Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Imagine if the roles in the fight for control of the Minnesota House were reversed. The GOP, facing a temporary minority. The DFL, attempting to strong-arm the incoming House into two years of full Democratic control. Now, imagine an entire GOP-leaning district being left unheard in negotiations over House operations. That’s the inverse of our current reality.

In this hypothetical, a temporary DFL majority convenes and elects a speaker. Let’s expand our hypothetical and assume the race in 23A was decided by a handful of votes and to entrench their control, the “majority” suggests Rep. Bennett should be unseated, citing 17 contested early ballots. The physical ballots, missing, but the voters who cast them, identified, who provide testimony confirming a narrow win by the Republican, but DFL leadership indicates a willingness to simply ignore the court’s findings. Imagine the outrage, media coverage, violence?

This is why DFL representatives have denied quorum and why if faced with similar circumstances, the GOP would no doubt employ their own strategies. You need only look to other parts of the country and national politics to find traditional norms, processes and procedures being ignored or discarded to the benefit of political expediency. The attempt to leverage a temporary advantage into full-term control while conveniently adhering only to court rulings you agree with sets a dangerous precedent.

It’s one thing if a death or resignation results in vacancies during session, but we have arrived at our current situation through clever legal maneuvering designed to manufacture political advantage, and it’s gross. I am not claiming to be an authority, wholly unbiased or that candidates shouldn’t be held accountable for their choices but, rather, I seek to find common ground in presenting a hypothetical that hopefully resonates with readers, one that allows an imagining of our own political voice and agency in similar circumstances, so we might reflect on what agreement best serves our state, regardless of party and aligns with how we would expect to be treated if roles were reversed.

During my campaign, I was asked if I would work across the aisle. I would have. The current standoff isn’t that. Neither is potentially disenfranchising two districts’ worth of voters, locking them out of negotiations that will govern the House for the next two years. The proposal extended by the DFL is a reasonable compromise that I believe should be adopted. It balances increased conservative input, respects the seated majority, preserves the right of the voters to reaffirm their wishes in a special election and most importantly it allows our representatives to get to work. It is an agreement that I would find acceptable for DFL leadership to accept on my behalf as a Democratic voter if the roles were reversed.

This is the game being played. You’ll need to judge who is truly respecting voters. Use what reasoning you want, but, for me, the DFL proposal best reflects the values of the community and faith I was raised in.

Joe Staloch
Albert Lea