Bonus Episode: A Break Down with Speaker-Designate Lisa Demuth

[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 back this week to bring you an extra special bonus episode featuring an extra special guest. We are pleased to welcome Speaker Lisa Demuth back to the podcast today. We first spoke with Demuth back in August of 2023, and wow, have things changed in the last year and a half.

[00:00:35] With Speaker Demuth, we are going to recap the Supreme Court's ruling from last weekend on Walls' violation with the writ of special election for House District 40b. We will break down the status of the quorum dispute currently in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the potential evolution of ongoings at the Minnesota House. Of course, we will get Speaker Demuth take on the evil shenanigans agreeing with the Democrats refusing to show up if that continues with the new special election date

[00:01:02] and whether the House Republicans will compel them to return with other tactics. We will also discuss the committee hearings being disrupted by protesters and more. Be sure to follow at Lisa Demuth, D-E-M-U-T-H-M-N on X to keep track of the latest. Thanks for joining us and enjoy the show. We are so excited to welcome back Speaker Demuth.

[00:01:23] And today we have so many different things to talk about, but we want to chat about starting with the Supreme Court ruling that came down last Friday, just a little over a week ago, basically saying that Governor Walls was incorrect in filing or issuing the writ of special election, which originally placed the special election for House District 40b until January 28th. And now that's going to be beginning to mid-March.

[00:01:48] Can you chat us a little bit through your thoughts on why you filed that suit in the first place and the issue that came out from the court? Absolutely. Thank you, Becky and Michael. Good to see both of you and to have the conversation. We really appreciate that opportunity. The writ of special election that was given by Governor Walls is to do, and there's a couple of cases here. So I think it's important that we help your listeners understand which case we're talking about. In this situation, it's to do with the seat in Roseville.

[00:02:18] That is seat 40b. The situation with that is the Democrats had an endorsed candidate that ran and won by the voters, but yet was found to have not lived in the district. It's a basic residency requirement that we live in the districts that we actually run for and represent. And so a case was filed by actually the state Republican Party, the Minnesota GOP, is who filed that case, obviously, along with Paul Wickstrom.

[00:02:46] So the candidate, the Republican candidate, was the one that really pushed that forward. We were obviously watching it. We were concerned. And the courts found that that person, Curtis Johnson, did not meet the residency requirement as needed. And so he could not take the oath of office, nor could he serve as a representative for that area. The law is very clear when it comes to an election contest, when the governor can call that special election.

[00:03:15] So Curtis Johnson sent a letter to the governor on December 20th, saying he resigned the seat. The problem with that is he never had the seat. He had never taken the office. He couldn't serve in that area as found by the court. And so he was resigning a seat that, first of all, was not vacant because at the time, at the end of December until midnight on January 6th or January 5th, I would be at midnight.

[00:03:42] The current representative who is retiring, Representative Jamie Becker-Finn, she was still in office then. So it was not an open seat. The governor then on the December 27th called for a special election for January 28th. Going back to how the law prescribes in the case of an election contest and a vacancy, the governor has the right to go ahead and call that election 22 days after the first day of session.

[00:04:10] So I sent a letter to the governor just saying, help me understand this. How did you call for this already the end of January? They used a different statute, a different rule. They kind of explained their way. Obviously, it went to court and the court found that the governor did call that prematurely.

[00:04:30] You know, when we talked about this a fair amount leading up to the ruling and since, and from our perspective, it seemed pretty black and white that this is how it was supposed to go, that you cannot vacate a seat that's not your seat. And it seemed pretty compelling there. We also talked about there were some members that had been tweeting about other issues or other incidents.

[00:04:52] For example, when Kurt Dowd had resigned his seat and it was actually, you know, some six to seven weeks before the governor called the special election and got that ball moving. And it really, I mean, it screamed partisanship in this and kind of some favoritism towards trying to make sure that that tie existed, the 67-67. Talk to us a little bit about, I mean, I guess from my perspective, the biggest issue here is the precedence, right?

[00:05:19] We want to make sure that you're following the law, that you're doing things by the book so that in future cases, that is the same. This wasn't you, I believe, or talk to us about how I assume and in your statements have said that you also want to make sure that all Minnesotans are represented in that case. But why is it so important that we follow the law and follow it by the letter of the law that 22 days is important to make sure we're doing things properly when filling these seats?

[00:05:46] Well, I appreciate you say, why is it important that we follow the law? I think lawmakers and especially the governor have the responsibility of following the laws that either are upstanding right now or that they will continue abiding by or writing later. Lawmakers have to follow the laws. That's pretty basic to me.

[00:06:07] You know, I think what the governor could have done is he could have agreed that he wanted to do it differently, but he could have recognized, cited the law, and then called for that special election, even though it would absolutely swing from a tie in the House to one seat that would be vacant at the start of session. He could have easily done that. He didn't. The courts decided that he needed to do that. So it's kind of a do-over.

[00:06:34] Unfortunately, my belief is that it appears as if the Democrats don't want to come to work until there's an actual tie. So I'm sure we'll talk about this, too. Right now, we are on end of week two where the Democrats haven't shown up for work. They said they would come back the end of January. I thought that timing was really interesting, knowing that they, at the time, thought a special election would be January 28th. I think their story has changed. They don't know when they're coming back is what we've heard.

[00:07:06] So, and just one more thing is I want to give you the opportunity to share to Democrats that we've talked to, largely their argument in this is, well, it's a Democrat-safe seat. So why are we even bothering, right? Why we know a Democrat is going to win this seat. Why are we pushing this? It's just Republicans and their power grab. What do you say to those folks, again, when it comes to the importance of following the law, doing it this way?

[00:07:29] And it shouldn't matter, from my perspective, if it's a Republican or Democrat seat, but that that all still maintains important. I believe that every seat until there's an election, you know, and someone that lives in the district could be chosen, belongs to those voters. You're right. It could go Democrat. Absolutely. It has historically. The important thing to recognize, though, is the people in Roseville were lied to. And I do believe that a difference could take place.

[00:07:58] Maybe voters in that Roseville seat in 40B are saying, you know what? If someone lied this blatantly, maybe we need to make a different choice. But until that election takes place and those votes are all counted, we don't know who is going to win that definitively. So the arrogance of having one party or one caucus say, that's our seat anyway, nothing's going to change, is arrogant. I think that is something that you can look at the numbers historically and acknowledge that.

[00:08:27] But until that is said and done, no matter how long it takes for that special election, according to our governor and when he is going to finally choose. I mean, it's it's January 24th and he has not yet set a new date because he refuses to recognize the motion we made on the floor over a week ago that would allow him to call that election immediately. I'm sure we'll talk about the why's of that, too. Yes, that was going to be my next question.

[00:08:55] So from my understanding, what I've read, you know, I'm following you all on Twitter and news stories surrounding this. House Republicans put forth a resolution that would allow the governor, if he accepted it within five to seven days or something or acknowledged it, that he would be able to move that special election date sooner. So it wouldn't be the March 5th or March 11th that we're kind of seeing tossed around.

[00:09:17] Governor Walz has he kind of said at the beginning of this all when we get into the quorum question and the other Supreme Court case going forward, basically said he's not acknowledging the House as a functioning body under the Republican rule right now. So talk to us about explain that. How does that work of the resolution and basically it being ignored by the governor who the governor and the Democrats say we want this seat filled as soon as possible? Well, they had the opportunity and swindled that away.

[00:09:46] Yeah. And I know you talked about this with other guests on the podcast before, but I'll kind of walk you through what the first day of session looked like. We are required to come in on the day as prescribed by law to convene the first day of the session. In this case, it was January 14th at noon. That's where we come in. We take the oath of office and we get to work.

[00:10:07] With the tie situation, the night of the election, a former speaker, but Representative Portman and I started having conversations about a power sharing agreement. In the time of a true tie where both Republicans and Democrats the night of the election were said to have had a tie. So 67-67. I thought that of all people, we could have done this well, the two of us working together. Opposite political sides, but yet I think we could really work together in that.

[00:10:37] The issue arose both with the Curtis Johnson seat, so a vacated seat, which meant there were only 133 election certificates on the first day of the election or on the first day of session instead of 134. There is another seat out there in Shakopee that there has now been a court ruling on, but was very much in question up until the first day of session.

[00:11:01] Because of that empty vacated seat right now in Roseville until that is filled through the election process, we know that a quorum of 133 members, just simple math, eligible members, is 67. That court case is taking place right now and has been challenged by both the Secretary of State and then three in the leadership team of the Democrat caucus. That's in the Supreme Court.

[00:11:29] Hearings took place on the 23rd, and we don't have an answer for that right now. That's the challenge. So when you talk about the governor saying that we're not recognized, the Democrats decided two days before the first day of session, literally the dark of night, behind closed locked doors without anyone knowing, all 66 eligible at that time members took the oath of office to be sworn into office.

[00:11:53] Becky and Michael, I will tell you that historically there has been a one or two off maybe illness or another situation where someone has taken the oath of office either early or later. So that it's not that it has never been done. What has never been done in the state of Minnesota is an entire caucus doing something like that together, coordinated.

[00:12:14] Prior to the first day of session and thinking that was OK, which then gave them in their minds the ability to just stay back and not not provide quorum. Now, 68 votes is what it takes to pass a bill. We recognize that. But when you look at the different wording and I'm not a lawyer and the case is in court, we really felt confident and still do that a quorum is 67. We will wait for the determination by the Supreme Court to make that full decision.

[00:12:44] So with that being said, we went ahead and organized. Now, Steve Simon, our secretary of state, is the constitutional officer that was called for to do the ceremonial start to the session. But Secretary Simon is not a part of the House of Representatives. He formerly was, but he's not there. He's on the executive branch. And so he met with us and I have a lot of respect for the work he does. I don't agree with the decision he made, but I do have respect for the office that he holds.

[00:13:14] So we had a very transparent conversation, not quite a week, just the week before we were sworn in. And when I asked and when he was asked, will you be recognizing because he can't make a motion and choose to reconvene. He isn't a part of the body. I said, how how will that work? You know, will we how do we make a motion or ask, you know, parliamentary inquiry, just the basic things that we could do as members of the body. He let us know very clearly he would not be recognizing any member of the House of Representatives.

[00:13:43] That's a problem. That is an absolute problem right there. And so we went ahead and in the absence of the secretary of state, the oldest member serving in your caucus can go ahead and continue the proceedings that had not been done in that way before. But it's clearly laid out in the Constitution and how that works. And so that's why we were able to move through, get the work started. All the while, Democrats for two weeks have not shown up to work.

[00:14:11] Now, they claim they're working in their district, but they're not showing up for work. It's just, you know, we had the opportunity to speak to Leader Niska at the beginning of session as well. I mean, I got to say here, I've completely eaten up, bought and paid for everything on 67 being quorum. I mean, when it looks at when we look at the Constitution, when we look at precedents, when we look at Mason's rules, when we look, it seems pretty cut and dry to me that there are 133 members right now of the Minnesota House.

[00:14:40] And 67 does institute a majority. And so, I mean, this quorum question is just fascinating to me, especially as we're just watching it play out from both sides. We know that oral arguments were heard just yesterday at the Supreme Court and we could get. Do you know more about timing? I've read that we could hear even as soon as today on what that is, but hopefully sooner than later as we all want everybody, the Democrats, to get back to work as well. Yeah.

[00:15:09] And we don't know an exact timing of when the Supreme Court is going to come out with their ruling. Hopefully soon. And they understand the timing of what we're working under. We don't know how that will go. You know, there's multiple ways they could rule on it. It's something that has never been challenged before. The other thing is this does set a new precedent in the legislature. And I won't speak to that now because we don't know where it's going to land. Even to have the two suits that were brought forward the night, the first one was brought by Secretary Simon the night that we were sworn in.

[00:15:39] And what I've said all along is at any point in time, our Democrat colleagues can join us. I have talked to at least one Democrat colleague that approached me at an event at the chamber sessions priority. He wouldn't come to work, but he'd go to a sessions priority. And he said, oh, I really want to come back. And I said, well, I understand caucuses and leadership, and I understand that.

[00:16:04] But all 66 Democrat members have an election certificate, and there is zero preventing them from coming to work. When it comes right down to it, the challenges that are out there that I believe is the thing, regardless of what you hear, but the thing standing in their way is math. We have 67 members. They have 66 members. It could go back to a tie. There's no guarantee. It could go back to a tie.

[00:16:31] And I have been very clear with Representative Portman to say, if it goes back to a tie, I would like to have those continued power sharing agreement conversations. I've been open to say we could do some co-chairs on some committees. We could do some committees with equal membership. But to say that we should go back to an exact 50-50 tie when the math does not support that on day one of session is wrong.

[00:17:00] And finally, and now this has come out in a press conference where they've made public comments. You know, why should Speaker Damath have the power for two years? Well, that's where it is. That is what has happened with day one of session. As I've been thinking about that, I really wonder if they doubt the fact that I would be fair in my speakership over two years to them.

[00:17:26] We know what we've experienced in the state of Minnesota over the last two years, where it has been pure party partisanship all the way through, even in a slim majority or a tie in the Senate. But I think that may be the next level of conversation that we need to have. To me, it shouldn't even have to be said, but I will be very fair in the way I work with the Democrats, with the entire body.

[00:17:52] It may not be exactly like they would like it because there is no more trifecta in the state of Minnesota. But there's nothing that I have ever done or said that doesn't prove that I would be as fair as possible moving forward. Madam Speaker, I have three kids. My wife and I have three kids. And we try to raise the civic IQ of our household and engage our kids. I've been trying to explain this situation to them. And a lot of it really ties into your last point.

[00:18:21] Do you feel that you've been free judged as to how you would lead as speaker? Because it seems to me that you haven't been given a chance, that there hasn't been an opportunity here because it escalated so quickly and it was the first day. Do you think that there's been a lack of opportunity for be treated fair and give it an opportunity to lead? I appreciate you bringing that out because I do.

[00:18:45] And that thought didn't even come to me until the last few days that I bet they are making their predeterminations on who I am as a leader based on what they've already done themselves. And that is not it. I will be as fair as possible, but I am not going to cave in and do things because they want equal power when it does not exist.

[00:19:09] And so I give you all the credit in the world trying to raise the civic IQ of your family, Michael, because I'm trying to explain this. Even to people that have been in it, they'll say, OK, where are things at? How does this work right now? And it is really uncharted territory.

[00:19:26] But I think we owe it to each other that until there's proof that we're not going to be fair and govern appropriately, I think we still need to somehow expect the best out of people, just as humans and a level of civility. So thank you for bringing that out. But that's exactly where I'm at. They prejudged how they think I would actually work. You know, we've seen you mentioned this and exactly what to Michael's question.

[00:19:56] A lot of shenanigans from the Democrats over the last two years from not having Republican hearing Republican bills or allowing testifiers to participate into committee. We've seen a lot of kind of one sided trifecta control up at the legislature with what they were working with. And so we have had conversations with Democrats on the show about whether they think Democrats would act in the same way, taking moving forward with quorum and convening the House.

[00:20:24] And of course, they will on the podcast saying say no. I think we can all probably agree that that is not the case, that they would certainly be seeking the same avenues of conducting themselves. And what the Constitution and laws abide or show when it comes to quorum and conducting the House. So I think this has been we called it a constitutional crisis.

[00:20:46] And I want to give you the opportunity to kind of share what you said before we before we started as how you don't view it that way, because this is something we've never seen before. And you look at the positive of it. And I think it's such a great perspective on this. Yeah, I've heard constitutional crisis. And, you know, there's all of those snappy little headlines that get people to click in and see what's really going on. But I don't view this as a constitutional crisis. I view this as an opportunity, something that has never happened in the state of Minnesota.

[00:21:15] And as leaders, as elected officials, as just responsible adults, we need to find our way through. So crisis, no, we're on opposite sides as far as perspective and inferences against the other side. But I don't think that it is a crisis.

[00:21:32] I said, even with our chairs, as we were working on the co-chair model originally with a tie, I'd said all along, even to our entire caucus, that before the election, we were working hard for the majority. And I said, when we win the majority, or it changed to now that we're in a tie.

[00:21:51] But either way, we will not govern in a retaliatory way, even though we felt like Minnesota really suffered over the last two years, both in the way things were done and the decisions that were made. And it's important that you remember back to the last night of session. And people that are not in the St. Paul bubble don't really remember that. They'll probably remember maybe there's a little bit of chaos.

[00:22:15] But I have played the last two minutes of that session for all of our members. And the reason I did that is because I never want to get to that. That was an absolute disrespect to the institution of the House of Representatives, to watch a leader push through partisan priorities, ignore the voice of the minority, and do what was done that night and ignored everything to get their things over.

[00:22:46] Leaders and the majority have the responsibility of calendar and agenda management. And for whatever reason, the things that happened the last night of session, despite any type of points of order or anything brought forward, there was a 1,400-page bill that was not available online or in print for anyone to see actually what was in there. And it was literally pushed through in the last few minutes, completely partisan.

[00:23:13] That should never have happened, nor will it. But knowing that, I have said all along, as the majority, as leaders in the state, we will not govern in a retaliatory way. That is never more true than right now when an entire caucus won't show up for work and has not scheduled but actually incited protests to happen right in one of our committee hearings.

[00:23:39] And to ignore the fact of the work that we are doing for Minnesota, we still will not be retaliatory. But we will use every bit of authority and just the basic math of things to get the work done for Minnesota, not for us personally, but for the state of Minnesota. I want to get into that a little bit more. We've been kind of jokingly, but also not, calling them Democrats, the evil shenanigans that are going on up at the House.

[00:24:05] So, you know, Democrats made it clear before session even started that they were not going to show up on day one and how long that lasts yet to be determined. Originally, we kind of put the marker at two weeks until that special session, January 28th. That date is now pushed out to early to mid-March. Now they have, I'm sure, some tough conversations internally if they're going to continue to not show up for six to eight weeks of session. The optics of it are just horrific. Michael and I have been chatting.

[00:24:32] He had a great tweet thread the other day about how Democrats win here because it's tough to see. And maybe that's just because we're so close or so in this bubble of my perspective and what I view on this. I mean, I'm definitely wearing my red partisan hat here. That's no surprise. Um, but. Explain a little bit about how, you know, the Democrats and folks are really pulling this as the power grabbing, the illegitimate power grabbing of the Republicans.

[00:25:01] But it seems to me that the power, the desperation for power really is with the Democrats for them to truly not show up to stay home or work in their districts or whatever they're claiming they're doing right now. While you all are up at the Capitol working and trying to get things done and introducing your priorities, which I want to chat more about the priorities and some of the legislation and initiatives that you're working on.

[00:25:24] But talk to us a little bit about how, from your perspective and working within this, I mean, what are the Democrats hoping to get out of this? How do they win? How does not showing up for two weeks, the optics of it, we all know we need to show up for our work. Why are they not? And I think that's such an important piece, too, that even if you don't like how things are going at your job, whatever that is, you don't usually have the option not to show up.

[00:25:51] You know, they used it as the idea of almost like a strike or a protest or something like that. Use whatever words you want, but you are disenfranchising every one of your constituents. I don't think there's a single person that voted on Election Day, Republican or Democrat, that said, you know what, if things don't go exactly how you want it, just stay home. Maybe you'll get some attention that way. That's a problem. That is not a responsible way to work out differences. It is just absolutely irresponsible when I think about it.

[00:26:20] Anything that we are hearing, you know, there are a handful of people saying, you know, Republicans, you should do whatever you can to get Democrats back in the chamber. Well, we're not preventing them from being in the chamber. They're making a choice. But we have heard like multiple times over the few that kind of come at us from all over the state. I'm a Democrat, but yet I don't agree with what they're doing. I'm a Democrat. They need to get back to work. We're embarrassed by this behavior. I will.

[00:26:48] There's been some always vote Democrat, but I don't agree with this. You know, overwhelmingly, that's what we're hearing. How do they come back from this? I mean, I think it's a PR nightmare personally, but I don't know how they come back. But Republicans are there every day doing the work that people have sent us to do. And we're not doing heavy partisan things. You know, it'd be one thing if we were just slamming through everything like super far. Right.

[00:27:12] We are doing the work that we would have done in the majority or even in a tie. We are looking at ending fraud in Minnesota that has been so rampant and has gone unchecked for years. So we have a committee that's the Fraud and Agency Oversight Committee. We want to make sure that we are addressing issues of known fraud and changing that going forward, not allowing it to grow in. That's not partisan. That is just the common sense things to do.

[00:27:41] We're also looking at our educational outcomes. Only half of our kids can read at grade level. Yet there's been a lot of mandates that have been put on our schools that are really tying their hands as far as their budgeting. And so we want to make sure that we are raising up the standards for education while allowing schools to do what they need to do to have better outcomes for their kids. Our energy costs are increasing in the state of Minnesota.

[00:28:09] And with the 2040 plan, we know that reliability is in question. So we want to one of the main things we want to do is go ahead and lift the nuclear moratorium. We don't want to say that it has to be. We just want that discussion to go forward where there's been limited ability for that. We want to make sure that our communities are safe. All of those things that we're hearing from Minnesota are the bills that we are working on that move through the committee process and will eventually make their way to the House floor.

[00:28:38] That's what we're doing every day in committee on the floor right now. There's not a lot to do. Bill introductions, kind of those basic things that need to happen. But there haven't been any bill hearings yet on the House floor. Madam Speaker, I've been around a number of years and have seen a lot of things in the state capitol. One of my children, my daughter, participated in the youth and government program that was recently at the state capitol. And so she got to be up front and see from her perspective how the wheels of government turned.

[00:29:07] There was an incident this past week in a committee hearing that I want to talk with you about. It was very, very disturbing to watch. And I'd like to just set the table for a second that there are meetings, there are legislative hearings going on. And I believe it was the Public Safety Committee. There were protesters that showed up to that appearing. Those protesters were aggressive. They were loud.

[00:29:30] They were very much in the face of legislators who were there working, staff, people that were testifying. It is without a doubt. And I've seen a lot at the state capitol. I've seen protests in. I've seen out. I worked at the state capitol in 99 or 2000 when there was a Klan rally, a Ku Klux Klan rally that was there. And Republicans and Democrats got together to speak against that.

[00:29:54] But the level of vitriol and almost violence that occurred earlier this week, I think needs to be talked about more. And part of the reason I'm so frustrated about it is because what the members and the staff and the public experience in that hearing. Number two, I think there's been a lack of coverage about it.

[00:30:16] And I'm struggling with the reason there's not more media coverage is because what was the political affiliation of the protesters and who were they protesting? But it was concerning. It was scary. I wasn't there, but I saw it. It is without a doubt probably the closest I've seen to violence inside the state capitol in a legislative hearing.

[00:30:40] And I want to know what needs to be done, first of all, to make sure whatever happens independent of any court filings or Supreme Court orders, how are your members staying safe? Number two, what can be done to prevent that from happening again? Because that was incredibly ugly and unsafe. Yep. And thanks for bringing that up.

[00:31:01] That protest that occurred in public safety was concerning, as you mentioned, Michael, with the proximity that the protesters had without immediate interference from law enforcement up that close to our members and our staff. And it's important to recognize that we are doing the work for the people. And so there are going to be people that are both for and opposed to what we do. That is how this process works. I never want to shut down First Amendment rights.

[00:31:29] I want to make sure that people can come in and express themselves. But we are doing official business there. And to even get to the level where it feels that unsafe for our members and our staff and those that are actually doing their job as government affairs and lobbyists and the public in the space and the testifiers, that will never happen again. It cannot.

[00:31:57] We have to move and go forward. Obviously, discussions with our sergeant at arms and their team, they are phenomenal. They have every right to intervene as soon as possible. I cannot speak to previous leadership and what they were allowed or not allowed to do.

[00:32:14] But under my leadership, the sergeant at arms and their incredibly professional team will be very much in close proximity to shut things down in a safe and respectful way to maintain decorum. The state patrol obviously is there. You know, depending on the clip you saw, multiple law enforcement were there. It was public safety. The MPPOA was actually testifying in the moment.

[00:32:41] So people were in that room and it was incredibly concerning. More concerning than that is those protesters were not there about public safety. They were basically screaming the same Democrat talking points about quorum and what we were doing as work. That is incredibly concerning because that was not an attack against just a topic that was being brought up.

[00:33:09] It was against all Republicans doing the work of the people is what was being said. Now, there were Democrat representatives that although they said they didn't they didn't make it happen, basically, they talked about the protest and coming against Republicans in a way that it doesn't take. It's not hard to draw the lines together. Immediately when I saw it and as we you know, I met I met with the committee after I met with staff.

[00:33:36] I made sure that members and staff were OK with that, you know, after the fact, obviously plans going forward, reiterating the plans we have in place. When our committee did leave the space, we were not retreating in any way. That room needed to be cleared and those people cannot go back in. We now are ticketing for every committee. Sergeant at Arms has the ability to deny entrance. There's an overflow. People can watch it.

[00:33:59] But to keep people safe, they can deny entrance, which we will allow that to happen and support that in effort to keep everyone as safe as possible. Not shutting out the public, but just allowing that. The other thing that I think is really important is I saw a couple of then different views of the same thing. One that has made national news. Immediately that evening, I sent that to Representative Portman, said, please watch up until this moment in here.

[00:34:25] And I believe some of your members have possibly encouraged this. And I got a text message fired right back. Obviously, not enough time to even open the link that I sent. So I can't say it wasn't watched, but fired back. How do you know that? Sent the same screenshots that we'd gotten from those Democrat members that were kind of pushing towards something about like this.

[00:34:48] And then no further response at all until the next day when Representative Portman finally put something out, not agreeing with it. The most disappointing thing, though, was the fact that our governor did not say anything about this. So if he is hiding behind the fact that, oh, the Republicans aren't officially organized right now, there was a potentially violent and intimidating and threats of violence incident that occurred in the Capitol.

[00:35:15] And as governor of the state, for him not to condemn that, even while he waits to hear Supreme Court findings on the work we're doing, was an absolute misstep, but just par for the course when you think about his leadership over the last six years. The state Capitol is the cathedral of democracy in this state. And I encourage everyone who's participating in this debate on both sides to act accordingly.

[00:35:43] And I'm so sorry that your members experienced that, that Becky and taxpayers saw that happening. That is the people's house. And there is a disagreement about what's going on, but it should never lead to that. But there's nothing that I've seen so far from the Republican side that leads me to believe that that's the manner in which Republicans are trying to engage on this issue.

[00:36:07] There's been a level of decorum that even if there's a disagreement on what's being done, there's a level of decorum and respect. I think Republicans are showing, again, to that cathedral of democracy. And I applaud you for your leadership and how you're addressing that situation. Thank you. But I do want to hit you. We talked a little bit about the sergeant of arms and the law enforcement that is around the Capitol and helps members, staff, keep everybody safe in the area.

[00:36:33] I do want to ask about a resolution that Leader Niska introduced this week, kind of talking about what has gone on in other states. I know Wisconsin in particular, but other states where members have refused to show up and the different abilities of law enforcement to compel members to come back. We've all been either watching the state legislature or Congress and heard the call of requesting members to come to the floor or the sergeant of arms to gather members to do so.

[00:37:03] And so Leader Niska's resolution kind of asks about that and whether from some comments that have been made by Democrat leaders, by I don't know if it was governor, governor's staff, but concerned that there is some sort of partisan interference.

[00:37:16] Whether in this committee hearing or in the floor, can you just explain a little bit about this resolution and potential possibilities of needing staff or, I'm sorry, law enforcement involvement when it comes to whether it's bringing members back or acting in any way and whether the governor has control over that? Yeah. Yeah. We did the resolution just to reiterate the fact that the governor could utilize the state patrol, which is under his purview.

[00:37:44] He could utilize them to bring absent members back in kind of a call of the house of what we've done where it's never been needed before. But there was some potentially misunderstandings in the public and comments that were made by Representative Portman that the sergeant, that the state patrol couldn't do anything to bring members back. We have the resolution that just authorizes the governor to go ahead and exercise that right to bring those members back so we can continue doing the work for the people.

[00:38:10] It was just as simple as that. Before we hit on our last topic, I do want to give you just one more opportunity to share some of the work that Republicans are doing in the first two weeks of session here. You mentioned a little bit about fraud. I know you also have a Make Minnesota Affordable initiative.

[00:38:26] This is something that we talked a lot about leading up to the election in November, how, from my perspective, the affordability and what middle-class working families can afford, the cost of childcare, the cost of gas, the cost of eggs, how that all plays in. But obviously, with inflation and different things going on in the economy, talk to us about why this is one of the top priorities for Republicans and about these initiatives that you have introduced so far.

[00:38:53] Sure. And we know that Minnesota is an expensive state to live in. We understand that. And investments into our infrastructure, you know, you think about our roads, our bridges, our wastewater, those priorities are very important. Those should be partisan or those should not be partisan. But, you know, you're the basic core elements of government for our schools and funding there.

[00:39:14] But what we've seen over the last two years, there's been a spending of the $18 billion surplus plus increased taxes and fees on every Minnesotan by another $10 billion. And I know, Becky, when we start talking millions, but definitely when we start talking billions, we lose like most of Minnesotans because they just it's too big of a number to even wrap your mind around.

[00:39:37] But what I can tell you over the last two years, as everything's gotten more expensive and more mandates have been put on schools and hospitals and businesses and cities, business mandates that make everything cost more. Some of the ideas that we have for saving, you know, and finding cost savings is to repeal the gas tax inflator. We want to end the tax on Social Security. We want to repeal the delivery tax fee.

[00:40:03] All of those like nickel and dime things are a way to start doing that to take the pressure off of Minnesota families. The other thing that we're looking at is the amount of, as I mentioned earlier, fraud. But also over the last two years, there were more than 6,000 new FTEs. So new full-time equivalent employees that were added to the state government alone.

[00:40:26] You know, we need to make sure that we are not growing government in a way that is putting so much pressure on Minnesotans that it can't happen. Our chairs of all the committees sent out a letter to the agencies just asking for some basic information. So as we were doing our work, we would be able to get the information we needed to make data-driven decisions as we're looking.

[00:40:48] And we know now, even with the increase in spending and the waste of the surplus, that we're headed toward a deficit in the state of Minnesota within the next four years. And so we have to make wise decisions. Our chairs gave about four weeks for the information that they were asking to be returned from the agencies. And we were asking, you know, how many FTEs do you have? How many are unfilled for more than six months? How many are unfilled for less than that?

[00:41:14] How much space is used full-time, hybrid, or empty completely in the state? What are we paying for? And just making some of those decisions. How are you fighting fraud? And then how would you find some cost savings within your agencies? Basic business questions that needed to be asked. So we were making wise decisions. That was problematic. And we could not get that information returned on time.

[00:41:41] And then as we got in, it was incomplete information. And I think even just the space alone, you know, how much is being used full-time, part-time, or not at all. The Democrats passed an expansion of the state office building that houses 134 legislators, part-time legislators. $730 million for that new building and expansion, a reno and a building. But yet for two and a half years, we're moved over across the campus to a completely empty building or an almost empty building now. Empty floors in a building.

[00:42:10] So even just common sense business decisions that you just need to know what you own and what you have and how you're spending, that will go all into the decisions we're making. We couldn't get the information that we wanted. We got kind of some of it, but not really. And then as we've been having our overviews for every committee, the agency overviews, the agencies have been directed to not show up at the hearings, at the committees,

[00:42:36] nor have they've also, I should say, they've also been directed not to meet with Republicans. So we are doing our best to do the work, even though there are limits put on the people that we need information from to help make the best decisions. As much as we've got our priorities and we are moving through, we're kind of doing that with our best estimate. So if those agencies are going to come back and want an increase in budget or want to defend it later,

[00:43:03] they missed the opportunity to have their overviews already because they've kind of stood us up when invited. Madam Speaker, this conflict, this disagreement will end at some point. I assume at some point the Democrats will come back and there will be work that will be done. Think ahead to the end of the session. And when this is all resolved, how will voters be able to judge what Republicans did? What will have been different?

[00:43:26] What will Republicans be known for and accomplishing at the end of this, whenever this process ends? And I'm not talking a year from now, but the end of this upcoming session, what will you be able to point to and say, this is how we made the system better? We are looking at ways to make Minnesota more affordable and a safer state that everybody can flourish. Families, individuals just starting out, those that are retired. We want to make sure that Minnesota is a good place to stay or to come to.

[00:43:56] Those are the priorities that govern the work that we do. They're common sense principles. We will not end this year. So in 19th is our last day of session. I believe we will end on time with a balanced budget that is reasonable without the chaos of what you saw at the end of last year. I have full confidence that we can get to that point and work together, even though the start has been very, very bumpy.

[00:44:23] I think that's what Minnesotans both deserve and expect. And so that's what you will see. You will see House Republicans working alongside our Democrat colleagues to do the best that we can for Minnesota. Nobody's going to be completely happy, but we're also trying to avert a deficit that's going to make things harder in the next couple of years, too. That's what you can expect from House Republicans. Well, Speaker Damath, we are so grateful for the time today, the second time on the show.

[00:44:50] So we are grateful that you are up working hard, fighting hard for all Minnesotans, for our pocketbooks and just to make things better for us all. It's what we were you guys were elected to do. And we're hopeful that, like Michael mentioned, that Democrats show up sooner than later and you guys all can continue working together. But thank you for your time today. Thank you for all you're doing.

[00:45:14] And I hope our paths cross again soon and we can get updates on great legislation being passed to better the lives of us all. Excellent. Thank you so much. Great to talk with both of you. You had excellent questions. I really appreciate it. Please stay safe. We will. Becky, we just interviewed Speaker of the House, Lisa Damath. Get your take on the interview. You know, I loved it.

[00:45:43] I think it's I mean, first of all, it still sometimes surprises me the folks that we get the opportunity, you know, that I got an email or text my mom this morning and say, hey, you know, we're just doing an interview with the Speaker of the House. No big deal. So having these conversations, I just think are personally so fascinating. But to just get it straight from the source and hear everything that they're doing, everything that they're, you know, these legal hoops that they're about, you know, jumping through.

[00:46:07] Think of how much extra work that has gone in to to try and navigate this issue simply because, you know, the some of the shenanigans that have been going on. All while hand in hand, working for on their initiatives and on things to reduce fraud and rein in spending and find ways to cut taxes. It's a lot.

[00:46:30] And, you know, Speaker Damath giving us almost an hour here is just incredible to help share with our listeners and us what they've been doing, what they're working on and what they hope for. I want to get your perspective on something that I was I observed during the interview, but it kind of reframe some of my thing. Her brand and her role and how I think she's led during this, I think, has been underreported.

[00:46:56] I think how Speaker Damath and Leader Niska have led during this has been underreported. And there hasn't been enough attention on that. I know, I mean, everyone and we are subject to it, too, just focusing on this is what's going on in the court and this is this and this and that. There is a new Speaker of the House. And I understand the Democrats have perspectives on that.

[00:47:18] But it's very impressive to see her talk about what they're doing, what they want to accomplish, and then also have to deal with this conflict. She didn't want to call it a constitutional crisis. I don't want that term to die. So I'm going to just continue to be an advocate for it. But I want to be deferential to the Speaker. But to me, it just seems that there's something more going on here.

[00:47:44] I was impressed by our exchange and how she was able to balance, I think, on her shoulders as a new Speaker. I guess that's how I would frame it up. She's a new Speaker. She's the leader of the Republicans. And she's the Speaker. And how is she able to balance all of those things? And she's able to banal this conflict that they're in, to use her language. Then responsibly lead a caucus and try to gather and still do the work that needs to be done.

[00:48:13] All the while, there are Democrats and others who are saying the work that they're not doing is legitimate. A part of me now thinks that her leadership style has not been reported enough. And how she, I mean, I thought it was incredibly interesting. And I was really surprised by her kind of just leaning into very strongly. We're not going to govern like the Democrats.

[00:48:37] And if you take that contrast, and that's something we've talked about since we've been doing this podcast, is how the Democrats have kind of rammed some things through. And Speaker Hortman has talked about that as, you know, that's sometimes that stuff that needs to happen. But it didn't seem to me that Speaker Damoth was willing to entertain governing and leading that way. And that's a big leadership contrast that a part of me now understands when we're focusing on all this minutia, which there needs to be some attention brought to that.

[00:49:07] What's not getting enough light shined on it is the manner in which Speaker Damoth wants to lead in her role as Speaker of the House. And I thought your question on that about her being prejudged was great. And to give her that opportunity to talk about that, because I completely agree. And it's not something I think that we that has been has gotten enough attention because so much of it. I mean, you hear it in so many different what it's it's like a coping mechanism, right?

[00:49:36] For folks to be defensive because you have all of these issues within yourself that you're projecting onto others. And she, I feel like, has proven herself so far. And and to be perfectly honest, this is where some of my confusion about the Democrats tactics really come from, because ultimately 60 even even Damoth had said this later. Niska had said this. 68 votes are still needed to pass legislation.

[00:50:01] So even with her as Speaker of the House, it's not like she even if she wanted to could ram anything through. Right. The Republicans don't have 68 members. They have 67. We I believe that's quorum. They believe that's quorum. That's an argument that will be settled soon enough. But she's conducting herself. And so I understand the fear from the Democrats of not wanting to see this power. And I understand some of that.

[00:50:27] But from my perspective, it's so hard to kind of wrap my head around where that that misses of being fearful that the Republicans are going to act like the Democrats did the last session when they don't have that capability to even do so because they don't have the 68. And so it is really unfortunate that she is being prejudged.

[00:50:48] I think that, you know, this interview and others we have seen from her over the last two weeks hopefully will carry on as what her legacy is and what she's able to do as Speaker for the next two years, which I firmly believe will stand up and be the case.

[00:51:03] But we'll find out more. But it was, you know, it's it gives me the warm and fuzzies that I love to have from some politicians of truly believing and understanding their will to do better and to do those things that they're projecting to eliminate the fraud and to reduce costs and to have a better path forward. And working with Democrats, Republicans alike for the betterment of our country or of our state, I bought it.

[00:51:28] I hope our listeners did. She seems very compelling and passionate and sincere and genuine in that quest and mad props to her. I'm so glad that she's the speaker and the leader of the Republican caucus and hopefully maintains that and for the Minnesota House. One question for you, but I want to say something. I think one of the things that we do really well in this podcast is try to bring out the best in people. We had the opportunity to speak with Representative Tapkey. He had a lot of compliments on that interview.

[00:51:54] I was very proud of it and an opportunity to connect with him and hear his perspective. I think that what we try to do in this podcast is bring out the best in people and have thoughtful conversations. And we do that with Democrats and Republicans. And I think that we hit the mark on that interview with Speaker Damuth because there is a lot that I saw and heard from her that has really reframed my thinking on what this fight may be about. And I think it will for some of our listeners.

[00:52:20] I have a question for you because you're the smartest of us currently on this podcast. Well, I mean, you're the smartest. You know what I'm trying to say. You're smarter than me. I put out a tweet that was a thread and I'd like to get your perspective on it. How do you think the Democrats win? And let me just frame this out again. I understand that there's differing opinions on this quorum, on this debate.

[00:52:45] But I look at it from the perspective of how kind of you and I have looked at it, which is it's the empty seats that's not showing up to work. So independent of any court order that comes out, Supreme Court or something else, the Democrats still have to show up. And they're not doing that. And so at some point, and I'd be curious to your perspective, haven't they set up a scenario almost like it's a no-win situation for them?

[00:53:13] I'm trying to struggle to figure out, okay, so at the end of the day, you have to show up and go to the legislature and do things, which people expect you to do to begin with. And I'm not trying to be a partisan, but I'm just trying to understand kind of the PR strategy of it. Can you maybe dumb it down for me and explain it to you? I wish I could, but I am right there with you.

[00:53:32] Truly, other than them really banking on that Governor Walz's writ of special election was valid and they won that court case and Secretary of State Steve Simons' quorum lawsuit is valid and they win that. Even with that, the optics of the first two weeks to me is a loss.

[00:53:48] I don't know how you come back from that because those video footage on the news and what we see in the papers, the photos that are going to be on the mailers and in the graphics hitting text messages in 2026. I just don't know how you come back from that. And now I feel like they must have been completely banking on this fact that it would be two week maximum, that it would be back by the end of January.

[00:54:17] Because now where do you where does that line move for them? Where where does the end of them not showing up happen? Because now from what we've seen, I've seen Leader Damath, I think, had said something like March 5th. I think Speaker or Leader Hortman has said something like March 11th. So at the earliest, we're another, what is that, five, six weeks from today, six to eight weeks from the start of session is the earliest that that seat will be filled.

[00:54:47] They cannot very well be planning to stay away for six to eight weeks, can they? I mean, that just seems the two weeks to me is hard to fathom. But that long, I mean, I just there's only so many coffees you can have in your district and meetings you can have without being able to, you know, it's just it it just the optics are so poor. It's not looking great. I've seen some members posting even videos of their Zoom meetings or whatever they're holding.

[00:55:17] And then others showing that agencies and just their staff, it's not actually constituents. At the end of the day, however you want to regard voters. Voters are smart enough to know that showing up for two to six to eight weeks, not showing up for that period of time is completely unacceptable to be getting paid the same thing. We're not a full time. This is not a year round job. I mean, yes, they do work year round. I don't want to take that away from them.

[00:55:45] But this is a session is a finite number of days that they are supposed to be conducting business. And while I applaud Speaker Damus optimism that they'll still be done by the middle of May or end of May when session ends, I have a hard time believing that they're going to be able to get this all done because the Democrats are doing this. Special session is extremely expensive. And I've been at the Capitol in special sessions.

[00:56:06] It's something like, what, $30,000 a day or a week or I mean, the amount of extra taxpayer dollars that are going to be required to be spent simply to get their actual work done because they didn't show up when they were supposed to. I don't see the wind. I don't see. And I have yet to see an argument other than them just pushing back on the Republicans. I don't I really, truly have yet to see anything that shows that this could be anything in this could be a win for the Democrats.

[00:56:35] Well, if you're smarter than Becky and I, I doubt that you're smarter than Becky. But if you are, drop us a note and explain to us what you think a win is here because we're both struggling to figure out. Becky, I wasn't expecting to see you so soon. We are back with an update to our bonus episode. So this will be a bonus bonus episode. I just want to take a few minutes to explain the breaking news, which happened after we recorded our interview with Speaker Damath.

[00:57:04] And our analysis was that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that quorum is, in fact, 68. Your perspective, Becky. You know, I think we kind of hit on a lot of it. You know, I'm certainly disappointed with it. I thought that the Republicans' arguments were sound, that according to how it was written,

[00:57:24] how it was interpreted with Mason's rules and the Constitution, that of the 133 elected members of the Minnesota House currently, 67 did constitute a quorum. I mean, I certainly think it's something that needed to be laid out and detailed and defined further. I am, it will be interesting to see what this does for the future. In similar cases, you know, this isn't the first time we've had a tie. It probably won't be the last.

[00:57:54] And it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. But most importantly, I think it is a mandate that Democrats get back to work and join at the House. Obviously, conversations for power sharing will probably resume sooner than later. And I don't think the Democrats have any excuse to stay home any further. Do you think that, because that's the challenge we discussed in the last episode, in our episode that we recorded this morning, before this breaking news,

[00:58:24] was that a win here, if they got to 68, they're going to have to go back to work. And so do you think that this speeds up the likelihood of them going back to the legislature? Yeah, I mean, they have no excuse not to. Obviously, I think they'll probably still drag their feet and say that they need to figure out how the House is going to proceed with who has the gavel, who starts the day,

[00:58:50] who calls on members, who that person is, whether that is Speaker Damath, whether that's Leader Hortman, whether they're up there holding hands doing it together, are yet to be determined. But I think it would not surprise me if over the weekend those conversations are being had and figuring out a path forward because it's been a long while so far that the Democrats have not been participating in the conversations

[00:59:18] and pushing forward and doing what the people ask them to do. And so I think they need to really get to work and get to work fast here. Well, one point I want to make before we end this updated bonus bonus episode is, it's interesting, you know, while the court has ruled that there is 68, they have not, the court has not made a determination that's going to require them to go back and work on a power share agreement. And so the bottom line is what we said earlier today was,

[00:59:46] they get, if they get the 68, they still have to show up at some point. Before we close out here, I'm curious about your perspective because we did talk a little bit at the end about what a win looks like for the Democrats. Obviously, we're going to be seeing a lot of statements and tweets from Democrats, the House DFL members and the likes heralding this as a victory, as a win. But what does that look like from, as they move forward and talk about the last two weeks,

[01:00:16] how do they really hold this up and say, we won? You know, it's tough because, again, so they got a ruling on the 68. I don't know what the implications are. I don't know if that means that if quorum is 68, that means nothing they've done so far has, I think that counts. And so they have to start all over again. The question is, do they start now or do they start in March?

[01:00:43] We interviewed the Speaker of the House. I stand by my position that she's a Speaker of the House because the Republicans are in control right now based on the numbers and where they're at. The win today for the Democrats was it was 68 for a quorum. But as of right now, Republicans still have a mathematical advantage, 67 over 66.

[01:01:07] And so I don't think there's any question that Speaker Dameth will continue to be Speaker in some capacity. The question is on the length of time. But again, it wasn't like the court said, okay, there was a power sharing agreement and you guys must work together. They're just saying that quorum is 68. And at the end of the day, the Democrats still have to come into the chamber.

[01:01:32] And I'm struggling still to understand how they define a win when they still have to show up and work with Republicans and Republicans have been willing to be there. So I'm going to be curious to see about the spin. I think we're going to have a lot to talk about next week when we do an updated episode. But I'm really glad we had the opportunity to speak with Speaker Dameth this morning, provide our context and then take a couple minutes to update because this is going to be a great episode and we'll learn more for next week. Absolutely. We'll be back with all the updates from over the weekend

[01:02:02] and I'll be paying attention and watching that Twitter feed and the news to see what happens and when it happens. Becky, I want to thank you for doing this extra episode. And we want to thank all of our listeners for their attention and following us on these issues. And we want to thank them for listening to this latest episode of The Breakdown with Brock, Cora, and Becky. Before you go, show us some love for your favorite podcast by leaving us review on Apple Podcasts or on the platform where you listen.

[01:02:30] You can also leave a review and follow us across all social media platforms at BB BreakPod. The Breakdown with Brock and Becky will return next week. Thank you so much. Have a great weekend. Bye.