Bonus Episode: A Break Down about Lawsuits, Power Plays, and Quorum Wars

[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 Michael Brodkorb. Becky Scherr is off today. On this bonus episode, I'm excited to welcome Republican Majority Leader Harry Niska back to the podcast to help us discuss the ongoing standoff in the Minnesota House of Representatives and a lawsuit filed by House Republicans against Secretary of State Steve Simon. Because we like to keep things balanced, I will also bring back one of our favorite

[00:00:40] resident Democrats, Julius Hernandez, to give us a different perspective on the situation. Thank you so much for joining me today and enjoy the show. I'm excited to be joined today by Leader Harry Niska of the Minnesota House of Representatives. Leader Niska, we're still in this standout that's going on in the legislature. I just want to take a few minutes today. Can you inform our listeners where we're currently at and talk about a lawsuit that you recently filed against the Secretary of State?

[00:01:10] Sure. So we're at the end of the Minnesota House of Representatives.

[00:01:40] 68 members is a quorum in order to be recognized in anything that we would do. So this week, Republicans have showed up for work every day. Democrats are still refusing to show up for work. They're threatening, essentially, that they're going to not show up until March 17th, potentially, when it looks like maybe there would be a 134th member elected in the 40B election.

[00:02:05] But they're still collecting a paycheck. And we were hearing from a lot of Minnesotans. Frankly, I'm outraged. And a lot of Minnesotans I know are outraged that members of the House who are not coming to the Capitol to do the work that the people of Minnesota elected them to do, that they ran in their communities to come to the legislature and do, that they're still getting paid for that.

[00:03:55] And we're also getting paid for that. And we're also getting paid for that. And we're going to do a lawsuit against Steve Simon to have the Supreme Court tell him to stop overstepping his bounds in the legislative branch. What are your options to compel quorum? Sure. In Minnesota, we've never had a quorum break like this before. There's never been an organized effort by an entire caucus to prevent a House from even organizing.

[00:04:18] We have had other examples in other states with similar language. So in both Indiana and in Oregon, those who had the power to compel members and prescribe penalties have fined amounts of salary from the legislators who aren't there. So we think that's clearly something that we could do, the 67 of us who are there, if Steve Simon would stop interfering with our ability to discuss and vote on prescribing those kind of penalties.

[00:04:47] In other states and in U.S. Congress, there have been law enforcement physically bringing people to the Capitol to work. So in Texas, it went all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. Arrest warrants that had been issued for members of the Texas legislature and the Texas Supreme Court said that was within this kind of constitutional language that you can compel members and prescribe penalties. Obviously, that's not the motion that we have tried to put before the House. We haven't done anything about sending out law enforcement.

[00:05:16] But those are the types of things that are within that broad power. The courts that have looked at this kind of language have said it's really broad and unlimited power to protect the legislature, to be a vehicle for the legislative branch to function. Remember, we're talking about people who are choosing not to go to the legislature because they don't like the outcome of a vote that will happen at the legislature if they go.

[00:05:40] So this is really fundamental to our entire system of government, to have a representative democracy, a Republican form of government where we elect elected officials to go to the Capitol. Then they have elections, they have votes, they debate things at the Capitol. And to try to prevent that from even happening is it's a tactic that has been done at times in the past. It's never really worked out that politically for the folks who have tried that tactic long term.

[00:06:06] I think the Democrats might want to take a look at what's happened politically to the parties that have done things like this in other states and other places in the past. But it is a tactic, but it's not a tactic that the Constitution says is good or allowed. And the Constitution definitely does not say that the elected officials who are there trying to do the work are powerless to just allow the Democrats to continue to do this. Steve Simon is trying to make us powerless. The Democrats in the House are trying to make us powerless.

[00:06:35] The governor also obviously allied with the Democrats. The Democrat governor is trying to make us powerless. But the Constitution says we're not powerless. And we expect that the Supreme Court is going to agree with that. We have you for just a few minutes this morning. I wanted to ask you just a couple of questions. Number one, so when I'm watching the House session, and I've been watching almost every day that it's gone on, and I've noticed a pattern. And can you just maybe help explain this to me and our listeners? You are a sworn in member of the legislature.

[00:07:04] You're in a leadership position of the 67 that's there. And what I'm seeing on TV is the Secretary of State come in, open it up, and then there's an opening prayer, a temporary clerk. They go through the quorum. He determines that there's not a quorum, and the Supreme Court has now set what a quorum is. But I see you standing up at your leadership desk asking to be recognized. Correct.

[00:07:32] What I'm trying to understand is how you have – is that where the fight is, is that there's – that he doesn't – the disagreement right now, that the Secretary of State is not looking up, not recognizing you, not acknowledging that you're there for you to offer anything? Exactly. And it's more than that. And this is in the declaration that I filed in the lawsuit. So on Monday, before we had our first session of this week, Speaker Damath and I had a meeting with Steve Simon where we talked about him recognizing members.

[00:08:02] And he specifically said he was not going to recognize anyone for any motion, not a motion to adjourn. And traditionally, it would be – an adjournment motion would be me as the floor leader, as the majority leader for our party, moving that we – when the House adjourns today, it adjourns until 3.30 tomorrow, a specific time and a specific date. And then when that motion passes, then I would move that the House do now adjourn.

[00:08:26] He is not recognizing us even for that motion, but we also have filed a written motion at the desk every single day. There was a slightly different version of it the first two days and the second two days, but the essence of it was the same, which is that absent members would be compelled with a fine of loss of their salary and a loss of their eligibility for per diem for the entire legislative session.

[00:08:51] If the salary would be for the days they missed, but the per diem would be a loss of eligibility of that for the session. And that was the motion. It was presented at the desk the way that every written motion is presented at the desk for the presiding officer or the speaker in the Minnesota House. And every single day I have risen and stood at that leadership desk. He knows that I am seeking recognition and he will not look at me. He looks away from me.

[00:09:19] He gavels it out and says we are adjourned until a time that he, I will give him this. He does discuss with us what time he is going to adjourn us to, but outside of the House, outside of the session, he has that discussion with us. But when we're on the floor of the House, he refuses to recognize us to make those kinds of motions, even the motions that are very clearly set out in the Constitution as motions, as actions that a lesser number than a quorum can take.

[00:09:48] Aside from the constitutional issues that you raise about being recognized and the ability to enforce a quorum, talk for a second about the fact that he's from the executive branch and you're in the legislative branch. Why is that so important that there needs to be those separate but equal branches? That's right. It's fundamental to our system of government. It's right in the Minnesota Constitution that members of different branches can't interfere in the operation of another branch.

[00:10:14] Steve Simon is only at the House at all because of a statute, because of two statutes that reference him being a temporary presiding officer. But even if Steve Simon were a member of the legislative branch, it would be improper for a presiding officer to just roll over a body like that. That's not within the powers of a presiding officer in any legislative body. A presiding officer is there to be a servant of the people who are there.

[00:10:39] A presiding officer's ruling almost always can be a point of order, can be overturned by the members who are there. And here we have a situation where we have 67 members, a majority of the members of that body right now, whether it's a quorum or not, it is there are 133 members of the Minnesota House and 67 of them are there trying to do things that are within the clear power of 67 members to do under the Minnesota Constitution.

[00:11:04] And as a non-member of our body, a member of the executive branch, he's preventing us from doing that. There's just no legal justification for him doing that. There is no constitutional authority for him to do that. And the only thing we can do at this point is to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to intervene again. Last question. What's the process at the Supreme Court and how do you see this getting resolved? So the Minnesota Supreme Court will issue a scheduling order at some point. We're talking at 10, 15 in the morning on Friday. I haven't seen that yet.

[00:11:34] Today, and then we'll know more about this. That's a guarantee that they'll do that? They will have to take the case up? They will issue a scheduling order at some point. Yeah, they might. I suppose it's possible they would just go straight to some sort of a ruling, but most likely they will issue a scheduling order that tells us that we have to serve the other side by a certain date and the other side has a certain date to respond. And that's how they normally handle cases like this. How long does that last?

[00:12:01] It depends on how long the Supreme Court decides it should last. So this is a very similar procedural case as the case that Steve Simon brought against Lisa Damoth a couple of weeks ago, and the Minnesota Supreme Court moved very quickly on that case. But we're talking about a matter of a couple of weeks, probably not a matter of hours or days, hopefully not a matter of months.

[00:12:23] Obviously, the threat that the Democrats are trying to carry out is that they are going to refuse to come to work until St. Patrick's Day. Another six weeks from now, they're going to shut down the entire legislative branch for another six weeks if we don't satisfy their demands that they're asking for to just get them to show up for work. Leader Niska, what should people do if they're concerned about this issue? What should they do to stay engaged?

[00:12:50] I think almost half of the state of Minnesota right now is represented by someone who's refusing to show up for work. And if that's one of your representatives, you should be talking to them about why is it that instead of going through the democratic process, instead of going through the legislative process, going to the floor of the House, debating and voting on things, debating and voting on who should be Speaker of the House, debating and voting.

[00:13:12] If there's an election challenge that comes before them, why instead of doing that, they're refusing to show up for work at all, why they think they're entitled to a paycheck for not showing up for work. I think Minnesotans that I'm hearing from are very frustrated that anyone would think that's in any way an acceptable way to do any job, first of all, but a job where you ran for the opportunity to represent your constituents at the Capitol, to not show up for work and to still expect a paycheck.

[00:13:38] Just because you think that if you go to the legislature and you have votes, those votes aren't going to turn out your way. That's not the way we do things in America. I went to the Capitol every single day that we were in session last, the last session. A lot of votes turned out the way I didn't want them to. I stood up on the floor. I explained my perspective. I voted the way I did. And then I accepted the results. That's what we do in America. That's how our government is supposed to work. You don't just say, I'm not going to go to work. I do still want to get paid.

[00:14:07] I want to roll out of bed and do a Zoom call or maybe go meet with a constituent, but I'm not going to go do the actual job that I ran for or that people are paying me to do. That's unacceptable. Leader Niska, thank you for taking time today to update our listeners. And I wish you the best. Stay safe. Godspeed. Thank you. I'm excited to welcome Julius Hernandez back to the podcast to offer some commentary on the current legislative standoff that's ongoing.

[00:14:35] Julius, I want to disclose that my co-host Becky is attempting to deny this podcast quorum today. So she's not here, but I'm trying to assert my rights as to compel some attendance. But we're still in the working stages. But I wish Becky the best. She's off today. But I wanted to circle back with you. You've been on multiple times since this kind of standoff started. And one of the first things I want to ask you about is when we had you on a few weeks ago, you were the first person.

[00:15:05] And I was surprised by that. You were the first person to use this term illegitimate to describe what the House Republicans were doing. You said it so often and with such consistency that I was curious if you were being paid every time you used that word. But you were the first person to frame this well in advance of any legal decision that from your perspective, what the Republicans were doing was not legitimate. Talk about that for a second.

[00:15:32] Yeah, I think the entire question came down to what is quorum. Obviously, the DFL had their perspective. And I should be paid for using the word illegitimate so many times. I think I've really upped their market value. But I think there was a question of what is quorum. Obviously, Republicans thought it was 67. Democrats thought it was 68. And in my mind, it was never going to be was the Supreme Court going to rule on this. It was what they were going to rule.

[00:15:58] And I think when you look at some of the language, the argument made by the DFL and the Solicitor General from in front of the Supreme Court made sense. It's the number of seats that are in the body no matter what. Right. And the reason I always was using the word illegitimate is because they were not in a position to even pass a bill. 68 is to pass a bill, to pass something that makes a difference. And they knew that, right? Their actions in the House made it clear.

[00:16:26] They knew that they did not have quorum because the only thing they could pass were resolutions. And so I think for the sake of the legislator going forward, we're in a good spot because the Supreme Court has made it very clear what quorum is. And I don't think Republicans have many cards to play anymore. I think they need to come back to the negotiating table. But also one thing I want to point out about Republicans and why I think when I was calling them illegitimate, they had a chance to be legitimate and they really fumbled.

[00:16:56] Well, they got offered a really good deal by the DFL to be the governing party, the party in control of the legislator, even when the body was going to go back to being tied. Right. And they didn't take it. And so now they put themselves in a position where they gambled and they lost. And now they have to come back to the table because they don't have much to stand on anymore when it comes to this conversation about if they have any power in the legislator, which they obviously don't.

[00:17:21] But yeah, I think at the end of the day, it really came down to, I believe quorum was 68 and they believed it was 67 and the DFL won in that conversation. And, you know, it's good for it's good for the state and the legislator that that was clarified, whatever way it went, you know. So now that we've clarified that it's 68, we're still in a standoff, though, because legislative Democrats in the House are not are doing everything they can to deny quorum.

[00:17:49] And so where we've been in the last few weeks is a little bit of a standoff in a sense that what the procedure that's happening is Secretary of State Simon is the presiding officer. He's coming into the chamber. He's doing what he's required to do. But and he's coming to the determination now that the Supreme Court has said it's 68, that if the number is 67, that's not a quorum.

[00:18:11] And he's shutting down the chamber and adjourning to the next available time that has led to a lawsuit that was recently filed by the House Republicans. And previously in this episode, I spoke with Representative Niska about that lawsuit. Give me your take on what you've read about that lawsuit and how you think that's going to factor in. Yeah, and I'll preface it with I'm not a spokesperson for the DFL. I'm not a lawyer, but I think I have some of those. You're right. I'm a hack.

[00:18:41] You're an informed DFL hack. Yeah. And I think also I called the quorum situation in the Supreme Court. And I think I called some of those legal decisions right at the end of the day in terms of how they were going to come out. Have you played a lawyer on TV? I am thinking I might get casted in suits, I think, or something along that nature.

[00:19:01] No, I will say to you, while you're not a lawyer, you coming out of the gates with illegitimate to describe what the House were doing, what you perceive the House Republicans were doing, was somewhat validated by what the Supreme Court said. So even though you're not a lawyer, you should consider going at some point. Yeah, probably not. But no, I think the situation that is going to be really interesting right now, going into this lawsuit with the Supreme Court, I think the oral arguments are Thursday, February 6.

[00:19:29] What's going to be really fascinating about that is Republicans are making this argument that by denying the right of the body that is there, the Republican body, to make any motions, that he's overstepping his boundaries as what the Constitution state he's supposed to do. But I think you get into a really sticky situation if you're Republicans, because the Constitution is very clear about what he is supposed to do.

[00:19:55] He is there to decide if there's a court, to oversee the body until they're organized, until there's a quorum. And there's no other place for him to do anything else. So by the same argument they're making that he should not allow them to make motions, or he should allow them to make motions, he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do anything else, but open, see if there's a quorum, let the body organize, and then step back.

[00:20:21] If he were to allow the Republicans to make any motions or do any business, he would be going directly against what the Supreme Court stated, which is quorum of 68. Motions are business. To make any sort of motion to do anything on the House floor except convene or not convene is considered doing business. You don't have 68 people, so you can't do that. And Steve Simon would be overstepping by allowing them to do that when there's not a quorum to be in place.

[00:20:48] How do you reconcile that statement with the ability of a smaller number to enforce quorum? I don't know. I don't think it's up to Secretary of State Simon, Secretary of State Steve Simon, to be a part of that discussion, though. And I think, I don't know, again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the parliamentary procedures of the House in its depth. Republicans are making these claims that they want to use the state patrol to enforce the DFL to show up.

[00:21:17] I don't think anyone's made the claim that they want to. They suggested it. But my point is simply, we can disagree about the use of the tactic, but I don't think anyone is disputing that legislative Democrats in the House have the opportunity, they have the procedure to deny quorum. Right. And we've talked about this before, but in this kind of situation, I don't think we want to assign virtue to one side and vice to another.

[00:21:46] And I do believe that the Republicans have options. Yes. And if we're going to say that denying quorum is a legitimate parliamentarian procedure, if that's something that's allowed, that the rules allow for, there are other rules that allow for the enforcement of quorum. And we're a smaller number can and do a number of things. And that's where I think procedurally, I think that we're in a bit of a, we're in a real mess.

[00:22:14] And that's why I continue to suggest that we're in a constitutional crisis because there are statutes and the constitution and all these competing things. And the system just to my, from my perspective, the system is just not working. Yeah. Because I just don't believe that there's, that the only vehicle, the only, that the only path that this can continue down is to repeat this exercise, what's going on for the last few days.

[00:22:41] I do not believe that practically and somewhat logically that the only leverage point in this is held by the 66. I'm going to struggle with how that is presented as an argument because I do believe that the House of Republicans, the 67 have some options too, that they should be able to exercise. Yeah.

[00:23:02] And I don't disagree with that, but I don't know how Secretary of State Steve Simon would play into that role as it simply is his constitutional role is to convene and organize the body if there's a quorum. I don't, I think you get into a really sticky situation if on one hand you claim that, which Republicans have done, that his role is only ceremonial. But then when he doesn't do what you want him to do in the sense of allowing you to make motions and do business on the floor, that he has to abide by that.

[00:23:31] So I think there's a sticky, like you said, there's a lot of sticky situations in this and there's a lot of sticky arguments that have to be reconciled. I don't know what that looks like. I agree with you though. Here's what I do agree with. The House is not tied right now. It's 67, 66. And the DFL is using denying quorum as a way to stop Republicans from doing some of the things that they have implied heavily that they're going to do or have not denied that they're going to do. And whatever that situation looks like, they have the right to do that. The DFL has the right to do that.

[00:24:00] But on the same end, I agree with you that Republicans do have some form of leverage to compel Democrats to show up. And how that is enforced or how that is brought to the floor, I don't know. I think you have a situation where maybe the upper chamber has some sort of leverage in the situation. Maybe the governor has some sort of leverage to be able to compel them. I don't know if that will happen.

[00:24:28] But I think it's for the courts to decide. And we'll know soon if Secretary of State Steve Simon can continue to deny the motions on the floor because it's not his role. Or if those motions are allowed to be made and if Democrats or the Republicans can then compel attendance by the DFL. Now, I think where some nuance lies in this is this will be a tight chamber no matter which way. It's not right now.

[00:24:56] It's not right now, but it will be. And it's not right now. But it's not. No, that's what I'm saying. It's not right now. And that's a fair argument by Republicans to make that the minority should not be able to have this much power. And if the DFL was in the same situation, they'd be arguing the same thing. But this all hinges on one thing. Let's be very clear about it. Republicans had an opportunity to abide by the power sharing agreement that they made at the beginning of session.

[00:25:25] If they simply say, at the end of the day, we are not going to attempt to unseat Brad Tabke and we're going to abide by a power sharing agreement that is going to be enforced at the beginning of March anyways, when the House is tied again, presumably based on the election rules of 40B. Then everything we could get back to business of the House. Sure. Right. And here's the thing, too. And I'll end with this or this statement with this.

[00:25:51] Melissa Fortman and the DFL offered Republicans the ability to operate as a majority until the House returns to being tied. They are so hellbent on having the power that they did not earn by the voters. That they are unwilling to take that deal and operate as a majority until they want it to be permanent. And because of that, they're not seeing that if they really wanted everything to go back to getting the work done of the Minnesotans.

[00:26:20] By being at the legislature, they would take the deal. Because that still gives them a month to operate in the majority, but they don't want to take it. And so that's really what this hinges on at this point. The courts made a decision about quorum. We'll know what they decide about Steve Simon and his role. But at the end of the day, you can take a power sharing agreement and we can all move on. Let me just say in response that a few points. I'm not aware that there's any definitive language or any statement said that Representative Tabke is not going to be seated.

[00:26:46] And you and I both know that if Representative Tabke went there today and went into the chamber, he would be seated. And the process would be moved forward. I think there's some procedural discussions about what can and can't be done related to. I think what's interesting about your argument is, once again, I think where I think your fault lies is that in one side, we're saying that everything, every option that the Democrats can pursue, they should be entitled to pursue.

[00:27:16] And but in order for there to be an agreement between nor there to be a power sharing agreement, Republicans have to take tools out of their tool shed in order for the Democrats to come and sit down. And let me just explain for a second. Now, I want to be clear to our listeners that I wrote an op ed that said that I thought a special election would be a great and somewhat of a tidy way in which to resolve it. I don't know if that's realistic to some, but it was to me. And I want to also be clear that Representative Tabke was certified as the winner.

[00:27:46] And then there was a court contest. There was an election contest where a judge determined in an advisory capacity that Representative Tabke did win the election. Now, the House and the Senate in Minnesota, both legislative bodies have the opportunity and the responsibility to police their membership. And working within the rules, both the House and the Senate can have election contests. And we hear these matters.

[00:28:14] That does not mean that Representative Tabke is not going to be seated. But what I'm so interested, what I'm so puzzled by is that is a, if denying quorum is a justifiable procedure, if not showing up to work is justifiable, if that of all those things are accepted, the House has, the House and the Senate both have the authority to determine their membership.

[00:28:39] And to me, it seems inconsistent that the Democrats want to use all of the tools in the toolbox that they have access to. But in order for them to come back and be a part of a power sharing agreement, Republicans have to unilaterally decide that they're not going to have an election contest.

[00:28:58] I have to be honest with you, I don't know that anyone's whipped the vote, but I have no reason to believe that even if there was an election contest, that based on what I read in the court file and what I've seen, that there would not be a pretty strong case that Representative Tabke won the election. But the point of the matter is that argument and that responsibility lies with the House as it does with the Senate.

[00:29:24] What I'm so interested in, I'd like to hear your perspective as to why you think the House Republicans need to take procedural options out of their toolbox, but Democrats should be able to use all that they want. I don't think it's, and I think I've been pretty consistent on this, they're welcome to do all the stuff that they want to do or they have the power to do. I'm not saying that they shouldn't, or I'm sorry, I'm not saying that they don't have the ability or that they shouldn't.

[00:29:50] I'm just saying at this point, the argument becomes everything that they're wanting is on their shoulders now and they have the decision to get back to work because here's the deal. The DFL is saying we are trying to agree to a power sharing agreement. Under the condition that the Republicans take a procedural option that they have, which is not to unilaterally kick them out of the chamber.

[00:30:15] It is to have a review by the House of Representatives about, to conduct a review to ensure that the membership of the House of Representatives, which they are allowed to do, is comfortable that one of their members was actually elected. And it's what you said before in the past. Just because you can't doesn't mean you should. Again, I'm not arguing for their right to do what they have the procedural ability to do in the House.

[00:30:44] What I am saying, though, is that your argument becomes hypocritical if you are saying, Democrats, you need to get back to work. But in order to get back to work, we are asking you not to kick one of our members out of the House. It's not what's happening. But it is. The Republicans are saying what and look, as anyone can look at my record knows that I'm not a I was a Republican for Harrison Walls. So I'm not wearing my necessarily my partisan hat. And I'm trying to be as fair as I can here.

[00:31:11] But I'm not aware that Leader Damath or Representative Niska has said Representative Tapke will not be seated. I'm not aware of anyone saying that they will not be seated. But they won't deny it, right? And that's the same. But here's the point I'm saying. Representative Tapke chose to run for the legislature. He signed up for these rules. This is the way it works. These are the procedures. I had a wonderful interview with him. And I'm very confident in what the judge did and in the election results.

[00:31:41] But these are the rules. The rules are that the House has the option to do that. It would be one thing if the House was saying Representative Tapke will not be seated. No one. That's not what's being done. And I searched prior to the show. Why can't they guarantee it? They won't guarantee it. And that's my problem. But we have 134 House members. They all signed up 133 right now. We have 133 House members. But a full complement of this would be 134.

[00:32:10] 133 people ran for the legislature and were elected. Knowing very full well that they were signing up for a set of rules. Okay? I don't get drafted into the major leagues and play for the Twins or play for a major league baseball team and say, I'm only going to play if I can use an aluminum bat. That's not the rules that you signed up for.

[00:32:29] And my point is, everyone that currently has an election certificate that was sworn in, they signed up and committed themselves to swear and uphold the Constitution and live by these rules. And every one of them should have known or certainly knows now that the House of Representatives determines their membership.

[00:32:49] So why is it acceptable for the only way that one member can come back is if a rule that applies to everyone else doesn't apply to him? I have my doubts that there are the votes to remove Representative Tavke. I also believe, based on the work that the judge did, I think there's pretty strong evidence as not 100% guarantee, but it's pretty strong that Representative Tavke was elected.

[00:33:17] And so why not just commit to the rules and the process, come back, and just be a part and get back to work? It just seems to me that there's, to me, and I had thought about this different, but the farther this goes on, I'm coming more and more of the opinion that what the House Democrats are asking for is a little bit of special treatment.

[00:33:41] But, you know, like me saying, I'm only going to honor my contract with the Minnesota Twins if I can use an aluminum baseball bat. That's not allowed. And here's, okay, and here's a conversation again, and it all ties back to Republicans in March, when the special election is done, will not have the majority. There will be a Tide Chamber. Right now they have a majority, but they don't have 68 votes. And so they're unfortunately in a position where they have to play ball.

[00:34:09] Well, Republicans are, played their cards, and they still have more to play, and they're entitled to do that. But again, if you're making the argument that Democrats have to come back to work, and you're getting paid all this money to do nothing, then allow them to come back to work with an understanding that their members who are all elected are going to be able to do the work that they need to do.

[00:34:30] If you really wanted to do the business of the people of Minnesota and get stuff done, you would guarantee that the person who was elected in 54A would be able to do their job for the people of Shakopee and not drag on any election denial claims or election interference claims any longer. This is no longer... Hold on. Let me finish this point, because I really want to make sure that I point across. This conversation is no longer about the rules of the House and the way that the House operates.

[00:35:00] It's about if your claim is that you want to do the work, give guarantees that the work is going to be done, and this is not going to be dragged on. You can do it. I understand what you're arguing. I understand what House Republicans... Yeah, I understand. But just because you can doesn't mean you should. And if you really wanted to do the work of the people, all you have to say is, you know what, we're not going to get rid of this member of the House because we understand that what the court has said, even in its advisory role, holds weight and has proven to us that this election is good and fair, even if you didn't like the result.

[00:35:30] So just like you said, they have a bunch of procedural ways that they can do things. They're going and deciding if Secretary Steve Simon can not allow them to make motions on the floor. They're taking all of these procedural tools that they have to do it, and that's fine. But on the same end, you're denying and delaying the work of the people getting done.

[00:35:50] So you can make all the arguments you want about the rules of the House, but just as much as you're saying Republicans, or I'm sorry, the DFL wants special treatment, Republicans are trying to deny the work being done by using all these court delays and all of these things. When again, it comes down to this, all they have to do is agree to a power sharing agreement. Correct. And that will allow them to operate in the majority for the next month where they have the speakership, the committee ships, and they can do the work they want to get done.

[00:36:20] And then all you have to do is come back. Part of the responsibilities of the Minnesota House of Representatives is to determine and police who is a member. When you talk about work, let's remember something that reviewing what occurred in 54A is a legitimate function of the House of Representatives. The House of Republicans are not adding a new job description to their responsibilities.

[00:36:42] Every person that ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives should have known that part of their responsibilities is to police and determine their membership. And so the Republicans aren't adding things after the election that they have the authority to do. They didn't come out of some caucus meeting and suddenly grant themselves this authority. This is an authority that they have.

[00:37:08] So part of their work, part of their responsibility is to ensure that the membership of the House of Representatives is properly made up. And so when you talk about work, yes, I would agree with you. But part of the work that should be done is an option for them to review what happened in 54A. Independent of whether they should or should not is really not really relevant to the conversation.

[00:37:32] The question is, part of the work that House members and part of the authority that House members have is to determine the membership of the body. And so when you say come back to work, what you're really saying is, we only want you to do part of the work and part of the responsibility that you have. If you agree to come back, we will have a power sharing agreement. If you assure us that you won't fulfill one of your obligations.

[00:37:56] The truth of the matter here is this, is that the House Republicans and members of the House and member of the Senate get to police their membership. That's what they get to do. That's their authority. We can have a conversation at a later point in the aftermath of this constitutional crisis as to whether that makes sense or not. But the bottom line is that's their authority. That's what everybody signed up for.

[00:38:20] And so to say that we want to have a power sharing agreement and we want to get back to work, but we're going to define and take away what some of that work is. And you can't exercise your rights and you can't do one of your responsibilities, I think is a tad disingenuous. I'm starting to believe it's just really disingenuous because, again, as we've talked about, just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

[00:38:45] And what I mean by the not, the should is I'm of the opinion that Representative Tabke should be seated. I made that claim publicly. I understand the dynamics here. The bottom line is all members of the House and the Senate get to police their membership. And so the Democrats want to come back to work and only do the work that they want to focus on. And they want to bypass and remove some of the responsibility that they have. And I think that's really disingenuous.

[00:39:15] The House Republicans are there and there's 67 of them there and they're there ready to work. And so I think it's I don't think it's a clean argument to say that. Republicans don't want to work. I think as this has gone on longer, I've thought about it a little bit more. And I'm coming to the position that I think that Republicans want to do all the work, including dealing with this election in 54A and discussing it.

[00:39:44] And I have my position and opinions on how it should be resolved. But the bottom line is 133 current members of the House of Representatives all signed up knowing that this was a responsibility to do. And I don't remember anyone saying, I'm not going to take my seat if we suddenly exercise this authority that we have. I think that it's disingenuous to say that Democrats, all they want to do is come back to work.

[00:40:11] But when Republicans are there and they want to do all the work and Democrats want to carve out a portion of work that they don't want Republicans to focus on. I think that's a little disingenuous then to make the argument that that, you know, that this is a situation where they have all the authority to do the things that they want to do. Also, listen, at the end of the day, when it comes down to what is bigger than 66. And that's and again, the whole argument is. Let me just be clear about something.

[00:40:40] This is what I think is interesting. What the House Democrats are actually doing now in some ways is they're saying that. The rules that apply to everyone should not have to apply to them. The 66. Well, because the bottom line is the House, whoever is in charge in any membership, anyone in the House, it is the responsibility of the collective House. A full complement of 134 House members to determine and police their membership.

[00:41:08] And that's the responsibility of the House. And doesn't just apply when Republicans are in charge. It replies and Democrats are in charge. And I think it's interesting. I just want to point out to you that that rule applies no matter who's in charge and what the composition is. And so and so what Democrats want is they want a rule that applies to everyone to not apply to them. Yeah. Listen, we can go back and forth about the intellectual arguments of what's happening in the House. I can see no one in the white flag. No, I'm not. Trust me, I'm definitely not.

[00:41:37] But here's the reality. We're in this situation that we're in. And there's an off ramp for Republicans to get if they really care about getting back to work. And for Democrats, you're right. If they really want to get back to work, they'll agree to the power sharing agreement that they are discussing. The Republicans can operate in the majority for the month that they have. And they can do what they want to do as the majority until the special election, when it will presumably with certainly with a high level of confidence, go back to 6767. We are in the situation that we're in. Everyone is in it.

[00:42:07] And we're all trying to figure it out at the same time. But the reality is we are in a position where Republicans and Democrats don't have a majority and someone has to compromise. And if someone's going to be the adult in the room, someone's going to do it when they want to do it. And what it sounds like to me, and this is just me being a DFLer and someone who has looked at this in a way where I try to be fair, mostly, even though I'm a shill by some people's standards, is. Because if you want to get back to some people call me show on Twitter, and that's okay.

[00:42:36] But it comes down to this to me. If you want to get to work, everyone has an off ramp to get back to work. Now, you can make all the intellectual arguments you want about the basis of that and what that looks like from your perspective or what that looks like from someone else's perspective. You have an off ramp to get to work. DFL is offering you the chance to govern as a majority while you're the majority and then go back to a simple agreement. And so with that being said...

[00:43:04] And having a carve-out for one member... That's a disingenuous argument because... That's not the totality of the deal. That's... Say what the other part of the deal is. That they agreed to not remove a member that was duly elected. Listen, and again, this is the other part of the conversation. Because now you're making me mad, Michael. Because now you're being disingenuous. Here's the problem. I just want you to tell the totality of the deal. Here's the problem. Here's the disingenuous part of the Republican conversation. They are saying, we want...

[00:43:34] Lisa Dameth, Republican Speaker designated... Dameth came on this show and said she wants the people of 40B to have representation. In a district, they are certainly going to lose. You can say that with 99% certainty. Why are you delaying a special election? You're going to lose. Because you want the majority and you want power. That's fine. That is your right. You have the constitutional authority to take that to court. They want to play by the rules. They want the majority. They don't want to play by the rules. Please stop.

[00:44:02] And the second part of that conversation is she came onto the show... Wait, hold on. She came onto the show and said she wants the people of 54A to have representation. So the disingenuous argument from them is to say both of those things and try to remove the votes of 22,000 people in a swing district because you don't like the results and you don't like that the courts disagreed with you. That's simple. You can make all the arguments you want about disingenuous this, disingenuous that. You know what?

[00:44:28] The Republicans have the right now to go to court and decide what Secretary Steve Simon's role is. They lost when it came to quorum. They won when it came to 40B. And they'll either win or lose this. But they have been taking a lot of Ls lately. And they had the upper hand for enough time that they could have made a deal from the DFL that gave them two years of power even in a tied house. They played their hands the way they thought it would work. They lost. And now they're understanding that they don't have a lot left and they're desperate.

[00:44:58] Take the agreement to govern in the majority until the special election. Get to work. It's as simple as that. You don't have the upper hand anymore. The Republicans do not have the upper hand. You have to compromise. This will be a tied house. Learn to deal with it or move on. We're compromising as give or take, right or wrong. That's what it is. And the DFL is going to have to give some concessions, right? And they are going to have to deeply think about the candidates they run next time and where they live.

[00:45:27] And they're taking a public beating on the PR side and they are learning from it. Trust me. That's an inner party. How the DFL chooses to vet their candidates is an independent decision. But again, it all comes down to there's an off ramp and there's compromises that have to be made. And if one of those compromises is you don't remove someone who's duly elected in a district where 22,000 people voted, take it and move on. Because again, let's be very clear here.

[00:45:55] Lisa Damath had the chance, Speaker Damath, had the chance to be a governing body in a tie in a 67-67 split for two years when they didn't deserve it. And they had a very good deal. And they bet that they would get it better with the courts and through the system of parliamentary procedure. And they lost. Take the deal you have now. If you care about getting back to work, take the deal.

[00:46:22] Because the only people that are not allowing Democrats to come back to work are the ones threatening. No, the ones threatening to take someone out of their seat that was duly elected. It's as simple as that. I know we're going to disagree on the merits of it. I know you try to believe that. But you're saying you don't believe that. I trust me. I believe that. One last thing I want to say that I thought Representative Niska made a really good point, which is he showed up to the chamber when he was first elected, knowing very well that he was going to lose some votes.

[00:46:51] He was going to come up short and he was still there and he was on the floor voting. I believe that there is a legitimate disagreement that's going on. And I believe where that disagreement should be happening is on the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives. And so I think Representative Niska makes a really good point when he says, I showed up when we were in the minority and I lost votes all the time. And that comes with it. But you at least show up and do the work. And so I go back to, I think that it's pretty clear that the Republicans are in the chamber,

[00:47:22] ready to work and want to have the discussion. And I'm not naive to say that there's not a debate and there's not a disagreement. But where this debate and disagreement should be happening is on the floor of the House of Representatives on full display. That's where we can have the discussion about what's going on in 54A. That's where they can, all of this stuff can be aired out. And so I thought he made a really good point. And I wanted to give you a chance to talk about his perspective of, look, sometimes losing votes is a part of this.

[00:47:50] And I think that he made a really good point. Sure. When you're, when you come from a party that perpetually loses in this state, you get used to being perpetually a loser. No, it's true. It's true. It's like when you perpetually lose you, you get used to losing and that's fair. That's a good point, right? That's a good, fair intellectual argument. You can, you're, you need to be prepared to lose loads, but, but I want you to listen to the language, which is when I was in the minority. There's a very clear distinction there. This house right now.

[00:48:19] You do understand that as much as I don't, you understand that you understand that 67 is larger than 67. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And let me make sure that your math, let me make this point for the next, for the next month, the DFL is going to lose some votes if they go back to work. That's a hundred percent fair. And Harry Niska is representative. Niska is very correct about that. Okay. But when this house goes back to a tie, you're not in power anymore. This is a tied house and no one has to get used to losing anything.

[00:48:48] Here's where me and you will agree on this whole situation. I'll be the judge of that. Here's where we'll agree on this situation. This is, I think, good for the house. And I'll tell you why. People are going to have to learn for the house Republicans and DFL. They are going to have to learn how to work together or not work at all. They've been doing one part of that, which is not working at all. And it hasn't worked for anyone, especially not the people that say, but there are going to be times where they're going to go in some, both of those, both sides of this

[00:49:17] equation are going to go in and lose, but they're going to learn how to work together this next two years. And we could make it a lot easier, but they've gone through a very difficult process and they're going to have to work through that. But you're right. And Representative Niska is right. This comes with a loss. Go for the next month and take your Ls as DFL. But the GOP needs to assure that L is not going to be overturning the power in the house and overturning the results of an election.

[00:49:45] So if they can make those concessions, go freaking spank the DFL for a month in the house. Who cares? I'm sure that they're not going to care about losing votes of things that Republicans are passing. Why? Because the people of Minnesota don't want that. So that's as simple as that. I agree with that. But there's some concessions you need to make before you go and start saying that you're going to beat the DFL with some of the votes you're going to take in the house. Make the concessions and let them get back to work. And what are the DFL's concessions? That's what I thought.

[00:50:16] What's the DFL's concession? What are they again? They're going to operate as the minority for the next month, which they're going to take a beating. That was determined by the voters, not by them. No. The Democrats, first of all, the reason they're in the minority right now is because of a candidate that they didn't vet and the laws of this state that caught that candidate in breaking the law.

[00:50:44] And their concessions are they're going to show up to work and be in the minority and allow and Republicans will be allowed to do what they want to do. That's not a concession. That's an acceptance of reality. That they don't have to show up to work for the next month and then nothing will get done. Let me explain to you something. I would love to have a 32 inch waistband. If I went out and bought a pair of 32 inch pants, they would not fit. Okay.

[00:51:10] So it's not a concession for me to accept that reality. That's reality, my friend. And so everything that you're saying is a concession is actually reality. There is a 67, 66 breakdown right now in the House of Representatives. The concessions that you're trying to say that the Democrats are accepting is reality. It won't be reality when the special election comes up. I understand that, but it's real.

[00:51:36] I might look at my hope and dream someday is to have a 32 inch waist and a full head of air. But until that time, I have to accept the fact that I don't. That's not a concession on my part. That's me being realistic. I don't want to beat the dead horse and PETA don't sue me for that. But I'm going to finish with this. At the end of the day, the DFL has won the quorum argument. They don't have to show up to work for the next month until a special. They don't have to show up for the next month.

[00:52:04] They don't have to show up for the next month. That's the clip. Because they can deny a quorum. They can deny a quorum. Say that first part again. That's a parliamentary procedure. Okay? So here's the deal. They're willing to show up to work and be the minority with some concessions made. And that's their concession, is that they are willing to be the minority in a house that will be tied. And they can just deny showing up to. The Supreme Court validated that for them. Listen. Here's all I'm going to say.

[00:52:34] You're wrong. Okay? So. Julius, it's always nice to talk to an undecided voter. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. We look forward to having you back. I want to thank you for listening to this bonus episode of The Breakdown with Brock Corbin Becky. 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 follow us on our website and across all social media platforms at VB BreakPod. The Breakdown with Brock Corbin Becky will return next week.

[00:53:04] Have a wonderful weekend. Thank you. Thank you.