Bonus Episode: A Break Down with Rep. Brad Tabke

[00:00:12] Welcome to The Break Down with Brodkorb and Becky, a weekly podcast that breaks down politics, policy, and current affairs. I'm Becky Scherr. And I'm Michael Brodkorb. We are returning this week with a bonus episode to cover the continuing political and legal developments that have consumed the Minnesota House of Representatives. One of the major flashpoints in the ongoing legislative standoff has been the controversy surrounding the election swearing in and seating of Representative Brad Tabke from House District 54A.

[00:00:38] In our recent podcast episodes, we discussed the issues surrounding the election and the missing ballots. We are excited to be joined today by incumbent Representative Brad Tabke to learn his perspective on the standoff at the Minnesota legislature. Today, we will talk with Representative Brad Tabke about how we got here, what can be done to end the legislative standoff, and how we can prevent it from happening again. Thanks for joining us and enjoy the show.

[00:01:03] We are very excited today to be joined by Representative Brad Tabke, who is the newly elected state representative from House District 54A. Representative, thank you for joining us today. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Now, there's a bit of controversy surrounding maybe what I just said, but why don't you, and we have discussed on multiple episodes some of the issues related to these cases on previous episode.

[00:01:31] But we want to give you the floor to talk about it from your perspective, what listeners should know, what you want people to know. And let's just kick this off, but we want to give the floor to you. But we also want to acknowledge how appreciative we are that you joined us today, that you would take the time to talk with us under the circumstances that are going on. And I look forward to the discussion. But with no further ado, why don't you kick things off? Yeah, thanks.

[00:01:56] There's, the story has, I guess, a lot of twists and turns and a lot of, it's been back and forth and just quite the journey that we've all been on here in Shakopee. And so, long story short, we've got 22,000 voters, 21,980 that voted on our election on November 5th. It was a very close election. At the end of, at the end of the day, we had, we had a win by 13 votes in, in our favor.

[00:02:23] And then there was a recount and that ended with a win of 14 votes. But there was also a city clerk in the city of Shakopee who threw away 21 votes, 21 ballots. 21 people had their, their ballots thrown away. And it's unconscionable. It's not good. It's terrible. And we should be passing some laws to make sure that we are fixing some of those loopholes. And it's mostly clarification, like what she did was wrong. And there's no question about that.

[00:02:52] And the county attorney will be deciding how to handle that going forward. And from there, we have a win by 14 and then we have 21 missing votes. And so we were basically heading toward doing a special election. Like that was what our like internal, our side plan was because I wasn't comfortable with the, the fact that it wasn't concrete. Like it is just not a good thing for people to have.

[00:03:21] And then on the day before Thanksgiving, Scott County verified independently. This came from Scott County. They, they verified that we could identify with certainty 20 of the 21 voters whose ballots were thrown away. And that was done because they, these were 20 ballots in precinct 10. There was one ballot in precinct 12A, but all the ballots from October 16th, 17th and 18th, I believe is what the numbers were.

[00:03:48] 15th, 16th, 17th were those ballots were all processed from early voting in at the city of Shakopee. And so we were able to, Scott County was able to identify who those 20 voters were. And so then once we knew who they were, we looked up who we talked to during the campaign and who we'd gotten, who we'd gotten hard IDs from. As you guys know how campaigns work, we got IDs on many, many folks and knocked thousands and thousands of doors in Shakopee and had talked to thousands and thousands of people.

[00:04:18] And with that, we knew where at least four or five people were pretty solidly. Like there was a very good chance that they were extremely on our side, had absolutely voted for us because they said they were going to vote for us. And so we went and talked to folks and were seeing where they were.

[00:04:39] And with a 14 vote margin out of 21 ballots, we needed on for to affirm without question, with no uncertainty whatsoever, that if we had four of those folks who voted for us, then we clearly decisively won the election. It's ugly. It's not is not the way it should have happened. It's not the way it should be moving forward.

[00:05:03] But it's very clear that we won the election on our side out of 22000 votes and those votes should stand. And so when we had a trial on December 16th and 17th, there were of those T identified voters, 12 of them testified, six of them voted for Aaron, six of them voted for us. And that gave us an insurmountable win. And so we knew that we had won. And so then we just waited and waited and waited until the judge came through with her ruling.

[00:05:32] And she ruled yesterday morning, first thing that we had without question won the election. And so from there, throughout this process, there's been a lot of misinformation, a lot of attempts at muddying the waters. And it's just been ugly and gross and just so dumb so many of the times. And so it's been frustrating watching that happen and being party to the lawsuit.

[00:05:57] It was it was not OK for me to be publicly out in front of things and doing that. We had to wait for the lawsuit to come forward because I'm super biased. I'm I'm extremely biased in what I think can and should happen on here. And we needed independent third party, non-biased folks to say this is where it's at. And so we were waiting for the judge to come through and say what what actually findings of fact, legal findings of fact as to what happened.

[00:06:24] And so we had that. And so now I'm out talking and making sure that everybody in Shakopee knows that whether you are a Republican, Democrat in between, wherever you are at, your vote matters and your vote counted. And this is where we're at today is that I'm the state representative. I'm here to to protect people's rights and do all the things at the Capitol that I am elected to do. And so we are out making sure to share that message today.

[00:06:52] And the the flip side of this is that the House GOP has vowed to steal our seat and they have vowed to overturn the election, the votes of 22000 people, even though we have a judge's order saying that they that where we're at. And it's simply a power grab because they can not because, in my opinion, again, very biased, not because they should.

[00:07:16] And it's just not right. So no matter if you are Democrat, Republican, again, anywhere in between overturning an election is not right. And so that's what we are trying to make sure we're convincing folks. And that's unfortunately where we're at today with having to continue to deny quorum is all we need is an agreement that that overturning an election is wrong and we shouldn't be doing that. And so until we get that, we expect that we're going to have to deny quorum.

[00:07:45] We're going to have to use the only tools that are here to protect 22000 voters. Representative Tacky, I listened to everything you said, and I agree with a lot of it. I want to ask you just bluntly, do you think you won on Election Day? Yeah, we know. Yeah, we it's very clear we won on Election Day. And again, biased. You don't have to listen to me.

[00:08:09] A judge has very clearly in a 47 page ruling, which was a hefty, hefty ruling, came through and said the same thing. And and admonished many of the things that the our opponent said in that ruling. Like, as you read through that, there are some things that she was not pleased about that were happening in there. And she was very clear with these are this is how this happened.

[00:08:34] This is where this is at. And we need to make sure that we are taking care of the 22000 voters in Shakopee. I had I want you to beg an opportunity, John, but I want to just want to because I had kind of done some things prior to the release of this order. I just want to be definitive to you, Representative Tacky, and also to our listeners. I have read multiple times the extensive order, printed it off. I had to run to get additional copy paper because we were out at the house to read it.

[00:09:03] And I would say to you, I was surprised by how voluminous it was, by how detailed it was and how precise it was. And I had followed the case as much as I could without being there and read some of the transcripts and read some of the zero. And I believe that the order that was issued definitively shows that you won the election.

[00:09:29] And I say that as someone who had taken the position prior that the only way to clean this up would have been a special election. Now, I can have that kind of Pollyannish dream about that kind of thing. But I do believe that we have a legal process.

[00:09:46] And I feel confident in my review of it and what the judge laid out that as easily as we can in this type of ugly situation and this kind of messy situation put a conclusion on this. And I think that the judge showed her work. And I think the work that she showed was pretty definitive. Becky. Becky. Yeah. Good to chat with you. I do.

[00:10:15] You know, it's a whole lot has been going on. So first, I want to before we get into kind of this week, I do want to just ask about what how have you kind of dealt with the roller coaster since winning on election night, then finding out the ballots were gone, then the court case. I mean, it's just been a roller coaster over the last two months. So how has this been for you? I mean, obviously, you spent months and months on the campaign trail.

[00:10:40] So we all know how tiring that is, how exhausting it is and how fulfilling it can be meeting with voters and having those conversations. But walk us through a little bit of that roller coaster from Election Day to this week. And then we'll continue to chat kind of about the chaos surrounding the last seven days. Yeah, it's I'll actually set that back just a little bit. And I'm not saying this to like gain sympathy or anything like that.

[00:11:08] I'm just the facts of the matters. It's been a really, really tough year for our family. And it's been a really difficult time. Like my father, a year ago, a year ago and a month ago, a year and a month ago, he got diagnosed with cancer and he passed away in July. And so during last session, I was that we grew up in farm farm kid from northwest Iowa.

[00:11:31] And we I was going back and forth all throughout session to help my mom and dad with chemo and all those things all throughout the 2024 legislative session. And so that was just a lot. And all of my colleagues were amazing and super helpful. And we got a lot done and we're able to still continue to govern and to keep things going. And then we go straight into a campaign and he passed away in July. And then again, farm kid. So I was through all through harvest and the campaign.

[00:12:01] I would be here in Shakopee for three or four days and then I'd be in the combine and hauling corn around for three or four days and just back and forth all through October. And it was really, really hard. And so I was super looking forward to November 5th being done and having a decisive victory or defeat because we knew we know the Shakopee is it's it's a very split district and we know where we're at here. And we just try to do the best that we possibly can to represent all the people of Shakopee.

[00:12:30] And so I was really hoping for the exact opposite of what we got. And in the remainder, the time after Election Day. And so it has been I sat down one day during Christmas, between Christmas and New Year's and started to write out just like all the things have happened through since November 5th. And I wrote for a couple hours and I only got halfway through to when we kicked Curtis Johnson out. Like that was as far as I got before I had to quit and say I'm just going to go and hang out with my family.

[00:13:00] And so it's been a lot of ups and downs and it's been really hard on folks. And at the the reason why I'm telling the story is at the funeral, the officiant was very clear that after a significant loss, like we experienced the next you just do the next best thing and you put one foot in front of the other. And that's what we've been doing this whole time is that we had like the Friday after Election Day, we had a rescan where all the ballots from Scott County were rescan to make sure everything was in the right place.

[00:13:29] And then we had the recount and then we had just thing after thing. And it's just like we're going to take this one and then we're going to go to the next step and we're going to figure out where we're at. And it's just like life and it's all up and down. And we're we're continuing to to be there and deal with where we're at today with trying to get governing figured out for Minnesota. How democracy is messy. Democracy is messy. This elections process and I want to ask you about this.

[00:13:56] This this election contest has exposed, I think, some some procedural and administrative and maybe some constitutional issues that overlap that have brought some attention to things. I want to get your perspective on that. I am someone who, again, thought a special thought a special election was the cleanest way in which to do this. And I understand that, again, to some that may be Pollyannish, but it's obviously something you guys had considered at some point even supporting.

[00:14:21] But the reality is, is that we have a court system and the and the role, as I think my perspective is in related to House members. And I'd like you to help explain this to some of our listeners. Obviously, there was an election contest filed by the Republican opponent. And in this unique situation, and I think it only applies to legislators, I believe, is that you guys police your own membership, meaning that there can be an election contest, an election dispute.

[00:14:50] And the ruling of that judge is somewhat advisory, to say the least. And so I acknowledge and understand that the House and the Senate have the ability to police their membership. I've stated that I think they should seat you, but I recognize that they have that authority. Can you explain to the listeners how, you know, if you were running for the school board, this would be a different situation.

[00:15:11] But you're a legislator, and so the standoff that we're having right now is about you actually being recognized as a member because the House of Representatives has the ability, as the Senate does, to police their own membership. Yep, 100%. So the judges, the judicial components of this are, as you said exactly, they are advisory, and they are a, it is used to find facts and to take these.

[00:15:42] And so those 47 pages, the reason I believe why the judge had 47 pages worth of facts is so that we could use that specifically in the unlikely, is what we'd hoped, event that we would be facing an election contest on the floor in the Minnesota House. And so there is a lot of evidence in there very clearly put forward as to the facts of the case and what the findings are and where that's all at. And so there's an election contest.

[00:16:09] So to expel a member in the House or in the Senate, it takes a two-thirds vote. So that's a pretty hefty margin to get two-thirds of a body to expel a member. However, the Minnesota Constitution, as you said, puts the question to the body. And so the Senate decides the Senate fate, House decides the House's fate. And so with this, there's very rarely enough vote.

[00:16:32] And the Constitution says, as laid forth by statute, is what the, I think there's merely the exact wording in the Constitution. And so our statute that we've written is pretty vague as to what an election contest actually looks like and how it should work. And it's got the last line in that piece of statute is basically says, or whatever you want to have happen. Like it just kind of tosses it all out there. So as to where things are at.

[00:17:01] And so there's not any really, this is very, very rarely, hardly ever used. And it has never been used in the state of Minnesota when there has been judges ruling in favor of the party. And so it has been used for campaign violations. It's been used for, I think, criminal activity and things like that for things that have happened during a campaign that are just not things that should happen.

[00:17:27] And it tipped the election one way or another because of those activities that campaign made. And there have been, like, there was a Senate issue where they burned, I don't know, just like 30 or 40 ballots, something like that, because they thought they were invalid. And so they burned those ballots, but they weren't really invalid. And they still sat the member at that point because it was something that was external to the campaigns. And there's no way to kind of go back on that.

[00:17:53] And so it is absolutely something that can be decided by the body. And so I'm not whatsoever saying that that is not the case, that they don't have the right to do that and to have discussions about that and to see where it is. I am very clearly saying that it is simply wrong to overturn 22,000 votes because you can. It is not the democratic process. It's not who we are as Minnesotans.

[00:18:20] This is not where we're at, and it should not happen. And I'm asking for Republicans to stand up and make sure that they're saying that if this were, if the tables were turned, we wouldn't want this happening that direction either. And it very easily, I absolutely know that this could have been a swing the other direction, like just 20 votes, or even like mathematically, if just eight people had switched from voting for me to voting for our opponent, we'd be in the exact opposite piece.

[00:18:49] And it is no matter what the election outcome is in a fair election, we should be upholding the votes of where we're at. I just don't know how anybody can with a straight face say that that is not the case. And especially in this place where we, like precinct 10, where these votes came from, we won that precinct with 58% of the vote.

[00:19:11] Like it was heavily in anything that happens in Shakopee, in split districts like ours, 58% is a huge margin, as you guys know. And it is, I just don't understand how we are headed down this path and how it isn't easy for every single Republican to say, nope, we lost and we should not overturn the voters of Shakopee.

[00:19:33] So question for you, kind of moving forward, Michael and I did a show on Monday, kind of recapping the events of the weekend and what we anticipated happening on the first day of session. And one of the, you know, obviously we were, we're not in the room, we don't have the, know the intentions, so we can only speculate.

[00:19:51] But one of our speculations was one of the reasons for the secret swearing in ceremony on Sunday was to be able to seat you and to have you be able to, you know, start your term as representative for your district. Now we, we know that we're kind of in waiting and in limbo until January 28th when the Roosevelt seat is decided and Democrats likely get back to 67 members in the House.

[00:20:19] What do you anticipate or have there been conversations about what happens with your seating at that point? Are Republicans still going to make the same argument? Are you expecting to see the same fight that you would have had the 66 members of you showed up yesterday to, to the officials first day of session? You know, I, I know this is kind of hypothetical and we can only again speculate, but, but have those conversations been going on and what do you anticipate?

[00:20:49] Or is there an anticipation of what, what we could see happen on that 28th when it comes to you and your seat and you being in it? Yeah, no, I hear what you're saying. So absolutely for sure. So what, what we had hoped would happen. So I'll, I'll step this back just a little further is that with Curtis Johnson resigning and no longer being in that seat and having that happen because it was absolutely wrong to have him be a legislator.

[00:21:17] Like he, I don't think that he would have been a member of our caucus. I don't think that we would have gone forward with that. And I think there were a lot of things that would have been there. What I was hoping was that that would send the right signals to everyone that we were serious about legislating and sharing power. Because what that did was that put us at a huge disadvantage for our, for my, for our Shakopee seat, right? So for our 54A seat.

[00:21:44] And so what we were hoping would happen is that everyone would, cooler heads would prevail type of thing and say that, hey, we know that we're trying to head to the right direction. We know we need to share governing and we know we need to share governing in order to pass budgets, to pass any bills, to do anything. We need to have bipartisan votes. There's just no way around that with a 67, 67 tied house.

[00:22:09] And so what we were hoping, at least what I was idealistically and naively hoping was that we could say, hey, we put this, this, you know, branch out to, to make sure that we are showing that this is what we want to get done. And we want to govern together because this is what Minnesota said we're going to do, right? We don't have any choice in this, but this is what Minnesota said. And so both sides would have rather had 68 votes. There's no way, no way around that piece, but that's simply not where we're at.

[00:22:38] And I'm a pragmatist. And so we should have moved forward with the co-government agreement. And the speaker absolutely put forward that until we get a new, until we get back to split again, that you can have the, you can have the committees, you can have the speakership, you can have all of those things. Because we had a member that was simply wrong. And that is, that is not the way this should be. And, and we lose in that case and that's okay.

[00:23:03] But once we're tied again, we should act like a tied, we should be adults and we should act like a tied body. And so with, with that obviously didn't work out that way. And obviously, again, very biased perspective, Republicans refused to step up to the table and say, hey, we want to govern. But they said we want power instead. And that we want the ability to maintain speakership for two full years. We want the ability to run all the committees in a tied house.

[00:23:31] And I just think that's a, a bad way to go. But that's something we could fix in the future. But my opinion is the reason that we had to be sworn in early and we keep it quiet, which in hindsight wasn't the greatest thing. But because we wanted to all be sworn in together as a body on, on Tuesday, on, on the first day of session.

[00:23:52] And so, but we also didn't want to be going into the fact that we might have to be denying quorum in order to save our shock and be seen, protect the 22,000 shock and be voters. We might not be able to do that. And we didn't want to have one hand tied behind our back for, one hand tied behind our back for governing. Like taking the oath of office, I could do it. I'm sitting in my kitchen right now. If I had a notary sitting beside me, I could take the oath of office. They could notarize it. And that's what the oath of office is. It's not a big, it's not the ceremony. You don't have to have a judge.

[00:24:22] You don't have to have any of these things. You just have to have a notary and say that you took the oath of office and it's procedural motion. And so we probably could have done it differently, but we didn't want everyone to freak out and say, hey, we're getting ahead of this. And to cut off negotiations for getting us all in there, all 133 of us in there for Tuesday at noon and didn't work out that way. I really, really wish it had because we all want to be there.

[00:24:50] And we all want to be representing our communities and doing this is just horrible and terrible, but they're going to overturn an election. And they, we can't let that happen. A couple of points I want to make. First of all, it was in my notes and I wanted to make sure that I said this, which was in the judge's order, which we'll link to in the, in this episode, there was no finding that an agent of you or your Republican opponent were involved in this in any way whatsoever. This, this scheme or this, this really unfortunate decision, a mistake.

[00:25:20] And I think by all accounts, everyone acknowledges that it was a mistake. It was a mistake. And there were some procedures that were not going to be, but there's no evidence at all. And there's no information that either an agent of you or anyone else was involved. And it appears to be by all accounts, a human, just a human mistake. And, and elections are run by humans. People make mistakes. And I just wanted to make sure it was clear that there was nothing in the order, which we're going to link to that you or your Republican opponent into any scheme regarding these ballots.

[00:25:49] And you guys, by all accounts were correct. You guys are just, you know, in some ways victims along with a lot of people are of this election, because your name was on the ballot when it was running properly. The question I have for you, and I just want to, in the interest of disclosure, say Becky and I were, I think we took the position and I stand by it that I think the swearing in ceremony, the secrecy around it was. I think a mistake. I think from a PR perspective, I think I don't like the lack of transparency.

[00:26:17] And I understand that there's, and there's negotiations that need to go on. I'm not expecting that a private conversation between the Speaker Damath or Speaker Horvath should be live streamed. But I think when you agree to run for the legislature and you agree to, and I think the swearing in, the secrecy around the swearing in ceremony was a bit too far for me.

[00:26:37] And Becky and I have, we run a pretty straight show in terms of partisanship, but I think we fairly were critical of that swearing in ceremony and the secrecy surrounding it. And I think in hindsight, I think people are saying they would have maybe done it different. But if it had worked, it would have been great because we would have all been there on Tuesday at noon. Like, I mean, it just didn't work. So yeah. Here's my question. We take the lumps for that. Yeah, absolutely. Here's my question for you.

[00:27:03] What happens, explain to me procedurally what happens if you, or let's, in this instance, let's make it you. You walked into the chamber and they got 68. Procedurally, what do you think would happen? Because right now, and I was told there again, we're having these episodes where there's math involved that I would really appreciate if there was no math involved.

[00:27:23] But procedurally help our listeners understand what 67 means and what would happen if Representative Brad Tapke walked in and was the 68th member. Aside from the numeric significance, what do you think would happen to you specifically? Yeah, I would be tying my own noose. Like, that's what would be happening. It would be great and like super poetic and dramatic and all the awesome things that everybody wants for clicks.

[00:27:50] If like I were to have strode in on a horse on Tuesday at noon, like that would have been fun. Yeah, for sure. And, but what would have happened is that I would have we in the House DFL, Secretary of State Simon, and which I have to, while we're here, just recognize that Secretary of State Simon, I think he's been on your podcast. I'm not 100% sure, but. It was Becky's, one of Becky's favorite show. They had a real nerd fest. And so it was a battle of the nerds.

[00:28:17] And as the House GOP is just ripping him to shreds and denigrating his, his knowledge and just his authority and his ethics and his morals as a person. That's the, that's been the most disappointing thing is how much they've been ripping on Steve Simon. And then secondly, I've always gotten along with Harry Niska. And so we'll go with fake leader Harry Niska right now, but with Harry Niska.

[00:28:43] And, but just things that he's been saying publicly and on social media have been just like, he's been talking about me being a criminal and me being above the law and things. And I'm like, this, this has nothing to do with me. As you said, like we're accidentally innocent bystanders that could have happened anywhere and it sucks, but it is what it is. And so what would happen?

[00:29:05] I have no idea what would happen now because we are in whole new uncharted territory that nobody knows which direction is up, which we just don't know. We are in a constitutional crisis in Minnesota and I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen next with, with that. And, but if yesterday at noon, if I had gone in, what would have happened is I would have given quorum and legitimacy to, to how things were moving forward.

[00:29:32] We would have elected Speaker Dameth because you don't need 68 votes to elect a speaker. Um, so we would have elected Speaker Dameth. Then the next thing they would have done would be to, at least this is what they've claimed they would be doing is to have an election contest. It would simply be a motion that we contest the election of Brad Tabkey in 54A and they would make a motion to vacate our seat.

[00:29:54] And, uh, with that, my election certificate and all the election certificate of 22,000 voters in Shakopee would be vacated and nullified. And the governor would have to call a special session. It would not be the election. Help me, help me understand the process though. Wouldn't it do, it would take a two thirds vote, wouldn't it? And so there could, you're saying, so procedurally you're saying that you shown up, the Republicans could have nullified your election certificate on the spot. Would have. Yes.

[00:30:23] They, it would have only taken, even if all, if all members, if we had every single one of us had shown up, we had 133 people in there. There would have been quorum. Would have been legitimate. It would have been, we would have organized as a body. We would have quorum. So this is, this is the crux that I think people aren't understanding is that the reason why we're denying quorum is to save the Shakopee seat and to make sure the voters of Shakopee are upheld. Like, it's not a difficult concept.

[00:30:51] Like if, if we show up, they remove and they eliminate all the votes of the people of Shakopee. And I don't know how I, or any of us can allow that to happen. I don't know how the Republicans are allowing this to happen. Um, but it is, uh, so if we show up, um, there is a motion to vacate the seat, uh, and it's an election contest and the constitution gives the body the power to do that. And they could get rid of me. If I was the only one that shows up, they would get rid of me 67 to one.

[00:31:20] If, if our whole body showed up, they would vacate a, and a duly elected member of the Minnesota house 67 to 66. And not because they should, not because it's the right thing to do just because they can. And we've had some, we've heard about some cracks in the facade and some light showing through that some of the Republicans aren't comfortable with doing this, but no one said anything publicly. No one has said anything out loud that we could trust.

[00:31:48] Like we, one of the part, as the speaker Hortman said yesterday in our press conference that we had here in Shakopee, that she had offered the sun and the moon to leader Damus to get back in and get us all in. If they agreed not to vacate the 54 a seat. And she agreed, leader Damus agreed to that, but only agreed to not vacate our seat yesterday.

[00:32:16] I'd be out today and you can, and the house and the fake house that they've got going on right now, they passed a whole set of rules. The first pieces of all those rules that they passed are all election contests and how they will get rid of our seat and how they will vacate the seat. And they, it's all there. We just had to believe them that they would actually do it. And I, I believe that they would do it. And this is the way like our, they knew that they would lose our trial, but it was all setting up to head this direction.

[00:32:44] I was not aware that it would, and Becky pushed back if you're going to make the same point, but I was operating under the premise. And I want to certainly look into this, that there was a procedural process that would not be instantaneous, but you're saying it would be instantaneous. And we will certainly avail ourselves of the record. Becky, go ahead. I want to hit on your Simon Niska comment in a minute.

[00:33:07] But what do you say to, in response to folks, you, you said that overturning this and taking you out of your seat would overturn, you know, the will of 22,000 voters or 22,000. I'm sorry. What do you say to those who still make the argument that, well, we have a pretty good idea of where some of these 20 missing ballots were and they were with you.

[00:33:31] And that's, you know, some good indication of how things would go. So that every vote does matter. And in this point, at this case, regardless of intention, 20, 2021 votes were discarded. And therefore their votes were not counted.

[00:33:51] What do you say to those individuals, whether they're one of the 21 or one, somebody that is concerned about that being the case and the precedence that that sets for future elections? Right. That's a really great question. And so I say three things and each, especially the second and third thing are not good enough on their own.

[00:34:12] But I think that adding these together exponentially compounding is extremely convincing as to why going forward with where we're at today is the right thing to do. So the first one is that you don't have to listen to what I say. Just listen to what the judge says. The judge, I don't know if it's going to go to the Supreme Court, but these are all adult folks that don't have they would much rather not be in this position as well. And they want to do the best job that they possibly can.

[00:34:40] And so if you read the the ruling from the judge, you'll understand exactly how and why we got to where we're at. So there's there's one thing we had. We were winning by 14 votes going into this. And there's been absolutely zero question as to whether that's accurate or not accurate. That's simply been a fact that we have all been going under. We've known that 20 of those 21 of those ballots, 21 votes were uncounted.

[00:35:06] And so sorry about the math, but it would have taken for just four people of those 21 in a district that I and a precinct that I won with 58 percent of the vote just for those, which is extremely likely to have voted for me. And we had six testify under oath where how they voted.

[00:35:25] And so, A, if that's not good enough as well, then we're going to compound this with the second thing is that in that statistically speaking, all things being equal, if those were random, a random set of 21 ballots in there, there is a verifiable statistical number of point zero zero zero zero five percent chance of him getting enough ballots to overturn.

[00:35:52] You would have needed 18 of those votes to change the trajectory of this election. So there's a very, very small statistical chance. Again, I don't think that's enough to if it was just a statistical chance. I wouldn't, but we take, we know the voters, we take statistical chance and go from there. And then the third piece is the fact of that we would be overturning the votes of 22,000 people.

[00:36:17] And we would, in a special election, we would only have a couple thousand folks would vote. Like that's just how specials work. We wouldn't have very many people come out and vote. And I think that, and this is a value judgment for sure, I think that we know enough about those 21 to have this be a full and whole election that is a much better representation of who we are as a district than having just a couple thousand people vote.

[00:36:41] And then we'd also have, I mean, can you imagine how horrible a special election like this would be if you lived in Shakopee? People would be getting, you know, 15 mailers a day in the mail. They'd be getting 30 phone calls a day. They'd be getting 20 door knocks a day. That sounds like Chris recording to me. It sounds horrible is what you meant. And so it, it would just be terrible for our community to go through this.

[00:37:06] And, and so I, I think that all things, whether you believe me, whether you believe the judge or not, I don't know how, when you put all of those things together, you can come up on the side that it's a, that it would be a good idea for our community and for the voters of Shakopee to, to turn that over. Unless you're just so very partisan that you just don't like the result and you'll take any chance to grab power that you can. Like that's also a legitimate stance to take. I just simply disagree. Okay.

[00:37:34] And then I want to kind of hit on the comments you made about Secretary of State Steve Simon and Representative Leader Harry Niska. Starting with Steve Simon, who is one of my favorite interviews. I do think that he's been a great Secretary of State. However, I do, as I said on our Monday thing, I have eaten up. I have bought and paid for everything that I have seen and that shows that Republicans 67 have the quorum.

[00:38:02] I disagree with the Secretary's statement of quorum and the proceedings that happened yesterday and I'm very intrigued and interested to watch it go forward. But I will say one of the things I wanted to hit on is because you said, you know, Harry amongst others and kind of the verbiage that they've said about you. And it's been a really hyper-partisan situation, right?

[00:38:26] I mean, everything surrounding this, whether it's your situation, the quorum, everything going back and forth, it has to feel a little personal, even if it's not intending to be about Brad Tapkey, the man, instead of the seat and the situation. I did see Leader Hortman, a quote I saw on Twitter just this morning or last night, said that her and Damath are still having good conversations. They know it's not personal, that it is procedural.

[00:38:53] How do you walk in once this is all said and done and Republicans and Democrats are back in that chamber, working hopefully together to pass the budget, to pass good laws for the betterment of our state and our citizens?

[00:39:06] Are you going to be able to, I mean, it's got to be hard, but how do you work through that and how do you get to a point where you're not taking some of those things, being called a criminal or whatever it might be personally and move forward and work and hopefully have a successful first term in the Minnesota House? Yeah, so I've had close elections. Many times, many times, many times, I've won, I've lost.

[00:39:29] And I, like, personally, I am able to be, I think, extremely pragmatic and say that especially a campaign's a campaign and now we're governing and this is what we are doing. This is different, however, where relationships, by, by doing what is happening today, relationships are being obliterated. Like, it is, for what gain?

[00:39:56] Like, that's the thing that I keep coming back to is, like, how is what's happening today helping anyone in Minnesota? Like, how is this getting anywhere? Because eventually we know we're going to give quorum eventually when we're able to protect my seat. And when we have, when we're tied at 67 again, we'll be able to protect us through a variety of procedures and scenarios. They won't be able to kick anybody out at that point. And, like, we know these things.

[00:40:25] We know for a fact that we have to pass a budget. We know for a fact that we are going to govern together at some point. And it's inevitable. It has to be that way. But I honestly don't know how, like, relationships recover from these kinds of things. Because there are folks that I admire dearly. Like, Paul Anderson, for example. Like, Paul is just a wonderful, fabulous human being.

[00:40:54] And we disagree on politics and that's okay. But he's, like, we've served on boards together. We've served on ag committee together. And, like, I really, really like Paul Anderson. And he is just a great human being. Like, it made me sad watching him walk up there yesterday when it didn't have to be this way. We could have absolutely legitimately elected with 133 people in the House. We could have elected Speaker Dameth as the first person of color as a speaker in the state of Minnesota. Like, we could have done that.

[00:41:22] And to see her, like, thanking everybody and all the things. It just made me sad that it is this way with such an asterisk beside it and not knowing where it's going to go. We didn't have to go down this path. We could have absolutely chosen a different path. And I honestly don't know how some relationships recover from this. Like, I am a swing district. It's a very purple district. I have to work with everybody. I don't have a choice. And that's what I've always done while I was mayor. That's how I've always done this thing.

[00:41:51] And that's how I choose to govern. And I work with anybody no matter where we're at, what's going on, as long as I can trust them. But that trust factor has been broken on a variety of places. And we're going to have to figure it out. We're going to have to go to counseling altogether. And we're going to have to figure out what this looks like. But it's going to be different. I think that Blois had, like, we're in a fundamentally different place. Like, I think it was this morning that Blois was right. And this is a breach of trust with the people of Minnesota.

[00:42:20] And I understand how people can be angry with both sides of this. And I hope that I've explained enough today as to the fact that why we don't want to be in this position as the DFL caucus. But we're forced into this position to protect democracy. And I just think it is a terrible place for everybody to be. And everyone should be doing everything they possibly can to get to the next steps. And I hope to be lending my voice to that.

[00:42:46] And I hope to be, instead of hurting where we're at, just helping to have everybody on the same page. Like, this is what it means for the people of Shakopee for moving forward with the way you vowed to move forward. Like, we need Republicans to step up and say, hey, this is not right. And we need to give cover and the ability for us to all work together because we've got a job to do. And we should be doing it today. Representative Tabke, we could go on for another hour. But I want to be respectful of your time and some of the parameters that we agreed upon.

[00:43:15] You've been incredibly gracious to come on and offer the perspective that you have. And this is what needs to happen. Becky and I approach this from differing perspectives. But it's fair to say we're Republicans and you're Democrats. And my hope is that by having this conversation today that we can start, we can at least be a platformer. Some people can see and learn how to talk. And there's some things you said I agree with and others that I disagree with.

[00:43:39] But I will say to you that I want to just say from wearing my partisan hat and just wearing my also my good government, I hope you succeed. I hope the legislature gets this standoff, gets resolved. I hope we can figure out how to not have these issues in the future. I would love to have you back on because I have a lot of questions about the mechanics of elections. But I think sadly what happened in your district have exposed. And I think it's a need for reform.

[00:44:05] But I just want to just pause and just say thank you for taking time in the midst of a constitutional crisis to come on and talk with us. You have a lot of places you could go. And I appreciate you taking time to talk to us. And we hope that the experience was one that you'd maybe consider coming back. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for having me again. You've both been wonderful in letting me talk probably too long about something. Not at all. But it's just important to and for it's cathartic for me as well personally to like get it all out there.

[00:44:33] And I hope I'm not doing that too much. But it's just good to share where we as a caucus and where I personally am at for our voters in Shakopee. It's important that we protect them. The best shows that we have are the episodes where I talk the least. And so when Becky's leading and someone else is leading, those are the best episodes. So thank you so much. And we look forward to talking to you soon. Please be safe. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Becky, I'm very proud of the fact that we just interviewed Representative Brad Tapke.

[00:45:03] We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. And the fact that one of the, I don't want to say participants, but one of the, I guess I would say, I mean, he's a legislator. But the fact that he would make time in the midst of that to come talk to us on our podcast is, I think, shows that we've established a brand where people can come and talk even when we disagree with them on issues. And I want to get your perspective on the interview. I'm really grateful that he was able to come. Obviously, I can't imagine being in the situation that he's been in since November.

[00:45:32] So many arrows firing his way. And obviously, it can't be tough to have some of those direct attacks and just be going through this when you just want to know the results and the outcome and move forward just like the rest of us. So, you know, as we discussed, the judge's ruling was pretty comprehensive. It seems to hit a lot of key points.

[00:45:56] And while I still have some trouble with missing ballots and what that actually means and how can we be for sure about it all, the judge has ruled. And from my perspective, the judge has ruled. I know there are certainly some questions or things I disagree with a representative about.

[00:46:19] And largely, this is, I mean, no surprise of what we've had other conversations about the Democrats claiming the high road but not taking it. And I think that largely when it comes from the secrets swearing in to kind of preempting this judge ruling, which was in their favor. But just as they were accusing, you know, Republicans of wanting to take stances in this case before it was ruled, they kind of did that as well with the secrets swearing in on Sunday.

[00:46:47] And again, I think I, you know, made it pretty clear with my comments in our conversation with Julius a week ago that the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing Republicans are had the roles been reversed to the 67-66. I still stand firmly behind the Republicans and their quorum and their power that they have with the 67 majority. And I'm grateful that they're showing up to the House.

[00:47:10] But I am really grateful that, you know, like you mentioned that, despite me saying all those things, despite what we may believe in this constitutional crisis, that Representative Tapkey was able to come out or was willing to come on and explain his side of things, walk us through, you know, what the last few months have looked like and agree that things do need to change so this does not happen again.

[00:47:33] So great interview, have differing of opinions, but hey, that's nothing new with some people we interview and always happy to do it. Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. Now, push back a little bit, which you obviously never need permission to do or suggestions to do. But I was surprised by the judge's order. And because I'd followed it pretty closely, I did not go to the trial, but I'd read a lot of the source material.

[00:47:58] And I think the judge did a very good job of showing her work and laying it out in a pretty definitive way, statistically a definitive way. I'm actually going to defer to my daughters on the statistical definition of it. No disrespect to your math or Representative Tapkey's math, but the math experts in my life are my daughters. But I think it's pretty strong. And my perspective was, I mean, I was surprised with it.

[00:48:23] And in reviewing that order and the work that was shown, you know, I said, look, this is the order. I had published an op-ed, which I want to get your feedback on, on the calling for a special election. But I sent out some bullet points, which I stand by, and I still agree. The House has the ability to police their membership. I think that Representative Tapkey should be seated. I think the Democrats should show up and work should get done. I also believe that there is some substantive reforms that should come from this process.

[00:48:51] I think that for all of the talk of Minnesota having good government, clearly there is a fissure that has been exposed between the role of the House, the role of the courts in elections and how they are viewed, I think is important to note. And I think it's also there's a need for some reforms around elections.

[00:49:09] There have been some cases in Minnesota where the, I understand that, that the work of elections is administered by local elected officials, by local, by local officials and by, by volunteers, paid staff and a whole host of people. We have got to find a way in Minnesota to tighten up some of these election procedures to prevent this type of stuff from happening.

[00:49:34] And I think that Representative Tapkey and others who are concerned about election integrity should wrap their arms around this case and look at what's going on right now, independent of what happens in the seating of Representative Tapkey, although I think he should be seated, reforms that could be due to change this process. Because ultimately, it is Minnesotans that are suffering.

[00:49:58] And that's why, even though I think the judge's order was pretty definitive and pretty clear, and I feel, I shouldn't say pretty, I think it was definitive and clear, and I feel comfortable with the work that was shown. I stand by my position that I think the, if we don't have a benchmark and someone out there saying, can't we do this a different way or a better way? I understand his perspective on the special election. Clearly, it was something that he had considered at some point or the Democrats had considered.

[00:50:26] But I stand by my position that the cleanest solution to this would have been having a special election. Because whether it's Representative Tapkey, who is eventually seated, or whoever it is, if it comes from this election, a little bit of fruit of the poisonous tree, a little bit of that argument, there's been so many questions raised about this election. And I understand the judge's order. And I feel that those, a lot of those arguments can be dispelled.

[00:50:54] I do think a clean, an election, a do-over election makes sense. And this is the situation that called for it. I understand that's a lofty goal, maybe Pollyannish to some, but I stand by my position that that would have been a good, good, a good solution. Your take, rip me to shreds with your comments on my op-ed. No, I thought your op-ed was well-written, well-researched. And I do agree. I believe that there should have been a special election in this case. To me, I thought that's where we were headed.

[00:51:24] I thought it was going to be ruled that way. And I do, it just, I mean, people are probably sick of me saying it, but it just does lead me to concerns about using this case now as precedence for missing ballots in the future.

[00:51:40] Like you mentioned, there's nothing that either side have found or pointed to ever throughout this process to allude to or claim that there was malicious intent in the destroying of these ballots. But that said, it is a lot of, there are a lot of volunteers and a lot of human errors possible through this results.

[00:52:05] I mean, one of my favorite, every time I vote, I make sure to thank all the people there because they are volunteers and they are giving up hours or day, a day or even more to be there and to be a part of it. But that does also leave us open to a lot of potential issues. And we have seen how many races over the last decade alone that have been decided by 5, 10, 12 votes. And so I do have concerns.

[00:52:32] I share your sentiment and hope that there is some reform that can be done from this to firm things up and just allow us to have a little bit, to continue to have trust or have more trust in our election process. And fingers crossed. One point I want to also make, thank you for that. One point I want to make is he seemed to accept a little bit of accountability for the swearing-in ceremony not going over as they thought.

[00:53:00] And I appreciated that. And I think that shows a willingness on his part to acknowledge where things could get better. But obviously, we're in the midst of an ongoing constitutional crisis. And I cannot think of a better place for people to come for comfort, for answers on that constitutional crisis than with you and I. And Becky, I want to thank you so much for making time to do this bonus episode today. I really appreciate it. Okay?

[00:53:47] Thank you so much for joining us. Bye. Bye.