Republicans will start off the year with at least a temporary majority in the Minnesota House. Democrat Curtis Johnson announced Friday he would not appeal a judge's decision that he failed to establish residency in the district he was elected to represent.

Summary

Republicans temporarily gain a 67-66 majority in the Minnesota House after Democrat Curtis Johnson resigned over a residency ruling.

Johnson, deemed ineligible by a judge, chose not to appeal, prompting Gov. Tim Walz to schedule a Jan. 28 special election in the Democratic-leaning district Johnson won by 30 points.

Republicans will control committees and legislative processes until then, potentially advancing their agenda and launching investigations into the Walz administration.

Meanwhile, the Minnesota Senate is split 33-33 after a Democratic senator’s death, with another special election pending.

Democrats remain confident of regaining both seats.

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        15·
        2 months ago

        • So you have a hypothetical 218-217 US House, only a majority of one seat

        • Senate and President are the opposite party of the house

        • two members of the majority party mysteriously dies

        • house majority flips

        • theres now a government trifecta

        • free reign to pass laws until the special elections happen

        Vancancy = “No” Vote, means that it doesn’t matter how many of your opponents you assassinate, you can’t gain a majority by killing and bypassing elections.

          • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            See the thing is. Things should be made as fail-safe not fail-deadly.

            [Edit:

            TLDR: I kinda rambled a bit. But my point is:

            Its better for a good law being slightly delayed from a few deaths, rather than a bad law being passed because of a few deaths.]

            Example:

            If they want to pass a law that, say, gives everyone universal healthcare.

            The president, and both chambers want to pass it

            Big pharma doesn’t like it and assassinates a 2 members of the party that wants to pass it

            Okay now they lack the votes since the 2 dead memers means a “no” vote.

            Okay doesn’t matter, special elections arw held in a few months.

            Meanwhile, an investigation is done.

            The assassination plots will most likely be linked back to Big pharma.

            Arrests will be made.

            The assassination also motivated people to vote for the dead legislator’s replacement candidate that is most aligned with the dead legislator.

            Seats are filled

            there is now higher protection

            Law is passed, just with slight delay.

            This is also the same with or without the Vacant = “No” Vote policy, since the President and senate are the party that wants to pass the healcare bill, then the assassination is just a minor delay. Its not like they could assassinate the president, some senators at the same time, if that happened, there’d be bigger issues anyways.

            In contrast, the other scenario involves the President and Senate wanting to pass a law that give the government more power, but the house opposes, by a 218-217 vote. So they assassinate 2 house members voting no.

            If theres mo “Vacant = No” policy, then they could pass any “Enabling Act” now with the 2 members voting no dead.

            But with the “Vacant = No” rule, they can kill 5 or 10 members of the house, and still cant get an “Enabling Act” through. But meanwhile, investigations would happen and the plot would be revealed. But had “Vacant = No” rule not exist, they would already passed the Enabling act would would allow them to interfere with the investigations into the assassination plots.

            When theres power shifts in the legislature due to deaths, its better to be safe and make it harder to pass laws rather that make it easier.