard from other people who had involvement in it.

[00:12:30] But obviously the book is written from the Republican speaker's perspective,

[00:12:34] and there was just a lack of trust between,

[00:12:37] and really structures that would allow them to work together and have trust.

[00:12:41] And so we're trying to make different structures this time,

[00:12:44] looking at some examples from other states.

[00:12:47] So what we have said is that there's going to be,

[00:12:49] every committee is going to have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.

[00:12:52] Every committee is going to have a Republican co-chair and a Democrat co-chair.

[00:12:57] I mentioned earlier that I'm the co-chair of the Rules Committee with Jamie Long.

[00:13:00] We won't be able to pass anything out of the Rules Committee to calendar the floor, for example,

[00:13:05] without some bipartisan support.

[00:13:07] And the same thing will be true in committees.

[00:13:09] And our committees are going to operate much more like a conference committee

[00:13:12] when there's a division between the House and the Senate

[00:13:15] than like a normal committee with a majority.

[00:13:17] I just had a conversation with a senator today where I said,

[00:13:20] you better figure out some way that you're going to get your input into the process

[00:13:24] when it's coming through our conference committee before we send it over to the Senate,

[00:13:28] because it's going to be very difficult to then renegotiate something

[00:13:31] that's already been negotiated in a House committee once it comes back from the Senate.

[00:13:36] Obviously, that's going to be an interesting balance to walk,

[00:13:40] because the senators obviously all have their own power and authority and their own ideas,

[00:13:44] and their own ideas about where they should sit in the process.

[00:13:47] But the reality is it's going to be very difficult once...

[00:13:51] It's going to be difficult for the House to come to agreement on a lot of policy issues.

[00:13:56] It's going to be difficult to come to movement on the budget.

[00:13:58] Obviously, we have to when it comes to the budget.

[00:14:01] But then that's going to create another challenge if we don't negotiate something within the House

[00:14:06] that's already essentially clearly able to pass through the Senate and get by the governor.

[00:14:12] Because if we have to add two more complications to that process,

[00:14:18] it's going to make it hard for us to get anything done.

[00:14:21] You just said on something that I hadn't even considered in this.

[00:14:24] I was solely honed in on how this looks for the House,

[00:14:28] but didn't even think about the fact that then it goes to the Senate, which is led by Democrats.

[00:14:32] And I think that's good.

[00:14:33] Especially Democrats are on the ballot this in two years.

[00:14:36] And so they obviously have their own agenda of what they're looking to pass and get through.

[00:14:41] I think one can hope from an outsider's perspective and somebody who's more on the moderate side of things

[00:14:48] and on the Republican Party that I can be cautiously optimistic that we might see some great bipartisan work

[00:14:55] that we haven't been able to see with the single-party rule that has been up at the Capitol

[00:15:00] with numerous legislators and different industry folks coming forward and saying

[00:15:06] that committee testifiers are not being allowed to be heard in committee on Republican bills.

[00:15:11] Republican bills are just not being heard in general.

[00:15:13] The mute button, of course, famously being used in Republicans shut out on the House floor.

[00:15:18] So I am cautiously optimistic that this is maybe, to use a Harris line, turning a new page

[00:15:23] in what can happen with the bipartisanship of the Minnesota House and the legislature as a whole.

[00:15:31] But obviously a lot yet to be hashed out, and a lot of that hinges on two outstanding seats here.

[00:15:38] Yep.

[00:15:39] I have a question that I'd like to ask both of you.

[00:15:41] When I worked at the legislature, I thought that the public really cared about the process.

[00:15:48] And I'd like to ask you, Becky, but also you, Representative Niska,

[00:15:53] if since you were active in party politics before you were elected,

[00:15:56] is it your impression that the public is really engaged on the process?

[00:16:02] I'm just curious what your read is, because I think it's really important,

[00:16:06] and Becky and I have talked about this, which is Republicans now have a foothold.

[00:16:10] At the bare minimum, it's going to be a tie.

[00:16:12] And I think there's a real potential for Republicans to have an outright majority.

[00:16:15] And so do you think all of this back-and-forth jockeying about process really matters to the public,

[00:16:22] or is it about the larger maybe Republicans pushing back on some of the spending bills

[00:16:27] or some of the tax increases that the Democrats have?

[00:16:30] What's important in that world?

[00:16:32] As one of the few Minnesotans who probably does actually care about process,

[00:16:36] I think most voters, if you've knocked on a door of an undecided voter or a swing voter,

[00:16:43] they don't really want to talk about politics at all.

[00:16:46] And to the degree they do care, they care about the results,

[00:16:50] and particularly the results that they themselves personally feel.

[00:16:53] If that means their energy bills are going up, their grocery bills are going up,

[00:16:58] or they don't feel safe walking down the street or going to Minneapolis or whatever,

[00:17:02] those are the types of things that, by and large, most voters care about.

[00:17:06] But even voters who care about that stuff tend not to want to talk about politics very much.

[00:17:11] The normal people, the people who are trying to live normal, adjusted lives,

[00:17:15] unlike us who are deep in the process.

[00:17:18] But the process does matter.

[00:17:20] None of us know everything.

[00:17:21] None of us have the ability to...

[00:17:23] This is a problem with any government central planning.

[00:17:27] None of us are smart enough to really decide everything on our own.

[00:17:31] And it's important that lots of different perspectives are brought to bear on a problem.

[00:17:36] That's the best way you're going to get good policy.

[00:17:38] And that's the value of a free market when it comes to allocating resources more generally.

[00:17:44] Having more information input into the process is always a good thing.

[00:17:48] It's always going to be helpful.

[00:17:49] It's always going to be beneficial.

[00:17:51] And I think I'm hopeful that this next two-year period,

[00:17:56] we're going to have more different perspectives brought to bear on some of our problems that

[00:18:01] we face as Minnesotans than what we saw the last two years.

[00:18:05] Because I think that the results of what we've seen from the last two years have not been good.

[00:18:11] And I would tend to agree.

[00:18:12] What's the saying, though?

[00:18:13] Don't tell me about the labor.

[00:18:14] Just show me the baby.

[00:18:15] I think it's really...

[00:18:16] They just want to see how it impacts their lives and what the end result is.

[00:18:21] But I love it.

[00:18:22] I think this is fun to nerd out on a little bit and see how things go.

[00:18:26] And in particular, not only do we have a deputy leader on to talk about all things legislature,

[00:18:32] we also have an attorney, Harry Niska, on.

[00:18:34] And so I'm really excited to get your input on these ongoing lawsuits that are going on.

[00:18:39] So I want to start with 54A.

[00:18:41] We talked about both this and the residency challenge that we'll get to in a minute on last week's episode

[00:18:46] and where things were at that point.

[00:18:48] Things have evolved since then.

[00:18:49] In particular, in Scott County, we have now seen the preliminary investigative results come out

[00:18:54] saying that basically, for all purposes right now,

[00:18:58] they believe that those 2021 missing ballots have been discarded

[00:19:02] and that there would be no way to determine chain of custody,

[00:19:07] to determine that they were valid, anything of that sort,

[00:19:10] likely due to human error in the absentee, being in the double envelope, and that whole situation.

[00:19:17] From what I have gathered in reading the recent news articles,

[00:19:21] Republican Aaron Paul has filed a lawsuit supported by,

[00:19:24] and I don't know exactly if there's a separate lawsuit or just supported by the House Republican Caucus.

[00:19:29] Dameth has said that seeking an election contest to protect the integrity of the vote in District 54A

[00:19:35] with a new election is what needs to happen.

[00:19:37] Talk to us a little bit about the legal side of this,

[00:19:40] the contest filed or the lawsuit filed by Aaron Paul,

[00:19:44] and what things look like as we head towards the start of session.

[00:19:48] Sure. Yeah, there is just one lawsuit.

[00:19:50] The House Republican Caucus is supporting Aaron Paul's lawsuit as a resident and as a candidate in 54A.

[00:19:57] And you talked about 21 ballots.

[00:19:59] I think it's a little bit more important to think about it as there are 21 voters

[00:20:03] who are disenfranchised in this race.

[00:20:06] 21 voters who tried to vote, who filled out a ballot.

[00:20:10] Maybe they tried to vote in the House race.

[00:20:12] Maybe they didn't.

[00:20:13] We don't know.

[00:20:13] We know that there are 21 voters who tried to vote, who didn't get to vote.

[00:20:17] And we have a race that was decided by 14 votes.

[00:20:22] And I don't know how you can, how anyone at this point can say who won that race.

[00:20:26] And we haven't had a case exactly like this in Minnesota before,

[00:20:32] where we truly are uncertain as to what the outcome actually is,

[00:20:36] if everyone who tried to vote was able to vote.

[00:20:39] But we have had on the 1979 thing, the tie was broken because a candidate who had won an election

[00:20:46] was, had their election basically revoked for something that probably would be a violation of

[00:20:53] the First Amendment now.

[00:20:54] There was a fair campaign practices claim against Bob Pavlak for some,

[00:20:59] I think he reprinted a letter to the editor or something like that in a campaign ad.

[00:21:03] And the Minnesota Supreme Court said that was false, whatever it was in his campaign ad.

[00:21:08] And then the House ejected him and there was a new election.

[00:21:12] I think that's probably the right answer here, that we have a situation where

[00:21:15] we don't have someone who was elected in that race.

[00:21:19] We don't know who won the election.

[00:21:21] So I think the right answer, really the only answer, I think, is to say we have to have another

[00:21:27] election where everyone who wants to vote gets to vote.

[00:21:31] Agreed.

[00:21:32] I think what is so frustrating from my perspective, and obviously it's hard to not have a partisan

[00:21:38] angle on this, but Democrats preach day in and day out about disenfranchising voters through

[00:21:47] what different measures, if it's voter ID or access to the polls or whatever it may be.

[00:21:51] And I think that we all want to make sure that voters are not disenfranchised.

[00:21:55] And in this situation, it is so frustrating that the Democrats just want to go with the

[00:22:00] results because it benefits their side, right?

[00:22:03] Because if this goes to a new election, it is no longer 67-67.

[00:22:08] It would be 67-66 while the new election is pending, a special election likely slated for

[00:22:15] February.

[00:22:16] But with the margin being smaller than these numbers, we don't know.

[00:22:20] Like you said, it's impossible to know if they did vote for Tapkey, if they voted for

[00:22:24] Paul, if they didn't vote in this race.

[00:22:27] And those voters deserve to have their voice heard and they deserve to have their vote count.

[00:22:33] Every vote should count.

[00:22:34] And that's why we want to uphold election integrity.

[00:22:37] And I think it's really, it's tough with all of the, I think, different spin and mudslinging

[00:22:42] when it comes to election integrity and what that looks like.

[00:22:45] But this, to me, should be pretty cut and dry.

[00:22:47] And so I do have a frustration with the Democrats not getting on board in this case.

[00:22:51] But from your legal perspective, what are the next steps?

[00:22:56] What, when would we expect to hear more?

[00:22:58] Is this, I would assume they try to expedite this.

[00:23:00] We're only weeks away from the start of the legislative session and we got to know, right?

[00:23:06] Yeah.

[00:23:07] So there is a very expedited timeline set out in the election contest statute.

[00:23:12] It's, I think, 14 days after the contest is filed.

[00:23:15] There's supposed to be a trial, essentially, on any election contest.

[00:23:19] Here, I think the facts are pretty clear cut unless the only sort of open facts would be

[00:23:24] if you actually found somebody who was involved in throwing away the ballots and were able

[00:23:30] to present some reason to think that it was something other than an accident.

[00:23:34] That might make it easier for the court to decide what to do.

[00:23:37] It might give some idea about how those people voted if you know something about how they

[00:23:42] were thrown away, if they were thrown away for some other reason other than just a total

[00:23:46] good faith mistake.

[00:23:48] Which, again, I like to assume the best of people.

[00:23:51] I think we always should assume the best of people or try to give people the benefit of

[00:23:55] the doubt.

[00:23:55] But we truly just don't know.

[00:23:57] We'd either, I don't know of any reason one way or the other to necessarily assume a

[00:24:01] a good faith mistake or a bad faith reason.

[00:24:05] We truly are in this fog of war kind of a situation about even that question.

[00:24:11] But if questions like information like that, information that might actually show who those

[00:24:17] 20, what those 21 voters might have wanted to vote, those are the kinds of things that

[00:24:21] maybe could come to light.

[00:24:23] I suspect we're not going to get anything like that.

[00:24:25] And we're going to instead get what's already fairly clear cut, which is there are 21

[00:24:30] voters in Shakopee who tried to vote and filled out a ballot and their ballots weren't counted.

[00:24:37] One thing that could, and I want to just ask about this, nothing precludes the elected

[00:24:43] representative, this representative Tatke from just saying resigning and he could call for

[00:24:50] nothing precludes him from stepping back and allowing there to be a do over in the election.

[00:24:55] Correct.

[00:24:56] He could resign.

[00:24:57] There could be a special election that was called.

[00:24:59] There could be a do over.

[00:25:01] And I understand that's unusual and might be considered to be a foolish suggestion, but

[00:25:06] I just want to be clear for our listeners.

[00:25:08] He could step down and the governor could call another election.

[00:25:11] Now there would be a vacancy in that seat then during the legislative session, but there,

[00:25:16] this could get, there could be, that's one vehicle by which there could be a do over

[00:25:20] election.

[00:25:20] Correct.

[00:25:21] I think so.

[00:25:22] I think that would make sense to me.

[00:25:23] I haven't looked into that particular question as to what exactly, you know, who he would

[00:25:28] write a letter to and what that letter would say and how that would, what exactly that would

[00:25:32] trigger.

[00:25:32] But certainly whenever in the election contest, I think he could stipulate to that.

[00:25:38] And that could be a court, something that the court orders.

[00:25:40] If the court does say something along those lines, that there should be a new election,

[00:25:45] he could obviously choose not to appeal that, even bring that to the house and say, yes,

[00:25:50] Governor Walz, please issue a writ of special election and let's get going as quickly as

[00:25:55] possible.

[00:25:56] Those, I think those would be options for him.

[00:25:58] We will anxiously await the outcome in that lawsuit.

[00:26:02] He hasn't called me asking for my legal advice though, so I haven't thought about it

[00:26:08] that much.

[00:26:08] He obviously is missing out.

[00:26:10] Another lawsuit that is going on that we discussed a little bit last week is the residency challenge

[00:26:15] going on in 40B.

[00:26:17] This is a situation with Curtis Johnson who won with an overwhelmingly margin against the

[00:26:24] Republican is being challenged by the Republican candidate, alleging that he rented an apartment

[00:26:30] in the district and that timeframe may have met the residency challenge.

[00:26:34] He didn't actually live there.

[00:26:35] He didn't start any utilities up.

[00:26:38] He was still living in his little Canada home, which is outside of the district.

[00:26:41] This is something that it looks like earlier this week.

[00:26:44] Curtis Johnson, the Democrat who is being challenged in this case, filed a motion seeking to have the

[00:26:49] lawsuit challenging his residency dismissed.

[00:26:52] His attorneys claim that he did live in the apartment.

[00:26:55] And then one thing that I'm curious really, Harry, because again, our residential attorney

[00:27:00] expert here, his attorneys also wrote that there is no case less showing that a court has

[00:27:04] ever entertained a residency challenge under the election contest statute after an election

[00:27:09] has been held.

[00:27:10] They cite the doctrine of latches, claiming that Wolfstrom didn't bring the residency issues

[00:27:16] to the court before the election take place.

[00:27:18] So tell us about what you know here about this case, about the precedent and what we could

[00:27:24] potentially see another situation where it gets knocked down from 67 to 66 while a special

[00:27:30] election is ongoing.

[00:27:32] Sure.

[00:27:32] There are two potential ways to challenge the residency of a candidate.

[00:27:37] The Minnesota Constitution has a requirement that to be a member of the House or Senate, you

[00:27:43] have to have residency in a particular district for, I think it's six months before the election.

[00:27:48] There's a particular timeframe written into the Minnesota Constitution.

[00:27:52] So obviously someone who doesn't meet that has a pretty significant problem when it comes

[00:27:58] to their eligibility to serve.

[00:28:02] Any voter or anybody can bring a lawsuit before an election when the Secretary of State has

[00:28:09] put someone's name on a ballot saying it was an error to put this person's name on the ballot.

[00:28:14] And that is the typical way residency issues have been resolved before.

[00:28:18] And they have been resolved both ways.

[00:28:20] There have been candidates, including candidates for the legislature, who have been kicked off of

[00:28:25] the ballot before the election by a lawsuit brought under that errors and omissions statute.

[00:28:34] Ann Newbrinley was elected to the House when her predecessor was kicked off the ballot right

[00:28:39] before the election.

[00:28:40] That House election didn't happen.

[00:28:43] The ballots had already gone out.

[00:28:45] Ballots for that race weren't counted.

[00:28:47] Votes for that race weren't counted.

[00:28:48] And there was a very quick special election after the November election that Ann Newbrinley won.

[00:28:53] So that's a recent example of a successful case like that.

[00:28:57] I don't know whether or not that is true that residency has never been brought as a challenge

[00:29:04] under the post-election contest statute.

[00:29:08] It may be true, but I do think that the doctrine of latches is a little bit of a loosey-goosey,

[00:29:16] equitable doctrine that makes more sense in the pre-election context and has been applied

[00:29:22] a lot in the pre-election context.

[00:29:23] I don't know that it's ever been used in the post-election contest context to say you can't,

[00:29:31] you can no longer contest whether this person could have been elected because you didn't

[00:29:38] raise it earlier.

[00:29:39] The post-election contest statute seems to just be cut and dried that if someone wasn't properly

[00:29:47] elected for whatever reason, the court can decide that after the election within the short time

[00:29:52] frame that's set out in the contest statute.

[00:29:55] When, and we've mentioned this on previous episodes, when I previously worked for the

[00:29:59] Republican Party in 2002, after redistricting, we had a number of residency cases that we

[00:30:04] raised.

[00:30:05] And so it's an issue that I followed for a number of years.

[00:30:08] I went back and discussed this also with Becky that I've gone back and looked at the filings

[00:30:14] in this case.

[00:30:15] And just based on, remember being us losing, Republican Party losing in 2002, there's a

[00:30:22] lot of data in this case in, it's in Roseville that to me leads to the belief that he wasn't

[00:30:29] living there.

[00:30:30] I'm not an officer of the court.

[00:30:32] I'm not a lawyer.

[00:30:32] I'm just a lay person, just a simple caveman lawyer.

[00:30:36] But this is a, it seems to be like there's some substantive issues there.

[00:30:40] And I, and so I'm very curious to see how that went, but I'm curious about both of them

[00:30:45] play out.

[00:30:45] But it seemed to me that the admission by the lawyer that this should have just been

[00:30:50] filed earlier is not a very strong legal standing of legal leg to stand on.

[00:30:55] And I'll leave it up to the lawyer and the person that I co-host this podcast with that

[00:31:00] went to law school for one year to define what legal leg to stand on means.

[00:31:04] But that's where I see things.

[00:31:07] Yeah, I don't know that much about all the specific evidence in this case.

[00:31:11] Obviously, residency is a very fact-specific issue as based on the fact that it's been decided

[00:31:19] different ways in different cases.

[00:31:21] And the part of the challenge with the doctrine of latches is you have to say someone slept

[00:31:27] on their rights, essentially.

[00:31:29] And if you're in a case where the contestee here, the other candidate, he's saying, my

[00:31:37] understanding is he's saying, I was still developing evidence all the way up through the election.

[00:31:41] And if that's the case, then it's hard for the other party to say you already had enough

[00:31:45] evidence at any particular point in time and you should have brought it then.

[00:31:49] Yeah, it is a little bit of a difficult legal argument for Mr. Johnson to say, you should have

[00:31:55] already known I didn't live in the district because even though I did live in the district.

[00:32:00] Hard to get my mind around that.

[00:32:02] But for our listeners keeping score at home, the best case scenario for the Democrats is

[00:32:08] they win both of these seats and they come back to a tie.

[00:32:11] The other scenario is that they lose one or both of them.

[00:32:14] And for a short period of time, that puts Republicans in a numerical majority.

[00:32:20] It puts them in a numerical lead and they have a governing majority for whatever length of

[00:32:26] time it is to that special election.

[00:32:28] Correct?

[00:32:28] It depends on what you mean by governing majority.

[00:32:31] It gives the Republicans a procedural majority in the House to where the Republicans could elect

[00:32:36] a speaker.

[00:32:36] It does not give Republicans the ability to, on a party line vote, pass any legislation.

[00:32:42] To pass legislation from the House requires 68 votes.

[00:32:46] And so even a 67-65 House is not going to be able to pass bills and pass to the Senate.

[00:32:53] We could calendar bills.

[00:32:54] We could have bills that fail on a 67-65 or 67-66 vote.

[00:33:00] And Democrats might have to vote on things they wouldn't want to vote on.

[00:33:03] It would give structural authority for a period of time, having the speaker and the powers that

[00:33:08] come with the speaker.

[00:33:09] But in terms of actually being able to govern, actually being able to pass legislation on things

[00:33:14] that matter to the state of Minnesota, that would not give us that.

[00:33:16] Only winning that seat in Shakopee would put Republicans in a position where Republicans could

[00:33:22] pass Republican-only bills out of the House.

[00:33:26] And then we would still be in a position where, for purposes of governing, we'd have to work with

[00:33:31] 34-33 DFL Senate and a Democrat governor.

[00:33:35] That's interesting.

[00:33:36] I worked in the Senate and I didn't know that it took 68 votes.

[00:33:40] Who knew that the lower body could be so precise and had those types of rules?

[00:33:45] I thought it was pretty casual over there.

[00:33:47] It's actually language in the Minnesota Constitution that any legislation to pass out of a House

[00:33:53] has to pass by a majority of the members elected.

[00:33:56] And so that means for the House that you have to have 68 votes.

[00:34:00] We did, in fact, have legislation on the final day of session last year where fewer than 68

[00:34:07] Democrats voted for a bill.

[00:34:09] And even though a majority of the members voting voted for it, it failed on a, I think, 67 or 66

[00:34:14] vote majority.

[00:34:15] This is really big bucks.

[00:34:18] This is news to me as well.

[00:34:19] I think that's fascinating.

[00:34:21] And wow, that brings all sorts of new questions to my mind.

[00:34:26] But I think we can hold those for knowing a little bit more when these cases are a little

[00:34:31] bit further along, which sounds like in both cases in the next two weeks, we should find

[00:34:35] out a little bit more.

[00:34:37] Harry, we might call on you for your expertise, again, both from a deputy leader perspective

[00:34:42] and from your brilliant legal mind.

[00:34:44] But in our remaining time here, it was Budget Forecast Week.

[00:34:48] Who doesn't love Budget Forecast Week?

[00:34:50] Usually we, in recent years, have maybe loved it a little bit more.

[00:34:55] I guess this week it's good news and bad news.

[00:34:57] The good news is in the upcoming biennium, there is a 600 or it's projected as a $616 million

[00:35:03] surplus for 2627.

[00:35:07] Then it is projected as a $5.1 billion budget deficit for cycle biennium 2028 and 2029.

[00:35:18] Before I get in, I got on my notes of quotes from Leader Damath, from you, from Governor

[00:35:24] Walls.

[00:35:24] But you're the insider here.

[00:35:26] You've been in the meetings.

[00:35:27] You've dissected this.

[00:35:29] Tell us about how we got here.

[00:35:33] How we got here is that we had a historic budget surplus.

[00:35:37] And a lot of Minnesotans thought that meant there was going to be some money that came back

[00:35:43] to Minnesotans as a one-time, maybe a tax rebate or something like that.

[00:35:48] But instead of really getting much of that, what we got was enormous jump in the size and

[00:35:55] scope of state government, both in there was some spending that was labeled one-time spending,

[00:36:00] but there was a lot of huge new permanent spending increases to the state government.

[00:36:06] And coupled with that were a lot of devastating regulations and other mandates on businesses

[00:36:11] and on Minnesotans that frankly harmed the other side of the equation.

[00:36:16] Harmed are the economy that pays for the services that we expect from government.

[00:36:22] And where we are is in a really precarious position.

[00:36:25] And it's a position that frankly Republicans have been concerned about and warning about

[00:36:30] for the last two years.

[00:36:31] It was something that we saw was coming in the previous budget forecast, but the previous

[00:36:36] budget forecast showed a structural imbalance, but not quite a deficit yet in the coming years.

[00:36:43] This year finally shows what's likely to happen in 28 and 29, which is, as you mentioned,

[00:36:49] a $5 billion.

[00:36:50] I mean, it's literally a swing in three biennial budget cycles from a $17.5 billion surplus to

[00:36:57] a $5 billion deficit.

[00:36:59] I think there's reason to be concerned that if the situation is worse and is actually going

[00:37:03] to get worse than that for a couple of reasons.

[00:37:05] First is, all of this stuff assumes a complete turning off of everything that was labeled as

[00:37:10] one-time spending in the last budget.

[00:37:15] That literally would mean dollar for dollar a massive reduction, actual cut in the state

[00:37:23] budget.

[00:37:24] Now, I know Michael is old enough to remember, like I am, the years of the Pawlenty administration

[00:37:29] where a reduction in the growth of government was a huge, tragic cut by Democrats.

[00:37:37] So I hope that their tune has changed since those years and they're actually willing to

[00:37:43] accept a smaller budget this year than the last budget.

[00:37:48] That's what they're signaling.

[00:37:50] I will believe it when I see it.

[00:37:52] But even if they do truly accept all of the one-time spending blinking off, we still have

[00:38:00] the problem that this budget forecast is projecting of a structural imbalance in the upcoming budgets

[00:38:09] and then a structural imbalance with some carryover money preventing us from going into a deficit

[00:38:15] for one budget cycle and then an enormous budget deficit, $5.1 billion.

[00:38:22] In the 28-29 budget.

[00:38:24] And here in Minnesota, unlike in Washington, we actually can't just accept that budget deficit.

[00:38:28] We have to close it somehow.

[00:38:31] And I don't think that the way we can close it is going to be to tax and regulate Minnesotans

[00:38:36] more.

[00:38:36] The way we're going to have to close it is going to be to make some very difficult decisions

[00:38:41] about spending.

[00:38:42] On the one hand, some maybe not so difficult decisions about spending if we can actually

[00:38:47] just find a way to hold spending fraudsters accountable.

[00:38:51] But there are going to be some big drivers in it, whether we're talking about education,

[00:38:55] whether you're talking about health and human services, that the Democrats now say they

[00:38:59] want to deal with some of those big drivers.

[00:39:01] They didn't deal with any of them when they had the trifecta, but now they say they want

[00:39:04] to work with Republicans to deal with some of those big drivers.

[00:39:07] But then on the other side of the equation, we need to find a way to have an actual vibrant

[00:39:12] Minnesota economy, a private economy that's going to pay for the education, pay for the

[00:39:18] health care, human services of those who are vulnerable, pay for law enforcement.

[00:39:22] And we can't do that with more and more regulation, with more and more restrictive energy policies,

[00:39:29] with more and more just crushing tax hikes, if that's the way that Democrats hope to eventually

[00:39:35] pay for this stuff.

[00:39:36] We're really on the verge, I believe, of Minnesota being in such a fundamental imbalance between

[00:39:41] the public sector and the private economy that the private economy can't pay for what the

[00:39:47] public sector needs.

[00:39:51] And that sets us up for a potential, whether you call it a doom loop or a death spiral, it

[00:39:57] puts Minnesota's future in a very difficult spot where we're not just not capturing the

[00:40:02] opportunities Minnesota has, but potentially driving away productive businesses, driving

[00:40:07] away productive companies and putting Minnesota's fiscal obligations on a path that its private

[00:40:13] economy can't pay for.

[00:40:15] So much good stuff there that I want to get into a little bit further.

[00:40:19] First, starting with just the flat out numbers that you discussed.

[00:40:23] We discussed this when it was going down, the $17 billion surplus that they spent away, raising

[00:40:31] an additional $2 plus billion in taxes on top of that.

[00:40:36] And with our skepticism and concerns about the quote unquote one time money, knowing that's

[00:40:42] not going to be the case because you just laid it out.

[00:40:44] Now you can't give all of this money and expect these now organizations or industries or sectors

[00:40:49] or whatever it is to now go without something that they were just given.

[00:40:54] And we know that is just not the case simply that these are all now going to get zeroed out

[00:40:58] and that money is not going to get spent again.

[00:41:01] But we do see Democrats, while you said, leaning into looking at cuts in some areas,

[00:41:06] also doubling down on what they did, on the policies that passed.

[00:41:12] We said Governor Walz said we put money into things that have improved people's lives and

[00:41:15] built for the future, created and passed middle class tax cuts, to be argued.

[00:41:20] We put money into public safety.

[00:41:21] We rebuilt roads and infrastructure at a faster rate.

[00:41:24] We've invested in child care, making child care cheaper and easier to access.

[00:41:28] We're seeing them do that, which also means they're not going to turn around and defund

[00:41:33] or take away all of that.

[00:41:35] So are you optimistic that we're going to be able to find a way to reduce some of the

[00:41:41] spending?

[00:41:41] Because we just raised taxes $2 billion.

[00:41:44] We're seeing with inflation and the struggling economy and Minnesotan and voters across the

[00:41:49] country really having this mandate in the last election that we can't continue down this path.

[00:41:54] How do we fix this?

[00:41:56] I do think that as Republicans, we're going to expect the Democrats to hold to what they've

[00:42:01] said about long-time spending, that that's going to be a reduction.

[00:42:04] I think that there's not going to be a way to pass a tax hike through the Minnesota House

[00:42:10] with 67 Republicans.

[00:42:12] We're going to have to find a way to come to some sort of budget agreement on this current

[00:42:17] budget on both of those fronts.

[00:42:19] There's going to be, for the first time in a few years, some actual oversight hearings about

[00:42:25] some of the things that have happened in state government, some of the incompetence and fraud

[00:42:29] and waste.

[00:42:30] And that should lead to some solutions.

[00:42:33] I do hope that Democrats are willing to come to the table on dealing with some of those

[00:42:39] big cost drivers that they are concerned about.

[00:42:43] I do hope that there are some ways to come together on some policy that would make Minnesota's

[00:42:48] business climate better and Minnesota's energy climate better than what the policy that was

[00:42:54] passed through the Democrat.

[00:42:55] Those are the kinds of things.

[00:42:57] But frankly, it's going to be small ball things, I think, that can happen in this next two-year

[00:43:02] period.

[00:43:03] And then Minnesota's voters are going to have a big choice to make about the future of

[00:43:07] Minnesota, about whether we're going to continue down a path of growing government,

[00:43:11] having government have more control and continue to crowd out the private sector, the free market

[00:43:18] and other parts of the state, or whether we're going to go back towards trying to find a balance

[00:43:24] between our private economy and our public sector.

[00:43:27] The size, the number of government employees, all of this stuff has massively increased in

[00:43:32] a sort of unprecedented way if you just look at the trajectory of the growth of Minnesota's

[00:43:37] government sector even coming up to now.

[00:43:40] So that's going to be the big long-term challenge.

[00:43:42] Hopefully, we're going to be able to fix some of those problems in some way, but it's going

[00:43:47] to be limited by the fact that it's going to have to be things that pass on a bipartisan

[00:43:53] basis.

[00:43:54] One of the things that Becky and I have talked about a lot is that in the aftermath of the

[00:43:59] 22 elections, particularly at the legislative level, there were a lot of Democrats who won

[00:44:05] who didn't campaign on some of the issues that they were going to discuss.

[00:44:08] I think the opportunity that exists, and I'd like to get your perspective on this, because

[00:44:12] of the kind of mixed message from the budget forecast, meaning there's a slight surplus,

[00:44:18] a little over $600 million surplus right now, but coming into basically a structural deficit

[00:44:23] in a cycle, that's going to have to be a discussion on some tough issues because I've always said

[00:44:29] that it's easier for legislators to govern in times of a budget surplus than it is a budget

[00:44:34] deficit.

[00:44:37] How do you think that's going to shape up, just from a messaging perspective, Republicans

[00:44:44] and Democrats coming into this tight governing majority, but then also coming to some fiscal

[00:44:49] realities where I think a lot of these Democrats have not had to live in before?

[00:44:53] They came in a time in which there were massive budget surpluses, record budget surpluses, and

[00:44:59] now they're going to be facing some deficit.

[00:45:01] What type of opportunity does that provide Republicans to offer some contrast on messaging?

[00:45:07] I think it's fundamentally going to be about who's going to have a more responsible future,

[00:45:13] who's going to steward Minnesota's ship of state towards whatever opportunities lie in the future

[00:45:21] for Minnesota. Is Minnesota going to capture the economic opportunities that are created by

[00:45:25] what has been a historically strong workforce in Minnesota? Is Minnesota going to capture the

[00:45:31] economic opportunities that are created by our natural resources in the ways that those might play

[00:45:37] into the economy of the future, whether we're talking about an energy transition of the future or

[00:45:42] whether we're talking about AI and data centers and the technology opportunities of the future?

[00:45:46] What is the future that we can lay out for Minnesota and who's going to more responsibly lead

[00:45:52] Minnesota to a more prosperous future, a future where we do get back onto a sustainable path where

[00:45:59] the private economy of Minnesota offers opportunities for Minnesotans, offers the ability to have a

[00:46:07] vibrant economy that can pay for those things that we all support, whether we're talking about

[00:46:12] education, whether we're talking about taking care of the sick and the elderly in Minnesota. Those are

[00:46:17] some of the big looming cost drivers that when you look at this budget forecast are telling us that

[00:46:24] we're headed for a deficit. But those aren't things that where you can just write people off and say,

[00:46:30] we're not going to do that anymore. Those are things where we have to figure out how to,

[00:46:34] A, responsibly do those things. So we're targeting the spending that we are able to do at the

[00:46:40] people who truly need it and are able to do it efficiently. But more importantly, that we still

[00:46:45] have all of the other things, the quality of life things in our state, but also the economic growth

[00:46:49] in our state that's going to allow the state to function well. And how are we going to bring

[00:46:54] that back into balance? How are we going to correct the course of the state of Minnesota to make all of

[00:47:01] those things work together? I think what this budget forecast showed in very stark terms in the

[00:47:06] long term is that those things are out of balance. And those things were pushed out of balance by a

[00:47:13] series of policy choices that were made deliberately by the Walls administration, by the DFL House and

[00:47:19] Senate as a result of them thinking that it was easy to govern in a time of surplus. And they did the

[00:47:26] easy things. They did the things that were politically popular, particularly with the people who helped get

[00:47:32] them there. But they didn't do the hard things that would have been dealing with those long term

[00:47:38] problems and also thinking about the ramifications of a huge series of new regulations on job creators,

[00:47:46] a huge series of new regulations on our energy sector, banning essentially all of the important parts of

[00:47:52] the baseload power in our state without even repealing the nuclear moratorium. That would help us to

[00:47:58] explore some potential new sources of energy that might help us compete for those economic

[00:48:04] opportunities of the future. And then a huge expansion of the public or of the government sector at the

[00:48:10] expense of the private sector. Well, Harry, I think we're coming up on the end of our time. We're

[00:48:17] certainly going to need you to have you back to chat about all the ongoing process here as we head into

[00:48:23] the legislative session, what we're going to expect to see as you guys determine and work out these

[00:48:27] issues with the budget because it is a budget year. There's obviously going to be different policies

[00:48:31] that come down, are being argued in committees and on the House and Senate floor. We're going to keep our eye

[00:48:36] on these ongoing court cases. And then one other thing I'm very interested to keep my eye on here is I saw

[00:48:42] the Leader Demeth and yourself and House Republican co-chairs putting out a list of committees to these

[00:48:48] different agencies like you were just talking about, trying to find out where some of that waste, where some of

[00:48:52] those unnecessary costs are, asking them questions such as how many of the new jobs created by the

[00:48:58] current budget remain open, what leases the agencies have in buildings that are less than full due to

[00:49:03] work from home policies, all of these different areas where hopefully there can be some maybe shrinking

[00:49:08] of government a little bit or at least more responsible spending, finding that waste and fraud

[00:49:14] if it exists and where it exists to help out that budget bottom line. So appreciate all of your work

[00:49:19] with that. Good luck in the leadership. And we're so grateful for all of your time today,

[00:49:23] helping us break down these lawsuits, how the party structure and the power sharing agreement is going,

[00:49:29] and most importantly, how we're going to fix this crippling projected deficit.

[00:49:35] We have a lot of faith in you up there as a leader with Leader Demeth and our Speaker-designate

[00:49:42] Demeth and look forward to seeing all that you do this upcoming session.

[00:49:47] All right. Well, thanks for having me.

[00:49:49] Becky, we just interviewed Representative Harry Niska, who's now the deputy leader on the Republican side

[00:49:56] in the Minnesota legislature. Your take on the interview.

[00:50:00] Anytime we get to talk to Harry Niska is just a good day by me.

[00:50:03] Representative Niska.

[00:50:04] Representative Niska. He, it's, that one's a little, always a little tough for me. He is a good friend.

[00:50:09] His wife was one of my bridesmaids. I've known the Niskas back going now, oh my God, some 10, 15 years

[00:50:17] almost. And he is just, just brilliant. He just, he knows the legal side. He knows the legislative

[00:50:27] side. He knows the ins and outs. And like we talked about, he's just able to articulate it in a way that I

[00:50:32] think is so helpful for the Republican Party and our brand as a whole. I think that he definitely carries

[00:50:39] the flag for conservative Republicans in this state. And he is able to do so without the distraction and

[00:50:46] without all of the chaos that we see from some leaders in the state and across the country.

[00:50:51] And I just really respect him and the work he does. And it's obviously becoming a leader.

[00:50:57] And his second term is a true testament to what he did in his first and how his fellow caucus members

[00:51:03] look at him and believe in him. And so super excited to see what he does this upcoming year.

[00:51:08] And he thinks that that 68 vote majority that is needed, man, blows my mind.

[00:51:15] Um, representative Niska is one of the, I mean, we've had him on a few times. Uh, I'm, as you said

[00:51:22] it, it is only his second term and he's been propelled up, uh, the leadership wrong quite quickly. It's not

[00:51:29] surprising. Uh, I think he's fantastic. He is a Republican that I think has tremendous statewide

[00:51:35] potential, but I could also see him staying at the legislature. And because wherever representative

[00:51:41] Niska is, I think the environment gets better. It becomes more informed. He's always so gracious

[00:51:46] in coming on our podcast, but just from like a Republican messaging standpoint, I think he's good.

[00:51:51] I think he, he can, he obviously has very strong convictions, but understands, I think the ability to

[00:51:57] message and talk about it. And so he's just a really smart guy. And ultimately from a political

[00:52:03] standpoint, I think he's just the total package in terms of he has the right level. He has, obviously

[00:52:09] he's got brains, he's smart. And I, but I also think he has really good communication skills.

[00:52:14] And I also think he knows how to be a leader and represent understanding that he just doesn't

[00:52:20] represent Republicans in office, although he holds Republican views and he's guided by those

[00:52:24] principles. He's able to message in a variety of ways. He and representative Ellie Dingen in different

[00:52:31] ages, but in terms of they're both, both elected at the same time. Those are two folks that I think

[00:52:36] two legislators who I think have tremendous aside from others that we've had on, but just speaking

[00:52:41] with him, the level of maturity and his, his level of just his communication skills, just his ability

[00:52:47] to talk. You could talk to representative Niska for a really long time. And not only, I think you would

[00:52:53] come out smarter, but I think you would really enjoy the conversation. And one thing that I think

[00:52:57] I like having him on our podcast because I legitimate, and I don't say, I don't enjoy other conversations.

[00:53:02] I legitimately like hearing him speak because I think he's so thoughtful, very intelligent.

[00:53:08] And I think he approaches things from a really smart perspective. And I think he's just an honest,

[00:53:13] straightforward guy. And I think he's, I'd like to see him succeed. And I'm glad that he

[00:53:16] was elected to a leadership position because I think he's going to do great things.

[00:53:21] Absolutely agree. And don't tell him I said so, but he's pretty funny too. So if you get him

[00:53:25] a little bit in a less formal situation, he's, he can crack those jokes too.

[00:53:31] He seems to be a pretty formal guy though. Like he's

[00:53:34] attorney. That's what he's done for his career.

[00:53:36] And he's a legislator. There's no mess around there.

[00:53:38] There's no margin for error. Where should we go to next?

[00:53:41] We got to, got to end the show with a little football chat.

[00:53:45] Oh, that's right.

[00:53:46] It was, it was a big week.

[00:53:48] It was a good week. Yes, it was.

[00:53:50] We both got all 16 games right this week.

[00:53:53] I'm angry. I'm just going to say this to you. I'm going to, I'm going to say for the

[00:53:56] first time on this podcast that I'm angry. I really expected, I was, man,

[00:54:00] I just can't catch a break right now. I just can't catch a break. I got all 16, right?

[00:54:06] Yeah.

[00:54:07] And then you did.

[00:54:08] Yeah.

[00:54:08] So I sent you a video and I, by the way, I should just say, we do some post-production

[00:54:13] talk off air and the text messages that I send to Becky generally on Sundays are basically

[00:54:19] profanity laced, middle fingers or other things. But boy, I was mad. And I, so I sent her the

[00:54:24] classic video of the guy in an office cubicle, just beating the side of his computer. I was so

[00:54:30] mad. I'm like 16, I'm going to pick up some games. Now we're in a tie. So you're still in

[00:54:36] first place. I'm in a good group. Who's in my group with me in second place?

[00:54:40] Mark Drake, I believe.

[00:54:42] And is there one more?

[00:54:43] Is it just Mark Howard Drake in me?

[00:54:45] I think it might just be the two of you.

[00:54:46] You know who we've passed the side respectfully in this, in the most respectful way,

[00:54:50] we've passed your husband up. So your husband's knocked out. Where's your husband at?

[00:54:53] He had a rough week this week. He's down in second or in sixth place now.

[00:54:58] How many did he get?

[00:54:59] He only got 11 right this week.

[00:55:00] Oof.

[00:55:01] Yeah.

[00:55:01] So I don't think.

[00:55:02] I think he was going, he's going for, he tries to think too much into this. Now don't,

[00:55:07] he's not going to listen to this, but he like, again,

[00:55:11] The podcast does get broadcast.

[00:55:13] Yes. He does not. He voted against the Vikings again because they're just bound to have a loss at

[00:55:18] some point. He is a Packers fan.

[00:55:21] Right. And they got their big week this week with Lions. So it's going to be,

[00:55:26] so I did vote against the Packers this week, but yeah, it was, it was a rough week for him,

[00:55:30] but 16 man. And I was pretty proud of that. I will say the game makeup was very largely a

[00:55:38] 10 and two team versus a two and nine team. The makeup was set for us to have a good week,

[00:55:44] but I went back and looked at, I went back and looked at the stats. I'm not aware that either

[00:55:49] of us ever picked 16 games right in a week. And so the fact that it happened the same week that you

[00:55:55] did, I'm not super happy about it, but I'm also proud. So let's not diminish the fact that my

[00:55:59] frustration and anger is out of the fact that I had a super great week. And so did you, but I'm

[00:56:04] still, I'm not losing ground. And again, I also wanted my family fantasy football league.

[00:56:10] So, and since I've focused more on and not defending democracy, I'm having a great time.

[00:56:16] This week I'm positive. I'm positive. I'm going to make some gains this week. And next week when we

[00:56:20] talk in the podcast, you're going to be crying in your soup. All right. We'll see. I'm up by two

[00:56:25] right now. So there's definitely a room for movement. We'll chat more. Well, Becky, I want to thank you

[00:56:32] for joining us again on this belated release of the breakdown with Bob Cobra, Becky. We want to thank all

[00:56:38] of our listeners for listening to this episode of the breakdown with Bob Cobra, Becky, before we go,

[00:56:42] show some love for your favorite podcast by leaving us a review on Apple podcasts or on the platform

[00:56:46] where you listen. You can also leave a review on our website and across all and follow us across

[00:56:51] all social media platforms at BB break pod. The breakdown with broad core and Becky will return

[00:56:57] next week. Have a great weekend. Bye.