(00:00:01) Yes, indeed Arthur Haines. This is Bob Potter speaking from the gallery of the Minnesota House of Representatives. Our live coverage of this event is made possible with funds provided by the Minneapolis Tribune. The Minnesota house will be deciding today. Whether to unseat one of its members independent Republican Robert Pavlik from st. Paul a house committee charged with looking into that matter voted last night to make no recommendation to the full body this morning a motion that Pavlik be unseated failed on a Ten to Ten Party Line tie vote. This case involves last November's election in District. 67a in the metropolitan area, which includes West st. Paul Robert Pavlik defeated dfl incumbent Arnold campy by some 321 votes after the election several supporters of Arnold can't be brought a lawsuit charging that Robert Pavlik violated state election laws by Distributing copies of a newspaper editorial. That distorted kept his voting record District Judge Robert Bruce. Found there was no violation of Law and that Pavlik selection should stand just last week. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that there was a violation of law, but left to the House of Representatives the decision whether Pavlik should be unseated. Robert pavlok himself will not be here today. He was released yesterday from st. Joseph's hospital and he is under doctor's orders to avoid stress without Pavlik in the chamber the dfl her is hold a 67 to 66 Edge. Even if Pavlik were here. It is clear that he would not be allowed to vote on whether he keep his seat. If the vote goes along party lines Pavlik can be unseated 67-66 There's not much reason to believe the vote will not be along party lines. Do you have feathers insist? They have not pulled all their members that they have not made this contest to so-called caucus issue, but the collective Judgment of most seasoned legislatives observers around here is that representative Pavlik will be out. Speaker Rod Serling. I'll make an announcement to the body. I would like to ask the chairman of rules whether he wants to follow the schedule speaking. We have a roll call on and I as I read the rules no other business can be transacted while the role is being taken. That is correct. The house went into session at exactly 10:15 this morning and after the traditional Prayer by the chaplain the speaker asked the role be taken. The members pushed. The green buttons on their desks indicating that they are here. There are two or three people who are still not in the chamber. Here's Irv Anderson the dfl caucus leader as the gong been sounded. Have they been asked I think that was in the motion. Yeah. Would you please instruct the chief clerk they were waiting the absentees? Yes. Will you want to make your usual motion? No, I'm not going to make the usual motion. Well, then we'll call the absent, please please please. Well, there's no absentees because the record is not there. Mr. Anderson. We're not going to change the rules today for you. Mr. Sergeant at Arms, you might see if you could find them just mr. Fantastic and mr. Rostov. It's unclear to me exactly what this bit of parliamentary wrangling is about ordinarily The Taking of the role is a perfectly routine piece of procedure, but this is not a routine day. There hasn't been a an effort to unseat a member of the House of Representatives since 1969 very very unusual occurrence. It's clear that that people are already a bit on edge. It's a very difficult thing for these folks today have to try to decide whether to unseat one of their own colleagues a manly work with many of them have worked with him for years. He has served in the House of Representatives in past terms this year. He is the chairman of the criminal justice committee. And it's a difficult job for them. The independent Republicans may very well argue this morning that it will take a two-thirds vote of the house to house representative Pavlik representative Charles Hallberg from Burnsville a member of the general legislation committee who has been sort of spearheading the IR legal effort in the house on this case indicated last night that he believes it takes two-thirds to expel a member takes a simple majority in his view to deny a person who seat but according to Hallberg once a person has been seated it takes two-thirds or 90 votes to expel. The chairman that is the speaker representative. Cyril may very well be asked to make a ruling on that at some point during these proceedings. the motion that the house approved on Monday night initially called for this matter to come to the floor at six o'clock on Wednesday. The committee was unable to complete its work on the matter by that time and the Full House readily agreed to extend the deadline to 10:30 this morning at this point. We are awaiting the completion of the Roll Call a couple of members are absent Representatives Bob the nasik and and Tom OST off and of course represented padlock who has been excused and will not be here. Well, we have an opportunity here. We might run down some of the some of the recent history that led us to this to this point today it all really began on Friday of last week. Exactly one week ago today when the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in the election contest the Court ruled in an appeal of District Judge Robert bruininks finding that there was no violation of state law that in any case there was no bad faith on the part of Representative. Bob Cadillac the high court took a look at all the evidence in the case and ruled that there had been a violation of law a deliberate serious and material violation of law a phrase that you will undoubtedly here more than once during the course of this debate today, but the court did not overturn The District Court's decision that representative Pavlik acted in good faith the court left final determination of that matter to the full house, but the court did offer the house some advice. Said that if there was bad faith a new election should be held on the other hand if Pavlik acted in good faith during that election contest in November. He should keep the seat that he won. Exactly what have like did and did not do was the subject of a lengthy amount of testimony before the district court and the subject of much discussion this week before the house General legislation committee. You'll also hear more about that during the floor proceedings here today as well. But basically what happened is that Pavlik distributed as a piece of campaign literature a few days before the election a newspaper editorial which contained factual errors about the voting record of his opponent dfl Arnold kemppi can't be was the incumbent at the time the key question. The legislature has to answer is if Pavlik did this in bad faith have like himself has consistently said that he never intended any harm to anyone by his actions. You will hear it argued today on the other hand that he knew the information that he put out was false and by the act of Distributing of Distributing the information he gave up his claim of good faith the Supreme Court decision of Last Friday has Intense partisan sometimes bitter debate among the house members on Friday afternoon of last week the afternoon of the Court decision group of dfl and independent Republican house members met and tried to reach an agreement on how to handle this Court ruling DF Elders were determined to press the issue independent. Republicans felt. There was no particular urgency about it with the procedural matters still unresolved IR speaker Rod Cyril, officially announced receipt of the Supreme Court ruling on Monday afternoon of this week, and he indicated his intention to send the matter to committee that touched off a bit reality exchange. And by the time it ended padlock himself had been hospitalized for emotional stress and memory loss. Let's now go to the floor. Under a call of the house. The house has been in session the IR leader Gerry Nikki five minutes. I don't think there is an active tribe time. Mr. Knickerbocker. I think soon emotion would be in order to excuse those from voting. Mr. Speaker, mr. Anderson, mr. Speaker for the information of mr. Knickerbocker. And one prior session. There was a three-day call. Well, here's Knickerbocker again under speaker. Mr. Knickerbocker. Mr. Speaker representative Anderson. You mean the hundred and thirty four members were quarantined and here with each other at the end of a session for three additional days. I rather imagine it was a little earlier in the session. So they're still awaiting the arrival of Let me see if I can read I can't I can't quite read. I think it's Vanessa. Ksjn. And let's see course pavla x button is not lit. Fantastic, how about our stuff? He was mentioned as being out earlier. The voting board is across the Chamber from me and it's a little bit difficult to see when would have been well advised. I supposed to have brought along some binoculars or possibly opera glasses. Well to continue the the scenario of how this all happened representative Pavlik, of course as we indicated was hospitalized after the after the debate on Monday afternoon in which he defended his honor and integrity which of course is very much an issue in this in this proceeding. So Monday afternoon. The matter finally was laid to rest for a while and the house took up the sport Stadium issue of all things and after spending five hours debating that DF ehlers brought the padlock case up at 10 o'clock on Monday night and with Pavlik absent to the flra has managed to get the matter sent to committee with a specific deadline for floor debate. That deadline is we indicated of 6 p.m. Wednesday was postponed until this morning. Well, the general legislation committee began its hearings at 10 o'clock on Tuesday Morning representative Pavel acts lawyer showed up at the hearing and asked the committee to delay the proceedings until Pavlik was well enough to attend personally when the chairman of the committee denied his request the lawyer and several of the independent Republican committee members left the room their point was that padlocks constitutional rights to participate in his own defense to respond to the charges to face his accusers. These kinds of things were being violated dfl committee members disagreed saying that all of the legal due process rights had been followed throughout the entire court proceedings from The District Court through the Supreme Court and all the house committee was doing was reviewing that material the lawyer for Arnold Kemp. He's campaign workers and presented his case on Tuesday Morning the committee Reserve Tuesday night for the presentation by mr. Pavlik or his attorney. Lawyer at that at that meeting presented the chairman of the committee with a temporary restraining order issued by a Ramsey district judge, the restraining order told the committee not to proceed with the hearing until a meeting the following morning in the court Chambers to determine when Pavlik would be well enough to attend the restraining order issued by the district judge indicated that it was necessary to protect Robert Republic's constitutional rights. Well the lawyer left the room after serving that court order and all of the IR committee members all 10 of them followed DF ehlers then found a sympathetic Supreme Court Justice who ordered the parties before the full supreme court on Wednesday morning for a hearing on the propriety of the restraining order the high court listen to the arguments and quickly and unanimously agreed with the state solicitor general that courts cannot interfere in the legislative process, if representative Pavlik fuels the legislature has denied him his constitutional rights. He is free to bring a lawsuit but not until after the legislature. finished debate on the issue well with the courts once again out of the picture the house committee heard public saturnia outlined his side of the story Wednesday afternoon. Now, here's our Anderson again. Mr. Von Asik pushes button first. Believe that representative Anderson has moved that writer further further proceedings under the roll call be dispensed with and that the sergeant-at-arms be instructed to bring in those who are not absent. and All those in favor will say aye those opposed the motion prevails. Committee report and here is the report now by the general legislation committee issued last night speaker or rather a chief clerk said Burdick who is not yet turned on his PA microphone caste and James schaible at all contestants. Mr. Swanson from the committee on General legislation and Veterans Affairs having considered the Pavlik election contest which was referred to it by the House of Representatives makes the following report. No recommendations signed James Swanson chairman Minority Report, May 17th, 1979. We the undersigned being a minority of the committee on General legislation and Veterans Affairs make the following report on its findings conclusions and recommendations with regard to the Pavlik MP election contest case strike the report of the committee on General Relation and Veterans Affairs and substitute the following rice moves that The Minority Report on the election contest be substituted for the majority report and that The Minority Report be now adopted. Let's Race This is DS Miller James rice from Minneapolis. One of the members of the general legislation committee who has argued that representative Pavlik lose his seat already report and that The Minority Report be adopted. Mr. Rice is placed his motion before you. Mr. Hallberg point of order. Mr. Speaker Charles Hallberg from Burnsville. I've read The Minority Report, which was just presented to the speaker as I understand it. Appears to me that in the findings of that report that the report calls for the forfeiture of Robert pav lacks office and that the recommendations call for an expulsion of Robert Pavlik from his office and I would point out to the speaker. that under Minnesota are Minnesota Constitution Article 4 section 7 and expulsion proceedings, which this appears to be would require a two-thirds vote of the members and I would ask that the speaker rule that in effect this type of adoption of this report would require a two-thirds vote. I'm going to make my ruling first. Mr. Pharisee. Points of order are not debatable and occasionally the in fact frequently the speaker will accept advice from Members representative or a Pharisee from Saint Paul was about to offer some advice but speaker Searle indicated that he was going to make his ruling without the benefit of advice certainly clearly within the prerogative of the speaker. The speaker is now looking over a book which presumably contains the state constitution. Possibly the state law regarding this matter oftentimes. The speaker will confer with the chief Clerk of the house and Burdick who is acknowledged as a as a parliamentarian in legislative affairs. Speaker takes a while to look these things over and make his ruling the two options that the speaker has are to rule that. Mr. Hall. Berg's point is well-taken read the section of the Constitution mr. Harburg. I will rule that your point is well taken. Mr. Pharisee speak right up here. You'll the ruling of the speaker in that regard. And if I might I would like to speak to the to the appeal. Mr. Pharisee. Mr. Speaker members of the House the Point of order that was just raised by. Mr. Hallberg is dealing with the question of the numbers of persons who would take to remove a member of this body from office. And I think we have to look at our constitution in order to determine just what the guidelines are. And what that number of votes truly is. Now I call to your attention the fact that they're under Article 4. There are two sections that would be applicable to situations that might deal with a member of this body and his or her removal from office. We look at the situation under article or under article 4 section 6 which talks about each house shall be the judge of the election returns and eligibility of its own members the legislature shell prescribed by law the manner of taking evidence in case and contested seats in either house. Those we can do what we want here and far as far as setting the guidelines in a matter dealing with a person being qualified to sit here. Mr. Hallberg has raised a point that would come under Section 7 of that same article and let me read that to you each house may determine the rules of its proceedings upon sit upon its own adjournment punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a member. Now there is a distinction between what we have today an election contest the procedures for which have been set by us by the legislature according to law which would fall under Section 6 and to point that out a little further the question that is before us has been determined by the Supreme Court of the state of Minnesota in the case of not too long ago involving one Senator Palmer. We're in that decision. It's the court said that if an election contest is pending against a member of the legislature Minnesota statutes 20, 9.10 subdivision 2D relating to a hearing on such can contest provides and then the court picks out and uses the language that we have in our statutes which deals with election contest. There is no claim as I understand the matter that is before this body that there has been misbehavior while in office by mr. Pavlik. What we are dealing with today is an election contest. The legislature has set the guidelines in the Palmer decision the court picked up and gave a blessing to if you would call it that as to the numbers of persons it would take to have a person lose his or her seat because of some irregularities in an election the court uses and a majority of the vote. given shall decide that's where I believe we are all at there are two different sections in the same article of our constitution. I commend that to your reading you can take a look at it and see it for yourself. This is not a situation in which we are expelling a member for misbehavior in office. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a roll call on the appeal there will be a roll call vote. Mr. Pharisee and appeal of the speaker's ruling can be overturned by majority votes here again Charles oberg. it's true that we have a constitutional. Question before us I think it's a very serious. Constitutional question, I think it is one. That has been handled and decided by our United States Supreme Court previously. I have handed out to the members of the House. A portion of the case heard in the United States Supreme Court case is Powell versus McCormick. I would appreciate it if the members would look at that because I think there's some significant language in the decision which Bears on this question of whether we are in fact expelling Bob kavlock today by what we do today. There's a difference between excluding him not seating him and expelling him. Which is an action taken by a body after they have seated him to remove him from office. The action we're taking Under The Minority Report is precisely that to remove him from his office. That constitutes an expulsion from office. The Powell case addressed itself to this very question. And I'd like you to read from that and I appreciate it if you'd follow it because I think this is a very very important question to each of us as we sit here today. Does this constitute an expulsion which under our constitution requires a 2/3 vote? That's the question? The Supreme Court stated and I quote. Powell was excluded from the 90th Congress that is he was not administered the oath of office and was prevented from taking his seat. If he had been allowed to take the oath. And subsequently had been required to surrender his office his seat. The houses action would have constituted an expulsion. by our actions today We are doing precisely that to Bob kavlock Bob kavlock has been allowed to take the oath in January. We are requiring him today to surrender his office. The Supreme Court has spoken members that constitutes an expulsion under our Minnesota Constitution. The language is clear in section 7 Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings sit upon its own adjournment punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a member. Fellow members. This is a serious question. I would ask that you uphold the ruling of speaker Searle. Mr. Pharisee. Mr. Speaker members of the House. The Palmer case is right on point. Mr. Palmer had his election certificate in that body as well. He had been issued a certificate of election. Our Supreme Court has reviewed this type of a situation the fact that there are two different sections of the article in our state constitution indicates that there is certainly a difference There is not an issue of misbehavior or behavior problems of mr. Pavlik the Powell case that is related to you by mr. Hallberg involved a question about previous Congress having found Miss behavior on the part of mr. Powell. He went to the electorate and was voted back in the Supreme Court did say that the conduct that was subject to a potential vote in the previous election would have taken a two-thirds vote to exfol expel him at that time. But because in the meantime, he has stood for election there what that was not applicable. I think it probably mr. Hallberg, you know respect to all of the members is going to be an issue that again will be before our courts. I don't think there's any question of it. I do think however that because the the Constitution does provide that there are remedies to be set as to the qualifications of a member that we should abide by that section. Let me point out to you that each and every one of us gets our certificate and it is only Prime of facie evidence that we really have been elected that we acknowledge elsewhere in the in our statutes under 3.02 that a certificate of election is only prima facie evidence. What that means to those of you who may not be familiar with those terms is that on the face? It sounds okay that you're there but that there is reason to challenge that that election that brought that certificate to you. Maybe one that had some problems in it keeping that in mind. The legislature did adopt the procedures that we are going through here today and I would respectfully ask that you would vote to overrule the ruling of the speaker. Mr. Hallberg, mr. Speaker. Mr. Pharisee. Nowhere in article 6 of article 4 section 6 of our Constitution that you have referred to. Is there any language that suggests that a majority a simple majority would carry the day? Contrary in article 4 section 7 the two-thirds majority is called for in the case of expulsion. I assume that you are relying for the majority view on the statute that relates to a majority in an election contest. I think all of the lawyers in this body know and I think probably all of the members know having served in this body. That if there is a conflict between a statute in our constitution. that the constitution prevails if in fact there is a conflict between the majority language in a statute and that of our Constitution which calls for a two-thirds majority. I submit that we as officers of this body. Have a duty to uphold the Constitution as a higher authority in the state of Minnesota. I'd like to add to that. I think it's important really that. We consider how important that Constitution is to each of us. How really important is it? That we took an oath of office in January to uphold the constitution of the state of Minnesota how really important is that to each and every one of us as we sit here right now. It was important. To some of the members of this body a few years ago. During the election contest of mr. Bischoff back in 1969. The house expelled mr. Bishop They did so by a simple majority. at the conclusion of that action certain distinguished members of this body filed a petition of protest and dissent I've handed that out to you for your review. That petition protest and dissent. Stated that the undersigned members of the house here by protest and dissent to the proceedings of the house. Where by Barney Bischoff. A duly elected and certified member of the house was expelled from membership. The reasons for said dissent and protest being as follows number one. The proceedings on the election committee report which was in effect an expulsion proceeding was conducted on the basis of a simple majority vote. in direct violation and I repeat a direct violation. of the Minnesota Constitution two former Contour president congressman who were members of the body at that time. We're parties to that petition Martin, Sabo and Richard Nolan. these gentlemen Felt that. To expel a member Like Bernie Bishop should have required a two-thirds vote under our constitution. Not a simple majority and they put their Notions on record. for all future members of this body to see and review I'm sure you're also aware that other members including to present members of our house. Very distinguished veteran members respected members of our house Fred Norton Willard Munger. We're parties to that petition. And I respect. T' fellow members of the body who are willing to put their views on the line in the form of a petition of this nature these gentlemen did it. It was there feeling in 1969 that it would require a two-thirds vote to expel Bernie Bishop. Has anything really changed in about 9 or 10 years? Has anything really changed to change your mind? I urge your support of the the ruling of the speaker. We're listening to arguments on whether speaker rods Searles ruling that it takes a two-thirds majority to expel or to remove representative Pavlik be upheld here is a friend Norton from St. Paul about mr. Munger and myself. I remember that occasion to some degree remember making a very eloquent speech. I think exceeded only by mr. Mongers very eloquent speech on the subject, but as time went on it turned out that we lost And after we lost there was a new election and mr. Bischoff had to go and run in that new election and he did get returned. And I guess what I learned from that was that even though I felt that two-thirds was required at the time that that that protest and dissent was made that the Republicans who were then in control of the house taught me that I was wrong and proof of that was that mr. Bischoff had to go through a new election. And so I guess I have learned from that and I'm I'm wondering a little bit about the consistency of mr. Halbrook and Republicans. Mr. Speaker, mr. Hallberg. I think it's interesting. Mr. Norton to note that the dfl are on the brink of holding the control of the house. And now the position is different. Mr. Pharisee, mr. Speaker. There has been some differences since that time and I refer you again to the Palmer case that did give us the guidelines of what it was going to take and I point out to you as well sir that even back as far as 1999. There's been an attorney general's opinion dealing with this subject as to what it would take. I'll just read you part of it. It's only a two pager you be. Mr. Auburn be happy to turn it over let you read it. You know, it recites the question as usually is done and same type thing. There can be no question of the construction which should be given to the above quoted law. It is plain and ambiguous ambiguous majority of the votes given shall decide the state statute controls unleaded as is in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of the state. I find no constitutional provisions and opposition there, too. Ray Pharisee is strong attorney as is regenerative Hallberg in 1919. Perhaps there weren't any constitutional Provisions that were in on the point. We're going back into ancient history Ray. 1969 That's when the United States Supreme Court said. What constitutes an exclusion in an expulsion and they said than an expulsion required to 2/3 vote? That's what our constitution says. How is that changed by an attorney general opinion from 1919? That's your speaker. Mr. Hallberg. I guess I realize we're on different wavelengths on this but there is not an expulsion that we have two different sections in the law One deals with election contest and the seating of the member and that he is here while that is pending and until that is determined. He is entitled to take his seat, but there are conditions at which why he is here and one of the conditions is that that election contest may prove to be such that he or she may have to leave office. That's the condition at which he took office in this particular situation. It's not an expulsion. I there is not a claim as you look at the section very kindly he did pass this section out to you. It does talk about misconduct and we are not talking about misconduct in office. No claim of that here. So I respectfully I think we can go back and forth quite a bit and check. I think we're you and I both know that this will be something that some Court will probably take another look at down the line, but let's get on with it. Take the vote see whether or not the speaker is staying strong. All Berg's to speaker. I tend to agree with that Ray that I guess I'd like to conclude then by stating that that although on the face. It may be a legal argument. I'm not entirely sure that it is. If the problem is whether this constitutes an expulsion, it seems to me that perhaps every member here can determine what constitutes an expulsion? And they can do it simply by reference to our dictionary. Are Webster's Dictionary simply States as to an expulsion? It's to cut off from membership in or the Privileges of an institution or Society. To drive or Force out to cast out to eject or dislodge. to expel air from a bellows need I say more. Mr. Seamon Mr. Speaker. I would you clarify reciben Lee floor leader of the House dfl are the significance of a green voter a red vote on the issue of police and I'd like to address the question. The question before us is whether the ruling of the chair should be sustained a green vote will sustain the chair a red vote will overrule a chair. Thank you gentleman from Dakota. Mr. Speaker and members of the House. What we are deciding is whether the speaker was right in his ruling we're talking about whether article 4 section 6 applies to this matter or article 4 section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution Article 4 section 6 deals with the qualifications of a member to be seated in this body article 4 section seven deals with the conduct of a member. Well in office or I can deal with that and it deals with an expulsion of a member from the body article 6 deals with an exclusion from the body now the distinction and the two articles is that one calls for a 2/3 vote. The other one does not. And expulsion under article 7 or conduct in office calls for a 2/3 vote. An exclusion under article 6 does not in that article call for a two-thirds vote in the absence of explicit language in the Constitution such there is in article 7 the rules that we are nearly follow are a majority of those voting on a question should decide the question. That's one of the basic rules that we follow in this body and in every other Democratic body. So I think we should look first at logic and what we're talking about and we're clearly here talking about something happen that happened during a campaign something that happened that may have affected the outcome of an election. and that deals with the Right of a member to be seated and when we're talking about the right of a member to be seated, we're talking about article 6 and an exclusion rather than an expulsion applies. That's the logic argument in the legal arguments. I think are every bit or more persuasive. First of all, when a speaker or anyone that is called upon to decide a legal question. Is asked what to do. They look at the statute or the section of the Constitution that cited and then they ordinarily say well what has happened in this body in the past on issues of that nature and mr. Hallberg brought up the Bischoff case. That's what happened in the past. It was treated as an exclusion and an expulsion that happened many times in this body. This is not the first time this issue has arisen the conduct of a candidate for election. And it's been treated in the past. Under article 6 the exclusion section and treated as a majority vote of the body a simple majority vote a majority of those voting on the issue to decide the question. So first we should look I think the speaker should have looked and we should look now at simple logic and then we should look at it what has happened in the past on this issue. And then if we have not decided we should ask for guidance from legal Authority and although only members of this body are permitted to speak on the floor on occasion and very very frequently. We ask for other legal authorities what has happened in Minnesota. We have an attorney general's office that in greater or lesser degrees speaks with with authority on what our statutes and on what our constitution means and the Attorney General's office in Minnesota has written a memorandum on this issue. I'd like to read just the last paragraph of it and I'd be very happy to share this information with anybody. It's a four page summary of the legal Authority on the issue. And the last paragraph is the conclusion in light of the distinctions between exclusion and expulsion votes. This office is early opinion the presumption of constitutionality which attaches to a statute and the long history of majority votes in the exclusion context. It is my conclusion that a majority vote may constitutionally be employed to exclude a person from the legislature in an election contest. logic precedent and legal Authority mr. Speaker I'm curious to know Texas who requested that attorney general's opinion. Did you request that? Mr. Speaker I yield and mr. Hallberg. No, I did not well let the speaker requested. The speaker on occasion has requested them. This attorney general's opinion is addressed to the chairman of the committee on rules and legislative Administration the committee in this body that deals with the administration of the house. So the presumption here is that Irv Anderson asked for that opinion. Was that opinion rendered to anybody other than nerve Anderson? Mr. Speaker, mr. Hallberg. I don't know as I just mentioned I'd be very happy to share this information all of the citations of what you already have. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Sieben has referred to article 4 section 6 as the exclusionary provision the provision in the Constitution fellow members. I ask you where in that provision does it say anything about exclusion? It says nothing in article 6 or article 4 section 6 about exclusion. It says merely that each house should be the judge of the election returns and eligibility of its own members Tex. It says nothing it's silent. On exclusion, there's nothing in there. It's not a question of whether article 4 section 6 or article 4 section 7 applies. My point of order was based on article 4 section 7 That is what is before us. It isn't a choice between the two because there is no language on exclusion in the provision that you cite. None whatsoever. The exclusion argument you are raising is based on a state statute and you know it it's 209 10 word calls for a majority vote That's the basis for your exclusion argument. The expulsion argument is contained in our Constitution and our constitution prevails. over State statutes It is not a choice here between two provisions of our constitution. the choice here is Does a two-thirds majority carry the day? The speaker has said yes. We must decide whether he's right I urge you to support the speaker. Mr. Searles Representative Bob Searles from or anole first non-lawyer to enter this debate this morning. I'm not an attorney, but I want to address the specific matters that have been raised here on the Constitution. There are several aspects to this one when we were sworn in there were no reservations or qualifications about the seating of any member not any one of you sitting here there wasn't any reservation or condition putting put upon the seating of Bob kavlock. At the same time we all took an oath to support the Constitution you tend to live by my oath. Now. The question is what does the Constitution say? If you look at section, 7 representative Pharisee has drawn the conclusion that the expulsion two-thirds requirement Rises out of disorderly Behavior because those are the words used in the Constitution. Let me read this sentence to you is just a series of things that the house may do called rules of the government under Section 7 and just listen carefully each house may determine the rules of its proceedings comma sit upon its own adjournment adjournment. Kama punish its members for disorderly behavior comma and with the concurrence of two-thirds members expel a member. There is no connection between the first three powers and the last one the last one doesn't depend on the condition cited in the first three parts of the sentence. For example, the fact that rule a section 7 says that each house may determine the rules of its proceedings or sit upon its own German have anything to do whatsoever with the concurrence of two-thirds members to expel a member in other words to go further on and say that the punishment of its members for disorderly behavior is a condition for using the two-thirds rule is absolutely wrong and I just want you to see that construction because it isn't in the Constitution. These are series of powers that are in section 7. So if anybody is under the illusion that the only way you can use This 2/3 power is because of conduct on the floor that's completely wrong. You have to read the Constitution to find this out all I'm suggesting in this scene. I'm not arguing the merits of the case beyond that I'm just saying that we have to examine the words right here and what it says. We are expelling a member. That's what the whole point of this procedure is and it requires 2/3 and it says it very clearly here. I intended uphold my oath that I gave when I was sworn in this time because it's so clear. There is no other choice. Mr. Jacobs, mr. Spiritual Jacobs DSLR from Coon Rapids. I believe the motion that mr. Pharisee made was to appeal the ruling of the chair. And I think the director that you gave was to sustain the chair and I was just wondering if there could be a point of clarification here as far it. Would you charge you state your question again? And mr. Jacobs. I must have missed it. I believe the motion if you would check with the clerk if the motion was to appeal the ruling of the chair. And your directive was to sustain the chair. All right, they could just clarify that for the body, please the emotion that I will put to the house. Shall the decision of the speaker stand as the Judgment of the house. And then in answer to the red and green I responded on the other way. Yes. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Stowell representative Tom stole a question Are you thank you Lord? No, I'm a freshman and I guess I'm looking for a little guidance Willard you've been around for quite a while and is one legislator. I've come to really admire you as an individual that pretty much votes his conscience a member of the problem. We had with ban the can and you told me that you came from a heavy labor district and that you had a lot of pressure there, but you told him that you were going to vote for the mandatory deposit and I had indicated the pressure that I was under in so on and I guess perhaps I yielded to that. I'm about to make a very important decision a very important personal decision on whether to pull the speaker vote against him dealing with a constitutional question. I'm not an attorney. I've listened to good arguments from both sides as to this issue and I see that That Fred has changed his mind. I tend to think that when we get all done with this decision a little be a political decision rather than than a moral decision in that that really bothers me. However, I vote on this issue. I personally will always follow that President punch. I establish it and I wonder if you could answer tell me do you still feel after 10 years? Do you still believe? In the decision that you made 10 years ago speaker. Mr. Munger. I think I left give you a little background on how I made my decision for I appreciate it. Conservative members saying some nice things about me. I don't always get that from some of my own people. So I appreciate it very much. back in 1939 I had a very good friend in legislature by name of Barney Bishop. And his opponent said that he violated election laws. And therefore should be unseated. And if I remember correctly that Republicans at that time came to me and told me that. Now Willard, you've got to forget about your feelings for a bishop. And you've got to vote upon the facts. Barney Bischoff for a violated the law and therefore he should be expelled from the legislature. and I think that my advice to you. As we the house at that time establish the precedent by majority vote then throughout Barney, Bischoff. And that's going to be my guidance today. If that was the right thing to do. in 1969 because the election laws were violated and you should be thrown out by majority vote. Then I think that applies. today because of cases are identical. It relates to violating election laws. Representative Willard Munger a 25-year veteran of the Minnesota house in a dialogue with Tom Stole was in his first term as 1896 Supreme Court ruled that segregation was constitutional there was one dissenting vote in that decision and they said that the constitution was colorblind and I believe yesterday was the anniversary of another very important court case to Brown versus Board of Education and that lone dissenting vote was incorporated into the majority opinion. It was handed down that we're living with today. So sometimes and I guess that's what I was asking you well if there is that lone voice that doesn't go along with the majority that oftentimes proves to be right. Mr. Steven, mr. Speaker. the intent of to of the dfl ours has been called into question and what occurred 10 years ago Mr. Speaker. I know you were here 10 years ago, and I know that you acquiesced in the majority vote at that time and many members of the Republican caucus did so I just although mr. Hallberg. Mr. Stoll have pointed out that to DIA Fellers have now decided to go along with what has happened in the past. I'd like to point out that apparently many Republicans that were here 10 years ago and acquiesced in that decision to use a majority vote have changed their mind and decided that it now takes two-thirds on a similar or the same question since mr. Hallberg by his question either intentionally or unintentionally raised the issue of the Integrity of the Attorney General's opinion to the speaker of the to the chairman of the committee on rules and legislative Administration. I'd like to cite the opinion of another Attorney General Name was Doug head. The opinion is dated December thirty first nineteen seventy and it was addressed to Senator Stanley W Holmquist. Who at that time was a Republican state senator. I'd like to read one paragraph from that. I therefore conclude that the citizen has the unquestioned right to take the oath of office and participate in the legislative process until and unless the Senate ultimately votes to set aside the election certificate pursuant to Minnesota Constitution Article 4 section 3 and Minnesota statutes 1969 section 2 10 .1 04209 .10 That article 4 section 3 under the re codification of our constitution as you know, mr. Hallberg is now article 4 section 6 the very section on which we are relying for our challenge to the speaker's ruling. Mr. Hallberg Is there any further discussion? The clerk will take the roll. the members of the House are now voting on whether to uphold speaker Searles ruling that it takes a 2/3 vote to expel representative Pavlik from his office the roll call being taken now and expect we'll have a result in just a moment the house deciding today whether to unseat Robert pavlok for violation of campaign election laws in 1970 election. Midday will not be heard today so that we can bring you this live debate from the floor of the Minnesota house. However, we have received word from our Newsroom stand in a bowl on the floor now, We'll call the absent asking if they had some T's be call. Anyway, we received from a word from our Newsroom that a federal court jury in Oklahoma city has found the kerr-mcgee nuclear Corporation liable for radiation contamination of Karen silkwood and that federal court jury in Oklahoma city has awarded ten million dollars damages to the survivors of Karen silkwood. More details on that and other news development certainly on all things considered this evening and there may be an opportunity during the next hour and a half to have Danielson bring you up to date on some other news developments today as well. The chief clerk is now calling the names of the people who have not yet voted. Jairus votes no The board will be closed in just a moment. We will see the results of the vote this vote the first the first vote that we are seeing in this proceeding today vote on whether let's hear the speakers announcement now. One of the speaker's ruling be upheld. The board indicates 65 65 66 eyes and 67 days. the motion it is the Judgment of the house that the decision the speaker shall not stand. 67-65 s rice. And so it will take a majority of those voting to unseat representative Cadillac now, here's representative rice who if you'll recall has offered us a Minority Report to the full General legislation committee report on Minority Report urging that representative public be unseated. Listen to representative. Rice's arguments by reason of an election contest. where the Minnesota Supreme Court on a 722 vote said it is our conclusion that mr. Pavlik violated Minnesota statutes 210 a point so far and that this violation was deliberate serious and material within the meaning of Minnesota statutes 209 .02 It said that we were to make a determination. in view of this violation of our law if there were Extenuating circumstances. I good faith. That should stop this body from not excluding mr. Pavlik. from membership I'd like to speak as briefly as I can. on a serious a matter is this To try to give you the background. As the evidence was taken in the general legislation committee. And in doing that I commend the chairman mr. Swanson on his fairness. In many regards the record is rather clear. On September 24 of 1978 a great great tragedy came into the life of Robert Pavlik. A daughter was killed in an automobile accident. He was at that time a candidate for the legislature to stand for election on November 7th. By his own testimony. He said and that's the most understandable thing in the world. That for two to three weeks. He was not able to pursue that candidacy. And we can understand that grief. Then he said that he knew if his campaign were to become viable. That he must do something he must begin to campaign. and as the record will show and these are mr. Pavlov lacks words, not mine. He very laborious Lee and methodically went through the journals of the House of the 1977 and 1978 sessions. And in that laborious and methodical search for truth. He found that mr. Campy. Had not voted over 300 times. And that in part then became the theme of his campaign the Supreme Court has found as a finding of fact, the district court is found as a finding of fact the attorney for mr. Pavlik and the attorney for the citizens who brought this action. all agree that there were over Seventeen hundred volts and in going over those are journals to find out when a man didn't vote. You must then of course see the times that he did walk. So we have a situation now where by his own admission. Mr. Pavlik was aware. Specifically of the over 300 but it looked at the pages of the journal so that he knew although perhaps not as precisely that mr. Kemp he had in fact voted for the 300 occasions and I said that became the theme. of the Pavlik campaign and he put out literature which is a part of the record. And it said where was irony when we needed him to vote on these 1977 and 1978 proposed law. Can't be missed 300 volts was he too busy working as attorney for the city of West st. Paul to take care of District 67 a state business. question mark or was he too busy working on his private law practice to take care of either state or city business question mark or what? Question mark in the notes, they hand wrote. There's reference to the conference committee that Mr. Kemp be served on. It's since develop that a very significant number of these 300 votes came for the reason that you can't be in two places at the same time and you can't be voting in the in a conference committee or on the floor or acting under the acting under the directions of the Speaker of the House be meeting with Senator McCutcheon. On a determinate sentencing bill which had tied this house up for six years, which parenthetically you know that I thought you hated to see past. That's what he was doing. You should read the material as we were given it. I don't think it I don't think that that whole thing speaks of a good faith in going I could say to you mister on it you stood on the you stood on the floor and almost plaintively ask the speaker the other day. Where should I go to General legislation to the Pavlik conference or commit Question or should I go to the other committee which means called it a coincident time and the speaker and I think properly advised you go to the one of most importance to him yet if I were to buy full-page ads. I suppose I could close the question. Why did mr. Own and this vote in this committee important to the people in his district? Then I could pose the question. Was he back in his district at the nursing home that for whom he works or provide services was he in downtown? St. Paul and some dalliance? I could put that question in there. I don't think I'd be showing good faith because I knew or would have reason to know where you were I could say to dr. Rife. Dr. Rife you missed serious deliberation and votes in the division of Health welfare and Appropriations. And then I could pose the question was dr. Rife serving private patients in White Bear Lake or was he at the hospital where he provides Physician Services? And I could put a question mark there I could say what now? Let me tell you the what he was called out of our committee when Bob Bain trees had a heart attack. But if you didn't know anything more than that, he wasn't at the committee that he didn't participate in the deliberation that he didn't vote. It would be in aspersion on. Mr. Pavlik also put out another ad. Where he talked about guess what a hundred and six billion dollar Statewide building Bill and he says at the end of it four hundred thousand dollars a piece for restrooms. That's economy. Well, of course, we know now what they are. There was a newspaper story that came out on November 6th. the day before the election It says irate kemppi counters ads of Bob kavlock. He goes on to say that that Dill have a unanimous or near unanimous vote on the floor. That it was 1.6 million dollars for for rest stops where there were truck stops Information Services for for travelers in our tourists. Places for truckers that come in picnic tables for those that we encouraged to either recreate with their family or for visitors. And mr. Pavlik countered Mitch Kemp. He's remarks by saying that the priorities of kemppi showed poor judgment. It's part of the campaign. I don't think it was good faith, because mr. Aiken. You could perhaps destroy me in my district know with your Superior knowledge. of the School Aids bill by saying that Rice voted for more money for some school in our state that he would vote for for the children in his District and then if you didn't tell him that there were special problems of handicapper of deafness or blindness or a hundred different considerations that go into not only a hundred and six million dollar bill, but into a two billion dollar bill, you might destroy me with part of the facts with a half-truth, but do you know what? Mr. Deacon I could destroy you by saying that you voted to create a deficit of 30 million dollars in our medical assistance funds for the indigent. And I could then say to you know what this money was used for some of those used for drug addict. Some of it may have been used for Pimps off of Hennepin Avenue. Engaged in a bra on the Saturday night and carted off to either University hospital or to the County General Hospital. And where are your priorities Mr. Aitken. Now, the truth of that is I representative for site representative Samuelson represented McCarey representative. Corbin are probably most responsible for that 30 million dollar deficit because in the conference committee, we underestimate What would be our our our needs? Not a deliberate error, but when you're appropriating $600,000,000 those type of Errors can go by the way, we underestimated in some other programs like catastrophic insurance. So that's 16 million applied. You all know what I'm talking about. And that board is green when you vote on School Aids and that board is green when you vote on on the the necessary things. That's the precursor of the of the campaign and this is part of the oven. now that and this is clear. The mr. Sumner St. Paul papers came to mr. Pavlik by way of a phone call and he said come down and visit with me. Perhaps he said even though you don't know me well because the record shows that mr. Pavlik had only met him on one previous occasion that at a time when he was having a birthday lunch in downtown with his daughter Mary and his wife. And so he went down and he delivered to mr. Sumner. The handwritten notes that he had prepared in pouring over these journals. And he gave warning after warning. To mr. Sumner, this is The Gospel According to Pavlik. It came out of the Journal of the house. It's my notes. I'm not a research person be very careful. Check it out. And he had an interview with mr. Sumner and he left and he did not hear from mr. Sumner until in fact, he never heard from mr. Sumner. He heard nothing more on the thing until he received the on the morning of Saturday The 4th of November with the election to be held on three days later on Tuesday. Is Pioneer Press dispatch? Let me read the Salient portion. to you Pavlik through his years in the legislature earned a reputation as an independent outspoken and outspoken and hard-working show me type of individual. We have seen nothing to dispute his research part report on kemppi that shows the incumbent voted for X in 1967-68 this out of more than 300 opportunities. Mr. Pavlik was Disturbed. And as recently as two days ago. When Representatives Swan seeing Swanson lighting and Hallberg went to visit him in the hospital and parenthetically. This was not a mission that I wanted. And I demurred on three occasions and finally they persuaded me that is one who had read all of the records that I should go. And I should have gone and I shouldn't have demurred on the first instance because we have to face up to our responsibilities no matter how hard they are. as recently as two days ago in response to my questions. Mr. Pavlik had to say when he and toward the end of that editorial. I found a paragraph or two regarding Pavlik and kemppi and right away. It's stuck out to me that it was 1967 68 and for out of 300 and they got one number, right? The 300 right? What did he mean by that course the years were wrong. It said 67 68 and should have said 7778 the for was wrong because he knew that he'd voted. Over 1,400 times, but he said the 300 is right. Well, I'm sorry mr. Pavlik, that's wrong because all you had ever been claiming was that he hadn't voted 300 times and this said that he had 300 opportunities to vote for out of 300. He called the editorial because I the paper because I wanted to discuss this morning's editorial with them. If there was an error in the auditorium. He talked only to someone at the city desk. He said this is an error. Throughout this thing then he meets with his campaign manager in a campaign advisor. His campaign advisor says and I don't know what the four and three hundred means. Well, he says let's in c-print some of these. Well, I don't know we better find out exactly what the story is about them. the campaign advisor doesn't think that they should do anything with it is printed. And we are told by mr. Pavlik that to things that he distributed because it had good things to say about him and because they had put a warning to the voters on it. Well here is the alleged warning even with the paper typo the message about our opponent is clear not read the good things about. Mr. Pavlik, I'll be at the typo. But even with the typo no warning, even with the typo the message about our opponent is clear. What is the message about the opponent? We have seen nothing to dispute his research report on kemppi the chose the incumbent voted three four times in 1967-68 this out of more than 300 opportunities. This was distributed. According to the court records, they could prove only that. Somewhere around 1800 of 6,000 that were printed and both of those Figures were proven in court that 6,000 were printed that they could definitely account for 1,800 this by testimony of mrs. Pavlik who with the children supervise the distribution of this as your we're from the record at churches on Saturday night and Sunday and then two homes for the remainder of Sunday and Monday, but on page 8 of the transcript of the interview in the hospital. He's talking about the literature and I believe we dropped those on Sunday or Monday. This is the sentence. In fact, we dropped everything we had and I would suggest to you that that's what we do in campaigns in the last hour. I suggest to you that it is not good faith. And no Pious declaration can make good faith where you know the record of your opponent perhaps better than your opponent and there was a dialogue that was significant in the committee the other day where I suggested to mr. O'Neil the attorney for mr. Pavlik that Pavlik new the record of mr. Kemppi better. Then mr. Kemp he knew himself. So we had a little dialogue and we all agreed that either can't be knew the record best and paddle a canoe canoe at second best or Pavlik. New it best and campy new at second and on that there was no disagreement. It is not good faith to read an editorial know that there is falsity about your opponent in it have serious reservations about it. Go ahead and do what was done having it printed? See, it's almost the hand-washing and ablution if you will appear in this. Transcript in the hospital. This is the campaign manager. Well, we put a warning on it. We are going to run it. There is a typographical error in it. Mr. Pavlik. I said well if you guys know what you are doing it is fine with me. You are the experts and I am not. I don't think that that's what we want of our political candidates that they turn. That which about which they have serious reservation over to underlings and say so be it. we are asked whether The Supreme Court has said to us. With regard to good faith good faith referring to mr. Pavlik. If his purpose was to deceive or mislead the electorate and receive undeserved support their by the office should not be his I submit to you that on the way his campaign had been conducted up until that time with half-truths. You can conclude an absence of good faith all along. I suggest with the with the reservations that he had about the truth of that editorial nay the knowledge of the falsity. That he had reason to act and when he acted with those reservations and without having run down this thing and with the superior knowledge of that voting record, he should not have let a lie to go forth and the Supreme Court Court said that he disseminated false information. You will hear from the from those who oppose my motion. That the district court found good faith on his part. Mr. Pavlik Spark. Now, let me tell you that the trial court found no violation of the statutes. Said that mr. Pavlik had acted properly. Then went on to say that there was good faith. Would somebody please run out and find me a court decision where someone says the person didn't do anything wrong. He didn't violate the law and he acted in bad faith. The judge before he makes those remarks. And I wish you would read the Supreme Court decision. They don't even like getting involved in this good faith bad faith question, but judge bruenig had crossed the Rubicon. He had found no violation of the law and it follows his night today that when there's no violation of law the presumption. Is that a person acts in good faith. The Supreme Court has given us alternatives. the Supreme Court has sad if his purpose was to deceive or mislead the electorate and receive undeserved the support there by the office should not be hit. in the transcript of the trial Mr. Pat lack said that the purpose of the distribution of all of his literature was to influence. He said it was not done for fun. He said it was done to affect the outcome of the election. I have done I ask your support of the motion. Dfl representative genes rice from Minneapolis arguing the case that representative Pavlik should be unseated now here is independent Republican Charles Hallberg who will argue the other side. I would like to focus just for a minute. On the trial Court's decision in the Supreme Court's decision that was rendered thereafter by now. I'm sure most of you have read the trial Court's decision. That's the decision of Judge breunig. rendered in January of 1979 and I could bear is very important emphasis. that decision by judge Bruning held first that neither of the contest's tea or any person acting on his behalf acted in bad faith. brought judge Bruning said that Bob Pavlik nor any member of his campaign Acted in bad faith. That was his finding that was the trial judge. Judge Bruni went on and he found in his opinion that in light of the already wide dissemination of the editorial by the st. Paul Pioneer Press and dispatch. Bob have lacks distribution to the editorial in question That's the editorial we're talking about that's the piece of evidence that is claimed to be damaging. That's the one we should be looking at right now. judge, breunig found that that already wide dissemination of the editorial by the Pioneer Press and dispatch the contest's T-Bob gravlax distribution of that editorial had no material effect on the outcome of the election. I think it's fair to assume that what judge Bruning was saying? Was that the poison was already there if it was poison it was there on Saturday. November 4th when the paper disseminated their editorial through their distribution system if in fact there was wrong perpetrated in that editorial. Then the damage was already done. Bob bevel acts distribution to the editorial before copying it in the next couple of days thereafter. Didn't have any material effect. You can't poison somebody twice? That was Judge breunig. He's finding in effect. And that was his decision. Number one. Bob kavlock did not act in bad faith and number two. The paper had already done the damage if there was damage to be done. Therefore the distribution of the editorial had no material effect upon the outcome of the election. That was the decision of the trial judge in this matter. What did the Supreme Court do when they heard this on appeal? the Supreme Court essentially said that we really have no jurisdiction to act in this matter. This is a matter for the legislature to decide. They further said that we really have no constitutional authority to render an advisory opinion. But thereupon they substituted some findings. That were different from that of Judge Bruning. I think you've all read a through G. the findings and in effect of the Supreme Court were that there was a serious and material and deliberate violation of the camping law. but the Supreme Court said and I think references have already been made to this. That even if there was a violation of the election law. He should not sacrifice his office if he acted in good faith. on that point the Supreme Court made no observation and as many of you know in the Supreme Court on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week, one of the justices said precisely that Justice Peterson told us that there were two parts to this Supreme Court decision. The first part has received a lot of media coverage. The second part however, judge Peterson said his seemingly been missed. And that is that on the question of whether or not Bob kavlock acted in good faith. There was a nine to nothing agreement by the Supreme Court. That they would not pass on the issue the effect of that action by the Supreme Court. Was to polled the findings of Judge Bruning the trial judge. And as I just indicated, his findings were that Bob kavlock did not act in bad faith. They did not disturb judge breunig findings on the very and most important question that we've got to decide here today. They did nothing. On the bad faith good faith question of Bob kavlock. They did not overturn his decision and they made no comment on the issue. So where does that leave us? That leaves us squarely at the junction of whether Bob kavlock acted in bad or good faith. if he did we also have to decide whether or not the dissemination of the article by his campaign people was material to the outcome the Supreme Court said that I call your attention to page has 15 16 and 17 of the Supreme Court decision. I think before we cast that vote today, every one of us should read it and read it close. Pages 15 16 and 17 of the Supreme Court decision very very important discussion of what the legislature should consider when they consider this issue. Let's talk just for a minute about Judge Bruning. I guess in a lot of respects I'd like the attorneys for the parties to have to do what I'm doing. Because they're far more familiar with the mechanics of what happened in the trial. And far more familiar with the mechanics of what happened in the state supreme court. notwithstanding that I want to tell you something about Judge breunig the man who found that Bob kavlock acted in good faith. judge breunig Is probably one of the most one of the finest judicial mines on the bench today? I don't think there's a lawyer or any person who has had to appear in front of Judge breunig. Who would dare to disagree with that? The man is utterly Fair. I say that for the reason that I'm not unaware of the fact that judge breunig comes from a long line of credentials of dfl involvement. Judge, breunig was selected by both of the attorneys, mr. Weinblatt, and mr. O'Neill out of a panel of 26 to 30 judges. He was their Mutual selection. It was there considered opinion that judge breunig would be the most fair and the most impartial judge to sit in consideration of this question. Judge, breunig you'll remember. Was also involved in one of the most controversial and probably one of the most hard-fought election contests at the state of Minnesota has ever seen the rolvaag and Anderson matter judge. Breunig was Council. Chief counsel for governor rolvaag That is the background from which judge breunig comes since that time. He's been on the bench something like for 15 years. He has distinguished himself as a fair and impartial judge. a man that deals with the subtleties of a trial who looks objectively at Witnesses and makes his decision on the basis of all of the evidence and all of the testimony that's given to them. a man who reserves his judgment until he receives all of that evidence. A man who has been honored to sit. as a guest Supreme Court Justice This is the kind of trial judge. That sat in Judgment of Bob Pavlik. This is the kind of jurist that said Bob kavlock did not act in bad faith. I would ask. whether or not with judge breunig decision in front of us with the Supreme Court saying that we will not pass on the issue of bad faith or good faith. With that before us, who are we to substitute our judgment for that of Judge grunick? Albeit, it is our decision to make and ultimately it is our decision to make but who are we? To substitute our judgment for that of Judge Bruni have any of us seen any of the witnesses to this matter? Have any of us sat and been able to judge The credibility of those people as they stood there under oath. None of us have had that opportunity and that's very important when you're trying to determine whether or not a man acted in good faith or bad faith. Can only hear his words. But you judges reactions. You look him in the eye. You hear the inflections in his voice. And you make a subjective decision. On the basis of what the man is saying? I would suggest fellow members that the only person who is in a position to make that objective. Judgment was the trial judge judge breunig. Mr. Rice spend some time talking about the the editorial that apparently did the damage. I think you ought to look at that at Oriole for just a moment. The important language in there is the language that relates to Arnold Camp. He's voting record. We have seen nothing. The editorial says to dispute his research report on campy that shows the incumbent voted for X in 1967-68 this out of more than 300 opportunities. That's the language that we have to focus on. the subject matter of this campaign the focus of the campaign at all times was the attendance record of Arnold campy. Many pieces of literature were distributed prior to this last one. Which stated and restated the charges and counter-charges as to whether or not the attendance showed her should not be important. His true attendance record whatever it was was stated and restated by Arnold Campion his own literature. the public who received that literature had an opportunity to review his true record long before they ever received the the editorial which was distributed by Pavel axe campaign team this editorial didn't take anybody in his district by surprise. They already knew what Arnold Camp he's record was or I think we ought to presume that they knew. What was Bob Pavel acts reaction when he saw this editorial in the paper on the morning of November 4th 1978. That was a Saturday morning. What was Bob Pavel axe reaction? Do that Bob kavlock told the for legislators? That visit him in the hospital. I wish you were here so he could tell this himself but he said can all of these were recorded. I'm reading from a transcript of Bob kavlock statement Bob kavlock when he first saw this editorial Undertook to call the newspaper. Mr. Bill Sumner the editor he undertook to call him immediately to question this business of 304 out of 300 opportunities. He didn't know what it meant. And he wanted to find out from the editor if he had information. On that mr. Sumner, the record will show was not was not in but Bob kavlock ask that mr. Sumner telephone him back. Mr. Sumner did not do that. But I think the important Point here, is that Bob Pavlik. Question the editorial he questioned the information contained therein. He didn't understand what for out of 300 opportunities meant he knew all biet that he had missed three hundred roll call votes. He knew that from his own research. But he didn't know what the paper meant by four out of 300 opportunities in he did what a prudent man would do. He called the paper to find out what that meant. Perhaps the newspaper Bob Pavlik surmised had found some additional information in the records attendance records. They have a big staff in the newspaper and he had warned him previously about his information. I think it's fair to assume that Bob kavlock. Thought that the research staff of the paper had uncovered some information, which he wasn't aware of but Bob Pavlik tried to find out. Now I ask you is that the action of a man? Who's acting in bad faith Bob kavlock said in the hospital and I quote and right away. It's Ducks out at me that it was 1967 and 68 and for out of 300 and they got one number right the 300, right? Bob recognize that number 300 he didn't recognize that number four. He stated later in the hospital that the thought that the newspaper had done further research because this was two weeks prior to the election and he had the notes for two weeks. Later on. The decision was made by his campaign team, too. Photocopy the editorial and distributed and they did so throughout the district. But they did so with a caveat. I call your attention to the handwritten caveat in the margin of the editorial. It says even with the papers quote typo the message about our opponent is clear. the message that Bob Pavlik was referring to is that the man didn't have very good attendance record. The typo is fair to assume refers to the numbers either the dates or the four out of 300 or both. Is that the action? Of a committee that's acting in bad faith. Would they have put a caveat in the margin? I submit that they wouldn't. want to comment for a minute on the role of the the other candidate in this matter Arnold kemppi We're probably. Going to spend a lot of time talking about the State of Mind of Bob Pavlik and whether or not he acted in bad faith. But let's contrast for a minute the actions of Arnold kemppi. Arnold Kemp he testified at the trial. That he saw this editorial for the first time at her about six o'clock on Monday 6 p.m. Monday the day before the election. He testified that he saw the editorial at 6 p.m. The day before the election. That's two days after the paper published this editorial. And yet at the trial three members of his campaign team testified. testified members of his own campaign team that they conferred with Arnold kemppi on Saturday November 4th in connection with this very editorial and the damaging effect that it could have on his campaign. three members of his campaign team call this editorial to his attention and urged that he do something about it. and yet Arnold kemppi testified that he didn't even know about the editorial until the day before the election. He was impeached. Purely and simply he was impeached by his own campaign workers. Why? Is that the action of a man Who's acting in good faith? Is that the action of a man? Who are is that the reaction of a man who wants to capitalize on a good opportunity? I would suggest. I guess as others have suggested previously that Arnold campy. With this editorial and with the distribution by the Pavlik campaign team. He had the best of both worlds. He could do nothing. and win and of course, we'll never hear anything more about the editorial. But if he loses. We have the grounds for an election contest. If we take any action. To correct or cure this defect before the election. There will be no grounds for an election contest if he loses. in the Supreme Court Justice Peterson Took up the matter of the decision to contest this election. And I'm going to read to you. a very short excerpt of as to the decision by the Arnold can't be campaign team to proceed to contest this election. It's on DC one of the of the Supreme Court decision. Justice Peterson said that the contestant in this opinion is for Simplicity a reference to Arnold can't be alone. It reflects his real status as set out in the record the contestants in this matter was his campaign team and not Arnold can't be personally but Justice Peterson recognize that the real contestant here was Arnold campy. Justice Peterson continues before this election contest was brought. This is after he lost the election. Mr. Kim P had discussions with the quote House Majority unquote and then assemble the individuals named as contestants in his office on November 18th 1978 together with him and attorney Alan weinblatt. They discussed the quote 67 267 balance of power unquote in the House of Representatives. And they're decided that it was the better to have others than campy as contestant because if it was mr. Campy, it may be taken as some people call it sour grapes. Mr. Camp, he himself had a general feeling because of the political nature of things albeit the 67 to 67 split that perhaps if it were to be brought others could do it. Who made this decision? to challenge Robert Pavlik selection Who really made that decision? Was it the contestants or were they the handmaidens? I think that everybody here knows who made that decision. It was made in concert between the quote House Majority. Whoever that was and Arnold campy. judge breunig Talked about whether or not the dissemination of the editorial really made any difference. As I indicated earlier judges breunig found that in light of the already wide dissemination by the newspaper the Robert pav laksa distribution of the editorial had no material effect on the outcome of the election. fellow members of the House You tell me if in reading that editorial. and focusing on the language That you see there this out of more than 300 opportunities for times. Is that clear to everybody as they sit here today what that is? It's susceptible to many different interpretations. It was clear at the trial. When each of the campaign workers for Arnold kemppi were asked about what that language means to them. What does it mean to you? There were seven different interpretations as to what that language meant. That's ambiguity. And I submit fellow members that the voters. when they receive that photostat of the editorial and when they read it, I submit that they were just as confused about what that meant. As were the campaign workers. And I further submit that it could not and probably was not the basis for their decision when they cast that vote. How could they vote against or for the participants here when they didn't probably understand what the language meant because of its ambiguities. That's what judge Bruning was trying to tell us. judge, breunig made it further finding Or I should say it's the same finding. that if this editorial did damage the damage was perpetrated by the same Paul Pioneer Press two days earlier. any subsequent damage that the distribution of the editorial did was cumulative it was repetitious and had no material effect on the outcome. I asked you members. Can you poison somebody twice? It conclusion mr. Speaker. What we're doing today? is expelling a fellow member of the House It's a very serious undertaking. And I know that each and every one of us are not going to do that very readily. Do you think that we should substitute our judgment for that of Judge breunig? Do you think? That based on what you've seen here today. That we should substitute our judgment for that of the voter. Based on what you see here. Because if we expel him today. That's what we're doing. We're substituting our judgment for that of the voters of his district. and I submit that we must do that with Extreme Caution. Extreme Caution one of the last vestiges that we have of freedom Is the right to vote? Let's not take the voters right away from them. very easily Thank you. Representative Charles Hallberg speaking against a motion to representative public seat be declared vacant. Today until we get through with this matter. If you want to watch back, that's fine. But had the respect to this body in this very serious moment. Mr. Otis, the Minnesota house is deciding and debating today. Whether to remove Robert Pavlik from the chamber. This is a representative Todd Otis dfl are from Minneapolis the good faith question. What is it steak today is not partisan Advantage, but the fairness of the electoral process. No matter what happens today, there will be no majority that can pass a bill or a law in this body. The people that ultimately determine what the composition of this house will be if we unseat representative Cadillac will only be the people in District 67a It takes 68 votes to pass a bill in this house. No matter what occurs today. There will not be 68 votes at the end of this day on any one party. I know that the editorials of newspapers have been suspect and in some cases rightly. So but I think in terms of putting the case of what is at stake. I'd like to read from today's Minneapolis Star while the political implications of unseating Pavlik need no elaboration. It is the Integrity of the house. That is at most at most at stake were the house other than evenly divided. We're sure this matter would have been resolved with far less Fury. But notwithstanding the partisan turmoil engendered by the pavla X removal in the long run the principle of honest elections is Paramount. I wish the decision were up to the district court. I wish the decision were up to the state supreme court. It isn't we are constitutionally charged with determining the eligibility of our fellow members. We must decide we cannot say judge breunig new better. Let us adhere to what he stated. We have to decide and it's written in the Constitution. the state supreme court which has found that mr. Pavlik did violate the unfair campaign practice law was not willing to make a ruling and they were unwilling to make a ruling because of the very reason they knew that the State House of Representatives and not they were charged with making the decision as to whether mr. Pavlik should maintain his seat. We are uniquely qualified to make this judgment each one of us has run for office does understand the political process and hopefully has evolved a sense of fair play. For that reason as well as the Constitution it is right and proper that we decide we must decide. On the question of good faith, which is the core question that must be addressed today. We are not judging a man. We are judging an act. We must decide whether we believe representative have lacked acted in good faith, when he distributed reprints of the November Fourth Article, which stated that representative can't be voted on only four of 300 opportunities. That's what we must decide. During the committee meeting of the general legislation committee. We were given a dictionary Black's Law Dictionary definition of good faith and let the record show that attorneys on both sides felt that this was a good and complete definition of good faith the first point honesty of intention. The second Point freedom of knowledge of circumstances that ought to put the holder of in that information upon inquiry. Mr. Pavlik did not have that freedom of knowledge. He stated himself that he personally did the research on. Mr. Kemp. He's voting record. He as an experience legislator had to know that mr. Kemp he voted far more often than four times out of 300. What about honesty of intention? In other words did he know the facts and still intentionally print grossly untrue statements. The answer is found on page 10 of the transcript from the hospital interview with the four legislators that took place earlier this week and I will read from that transcript. Mr. Rice, but at least in the journal that you went through with this research, you knew that you saw his name on a roll call vote more than four times. You're nodding. Yes. Mr. Pavlik. Pardon. Mr. Rice, you are saying mr. Pavlik. Yeah. I saw his name on the roll call for those that he was there. Sure mr. Rice, and for more than four times, mr. Pavlik. Oh more than four times. Sure. Mr. Hallberg Bob what did you intend by the hand written language relating to typo at cetera? As you know on the on the reprinted version of said to look out for the typo? Mr. Pavlik, well really it was really my only concern was the date is only concern was the date and not the substance of the four out of 300 votes. We are not here to pass judgment like gods. We are here to affirm the laws of the state of Minnesota. We are here to answer the question are there limits to unfair campaign practices? This body more than any other can answer that question. We vote today not for ourselves, but for the people of Minnesota the people of our districts and the people of District 67a who are entitled who are entitled to select their representative, you know Fair campaign. Thank you very much. Mr. Crandall, this is representative Bill Crandall independent republican from Minneapolis respond to some of the comments made by representative, Otis. And in particular the editorial that he cited that was handed out by mr. Anderson prior to our meeting printed in the Minneapolis Star. This very editorial that he has handed out contains an error in the second paragraph of the second column. It's left something out that appeared in the Pavlik printed material that paragraph reads despite. This doubt the Pavlik campaign organization distributed up to 1900 reprints of the editorial with a marginal notation that said quote the message about our opponent is clear. That editorial is in air it is false. It left out the circle matter that said despite the typos. The message about our opponent is clear or despite the papers typo. I submit to you that that editorial is false and that it fails to include something that actually occurred in the document itself. It was deliberate and then it was reprinting knowing that it was false and it was material because it was designed to influence This House of Representatives and was done in bad faith because there is a reckless disregard for the truth of what the exhibit actually said. But going further. Mr. Otis made the statement that we are not judging a man today. We are judging an act and I strongly disagree with that observation. It has been suggested to me by members in this house that we must put our friendship for Bob kavlock aside and decide the ACT. I submit to you as members of this house that friendship is the key to what we are deciding today because any member in this house who is called Bob kavlock his friend does so with the knowledge that Bob kavlock is an honest a truthful and a God-fearing person in any of you who regard him as your friend know that to be true. That is the key. That is what the Supreme Court has said in page 15 of their opinion where they say ultimately this contest reduces to a question of mr. Pavlik State of Mind. Did he act in good faith? And of course the Supreme Court had no way of judging that from the record judge Bruning did after deliberating for six weeks and it's decision. There is no man that has higher regard or respect for the members of This House of Representatives and Bob kavlock. I think he takes his position in this house very seriously and you who have served with him know that to be a fact You know that he is an honorable man. And when Bob kavlock tells you that in his mind he acted in good faith. I submit to you that each and every one of you who know him realize that Bob kavlock is telling you the truth as he believes it. Because otherwise you are saying that Bob kavlock is a liar and I don't think there's one of you sitting here that believes that about Bob kavlock Monday, you saw him stand up to the point where he was shaking defending himself stating that he had never had to go to confession for anything that he had done in a campaign and he meant it and he was sincere about it. He was truthful about it. Therefore I strongly disagree with mr. Otis statement that were not judging the man that is exactly what we're judging were judging the State of Mind of Bob kavlock the good faith of Bob kavlock, which the Supreme Court said, it had no way of knowing yet. They've worked with this decision and with the Bruning decision for almost five months. You've had it for five days parts of it you received yesterday. Yes, you have put yourself in the place of getting into Bob tavleks mind. And making a decision as to whether he acted in good faith whether he acted truthfully. I asked each one of you to search your souls in your past campaigns the literature you might have distributed the words you might have said to people. Some of the things that you might have said or printed might be suspect but I'm sure each and every one of you sitting here believes that whatever you did it was in good faith. And I believe you would not be sitting here as a representative if you thought otherwise because I too believe in the Integrity of every member of this house and I'm very proud to be a part of this body. I sit in on this room in recollection of the people who must have said here before me and those who are yet to serve after me. I asked you to think about your friend Bob kavlock and to consider. the truth the honesty of the man Mr. Pharisee Andre Pharisee in the flr from st. Paul. I just like to answer a few things or bring up a few things have occurred. I picked up for mr. Hall Berg's remarks something to the effect that the conduct of mr. Campy Arnold campy was improper. He should have done something and maybe he should have just want the body to understand that Mr. Kim p is not the person who is the subject of what's Happening here today. He will not be the person who would be should emotion Prevail be sitting in a seat in this chamber today. But that sometimes as I think Chuck we find ourselves trying to talk about some things that really aren't truly before the body. And that is not before the body if mr. Kemppi. Should he become a candidate assuming the motion to Prevail? He would have to go to the voters in the district 67 8 to gain support. And keep in mind that mr. Pavlik assuming that the motion prevails will have that same opportunity to set the record straight and the as was pointed out the true jury in this particular matter will be those persons in Sixty seven eight. I think one point ready has not been too greatly discussed and it should be at least addressed and that is the question of did the even if he had acted in bad faith. Did it have an effect on the election? Like there was a brief discussion of that by mr. Hallberg? I think you have to realize that we are talking about a fairly close election. And I've heard conflicting reports at least eighteen Nineteen Hundred parently pieces got out and I understand someplace else in the record that's indicated that maybe as many as 8,000 pieces got out. I think each of us can appreciate that in that last week. At least we all have this concept that that's the weekend that the voter is making his or her decision as to what they're going to do. I leave it to your judgment as to whether or not document coming out in the last weekend May in fact have had an influence on some persons all that there would need be in order to change the result would have been a hundred and sixty-one people going the other way and I guess it boils down to one other thing and I think Bill you touched on it and I think we better all stopped for a moment so old adage judge not least I'll be judged maybe that's something that all of us should be thinking about and to be self-centered about it maybe it's the way we should be acting but I think the whole process the whole idea of government has to transcend beyond that adage because if that is the way that we're going to operate then there's somebody who is not actually here in the room that can be affected by that kind of a philosophy and that is the citizen the voter That is who we are deciding this issue of them for today. Is there any any basis? That one could believe that there is something that went wrong in that election as far as the fairness of it. Go back to that one definition again of the good faith. good faith is honesty of intention and and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. If the record that isn't before us if the record before us doesn't have that, I don't think we're ever going to see it. The record pretty well spells it out by Bob's own words. I noticed something and maybe it was it does show that he's a kind of guy an awful lot of people like the transcript there was I was reading and all of a sudden I came across that page where he's talking about having offended me sometime. I don't even remember the incident and I'm sure it weighs on his mind but the question has to go beyond that what about those persons who have had an election which something that was out that a court has said he had Anna material was had some relationship to this particular law that we've got on the books that it was a violation of that statute that occurred I think thing we should be doing here is each of us. Maybe taking a few moments. Give ourselves some thought. I don't know that any of us are going to change the other I think we've all been doing some reading over the last several days. I know I have and we're going to have to make a decision. It's not going to be an easy one. If you're going to be going either way perhaps because you are concerning yourself with the process. I guess. It's in our hands to determine what that process is going to be like I really would ask that you would reflect. Mr. Peterson, mr. Speaker just a question really Peterson and append republican from Regan to particularly relating to mr. Pharisee. I noticed that on the appellants brief Alan W weinblatt is listed as 2302 American National Bank building and is telephone number is listed as 2226341. Mr. Weinblatt was the attorney of record for mr. Kemp. He's Campaign Committee. I note that on page 60 of the rules of the ER of the identification of members of the House. Representative Pharisees a business address is listed as 2302 American National Bank in his phone number is listed as 2226341. I would note to the house that we sit today not as Representatives, but as judges. That's what the Constitution says. Under the Minnesota rules governing the conduct of Judges, which I agree is relates to the Judiciary, but I think has some important guidelines in it. It states under appendix 12 disqualification. A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned including but not limited to instances where and I would cite paragraph B. He served as lawyer in the matter in controversy or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such Association as lawyer concerning the matter or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it. my question is impropriety and the what I think is a matter that concerns the Integrity of the house whether mr. Pharisee might not agree the properly he should step aside not participate in the deliberation and vote on this matter. Mr. Pharisee, mr. Speaker. I'm a sole practitioner. I have been and I'll tell you why I did it because I did not want to be in any partnership where conflicts could occur on this floor. I've got office in space at 2302 American National Bank. Mr. Weinblatt has office in space at 2302 American National Bank. I have nothing to do with mr. Weinblatt. We both pay the rent. I'm asked to come in and pay my rent. He pays his rent to the to the space. I have no relationship with mr. Weinblatt at all. I put it to this body as to whether or not after all these years that you feel at that I certainly have disqualified myself on a number of times in previous years when there was even the slightest possibility that there might be a conflict. But I broke out of a partnership just because I didn't want this kind of things and it was with mr. Weinblatt at that time. Mister Fantastic, I'm Vanessa tfls from New Prague Members First of all, I guess I'd like to apologize to mr. Speaker and my fellow members for delaying the proceedings this morning. I Rise with great reluctance to speak on this matter, but I feel that I that I must comment on some of the remarks made by mr. Hallberg and mr. Crandall. It was mentioned by mr. Hallberg that that the material the editorial that was distributed that last weekend, you know may not have been material to the outcome of the election. But if you look through the exhibits that were made available to us, you'll see you can't help but noticing at least I couldn't that the the issue of mr. Camp. He's voting record was a major issue in that campaign. The exhibit show that there were charges made by mr. Pavlik about mr. Kemp. He's voting record. And then there were responses by mr. Kemp be defending his voting record and that seemed to go on for some time during that campaign and I would submit that when that happens that you can have a situation where you have the voters kind of confused wondering who really is right in the matter and and just what mr. Kemp his voting record was and in that confusion we see the last weekend we see an editorial come out from a newspaper from a supposedly neutral third body from a newspaper that supposedly is committed to telling the truth and that editorial says that mr. kemppi voted for times out of 300 opportunities in a two-year period that newspaper was circulated throughout that legislative district And then it was again distributed by mr. Pavlik in his Campaign Committee. Mr. Walberg says, well, you can't poison somebody twice. Well, what I say is how many times can you tell a falsehood? And when two people start believing it to be true. He says that it's subject to interpretation different kinds of interpretations. But what does pav lacks Campaign Committee say about it? It says even with the typo the message about our opponent is clear. They didn't seem to think it was subject to. Differing interpretations was also stated that mr. Campy had the best of both worlds as I interpreted the remarks. He could have sat and done nothing and and one. Or lose and then have his Campaign Committee or have some folks bring a lawsuit. Well, I guess I don't I don't buy that either. You know when somebody? distributes literature the last weekend literature that does contain falsehoods I submit you don't have the best of both worlds. Depending on what your style of campaigning is. If you try to address issues in a positive way. If you try to set forth to the people in your District where you think the state ought to go in terms of public policy. You might want to do nothing about this because your other option is to change your style. Your other option is to get down in the gutter and start making charges Back start having to call your opponent saying that he's saying untruths about you or half-truths or he's distorting. I submit you don't have the best of both worlds. And the other thing you have to remember is that it wasn't mr. Kemppi that brought this on. It was the actions of mr. Pavlik that put mr. Campion that kind of situation so I don't think he had the best of both worlds. To mr. Crandall It is very very difficult. When you sit here. And you're forced to decide on somebody who's a colleague. Somebody who's a friend I served with mr. Pavlik back in 73 and 74 and became a friend of his den. That friendship is continued. But the personalities are not the issue. We've also heard that we know we've got to 6767 tie in the overtones of that but that isn't the issue the Minnesota fair campaign Practices Act is what's the issue? If we put our stamp of approval. On mr. Pavlik if we said what happened that last weekend was okay. We absolve him of any wrongdoing. We're saying it's okay to distribute literature to last week into the campaign that contains falsehoods. If we say that's okay, then I think we're going to see a fundamental change in how future elections are conducted in this state. And it's going to be a change for the worse. We're not going to see that positive dialogue take place the disagreements on the issues. The setting forth of State policy where we ought to go but instead we're going to see a campaign where they'll be there will be a series of accusations distortions half-truths and outright lies, and I don't think we want to see that happen. I was on that committee. I certainly did not enjoy it. That a very difficult week. I'm glad at least that the Committee Action is behind us, but I just want to say that from my reading of the records the transcripts Supreme Court decisions. The testimony presented to the committee. My conclusion is the actions of mr. Pavlik. We're in violation of the fair campaign Practices Act and and I must vote accordingly. Speaker speaker. I Rise to put First Independent Republican John Rose from Roseville of personal privilege speaker. I Rise to a point of personal privilege to defend the Integrity. Sorry, this is Willa second from Twin Valley dfl are You may do so. Speaker of the House I don't have any notes in front of me I never intended to get up on the floor of this house today but something happened just within the last few minutes that to me was beyond the point of discussion that we should have engaged in a very serious issue before this house I just like to identify that there's an empty chair in the back of this chamber in the back of this chamber and I saw that person leave this room. With what? I thought were tears in his eyes. I came into this body. in 1971 with representative, Pharisee And I'm a bit emotional right now because I feel very hurt. As a member of this body who loves his body who I feel I feel I respect the members of this body. Representative Pharisee and I have differed on many issues. But never once have I felt the need to question the free spirit of Representative Pharisee on issue. never once I thought that was the only comment that I've heard on the floor of this house today. That was out of order. To me as a member of the body. The representative Pharisee after all those years of service on this legislature. And I couldn't sit here watch him. Leave this chamber. Without feeling some responsibilities as a member of this body to defend a fellow member. We are engaged today and one of the most difficult decisions. that any of us have ever been called on to make I can't remember one that's been tougher for me then this one and we don't need to generate this discussion into the Integrity of other members of this body to make judgment when we're talking about the whole Democratic process and I was offended I was offended to the point where I'm standing here and I'm angry. and I just hope that the rest of the discussion today in this difficult decision we have Talks about the issue that's before us and not the Integrity of other members of this body to make decisions. on this issue Being I'm up mr. Speaker. Like to continue just a little bit. I I wish that I thought about this a little more before I got up and I didn't have that opportunity because I didn't expect this to happen today, I guess. And it's tough today, isn't it? Because the decisions aren't very easy. we're talking about a friend that we have to make judgment on and that's that's just really tough but I expect every one of us are here because we have some real respect for the system real respect for the system or we wouldn't have put ourselves through But I sometimes feel the public doesn't understand in terms of. the responsibilities of the innuendo that becomes a part of that campaign portion of this Democratic process But we are here because we do respect the system because we are willing to make some sacrifices to be a part of it. and to me is an individual who has served in this body now the ninth year. I have really come to respect more. respect more the individuals that I serve with the Integrity of state government in Minnesota And the kind of job that we as elected people have done for this state regardless of political party. the one most negative part for me and I suspect for some of the rest of you. Has been the process of campaigning. For the opportunity to serve. And I recall I can't recall precise words, but I recall the thrust of the comments. Senator Humphrey how about the degrading of a person to solicit money that necessary part of conducting a political campaign and don't we all struggle with that problem to a lesser degree for State office than for national office And don't we all struggle as individuals with that? problem of individual identity in a political campaign because so often that problem is that somehow or other the system directs us as Political Animals almost. In how we approach and how we function during that campaign time in this Democratic process. And I can tell you that I am more concerned today that I was in 1970 and 71 when I first ran. About my ability as an individual in this political process during a political campaign. To have some control over the system under which I must campaign. And I sense something growing in that campaign process that really bothers me. as an individual because I sense we're almost becoming more and more as a puppet to something. As a puppet to some kind of super structure. That provides us with advice. That provides us with a in with the kinds of materials and the kinds of a campaign we should conduct. And I think we all are close enough to this process so that I suspect many of you feel that same kinds of pressure. And then it gets tough. For that individual candidate because some Anonymous thing. Is set up the win elections? And that Anonymous entity. Is only concerned about winning election? And then they feed the system. And that system is us who are individual candidates. And then we got to make some judgment. Because at that point it gets personal that's you and me. And it's our relationship to the voters that were asking for support. And I think that's the decision of the body today. Yes, we're talking about an individual. But we're also talking about our own responsibilities. as candidates in elections to use judgment to exercise intent to the voters were asking for for support to that Anonymous entity out there that tells us how to do it. And that's our responsibility and our individual elections. It's our responsibility and our decision today. on a fellow member I just hope that the rest of the discussion how long it must go on today before we're ready to make that decision. does not begin to degenerate In to questioning the Integrity of any member of this body. to make a decision which by law we have to make TS Hillary Willa seconds from Twin Valley no, independent Republican Doug you all from Minnetonka. If I could say just a few words not in anger. Because God Almighty, please help us be not angry today of all days. you know I've become a head have some rather strange friendships on the floor of this house a lot of them are with members of the of the other party because I worked with them for a number of years before I ran here having said that I would never never run for elective office I guess it mr. Pharisee is is a person that publicly and privately I've always said is a person that I can look up to physically and legally and every every respect I think it's unfortunate coming from both sides of the aisle not only today but a number of times this year that in order to make our points known we have to lose our tempers frankly I think more of all of us than that and hope that in whatever might remain of the debate that goes on here today that before were inclined to lose their tempers and shout and scream and carry on we might stop to think Perhaps comments were made that were unfortunate and there'd be no person who would stand to to say more good things about Ray Pharisee than that. I because I have total respect for the man and suspect that. We'll see him back in the floor of the house and I hope that we will but I also want to extend those same comments to Bob pad light. because to the best of my knowledge Bob a black has stood before a district court In his been judged by the legal processes in our state. to be innocent and mr. Eakin Wherever You Are I would like to agree with you. I think it's very unfortunate. That we see fit to take off on our fellow members of the House. But I think it's terribly unfortunate. That we seek at this time during this day. To take off on one of our fellow members who's not here. And who has been a judge to be innocent? And mr. Egan is you said I really hadn't planned to stand but as long as I'm standing. I've heard a number of people say this is this is going to be a really tough vote. Because I'm going to have to vote against good old Bob. Good old Bob is a friend of mine. well ultimately when we get down to it whether it's at 1:30 or 2:00 o'clock or five o'clock or eight o'clock let me tell you this it's not going to be a difficult vote for me to make because I believe in Bob Cadillac and I believe in the sanctity of the system and I believe in the truthfulness of gentle words and I believe in good faith and that let those amongst us Who would stand and judge a person who is found to be innocent? But their shoulders back. If their heads up high vote to condemn Bob Pavlik. And I'm sorry that I will not be able to be celebrating with you later on tonight. I'm not going to be there trying to forget what we've done. I think it bodes us all well to spend some time tonight trying to remember what we have done. Not to my beloved friend Ray Pharisee. It's good to see you back Ray. but to my beloved friend and comrade Bob Pavlik And so after the final vote whenever it's cast is cast. Come on back and let's look each other eye to eye. And then go and try and forget what we've done today. Mr. Knickerbocker, this is Jerry Knickerbocker the house on our leader. Mr. Speaker members I think many of the things that I was going to say of sort of been touched on already. You know. This particular decision. I guess couldn't come at a worse time for all of us terms of end of the session retired. we have the pressure of finishing legislation and so we sat with this issue now for two or three days and I think it's allowed us to affect our attitudes towards one another and our judgements towards one another we do have to finish up the end of the legislative session we have some responsibilities there some responsibilities the people that state and as I said on the floor last Monday no matter what we do the outcome is it will make a difference in the attitude of people members towards one another and I'm sorry that I was so right and it's going to make a difference I suppose and the attitude and the feelings that we all have about this particular legislative session I guess I'll be right about that, too. this morning When I came here, I tried to think. Words that I could say that might make some difference to the process the thoughts that people might have about the issue. Maybe motivate people in some way to change their mind. Well, I don't have any of those kind of words. the only thing that I kept coming back to Is Bob kavlock is innocent till proven guilty? That's a right that's afforded to all of us. and the district court didn't say you was guilty or acted in bad faith. Supreme Court didn't say yeah, I couldn't bad faith. He said instead the legislature. Here you go. Say it you say he acted in bad faith. You say he's guilty. We can't say it. We can't make that determination. So all of a sudden a matter of two or three days, we're faced with responsibilities of coming up with some wisdom and knowledge. people that spent five six months on the process took testimony couldn't come up with so what do we base our decisions on? I think you've heard some of the criteria already talked about on the floor. We had a hearing and a standing committee. very short period of time represented Pavlik because of the health circumstances wasn't able to attend participate and there was concern over the loss of his rights his due process Constitution provides for him so that matter was taken to court the committee was allowed to proceed because again the Supreme Court said come to us after you've done something and then we'll make a decision we don't want to decide no And it's too bad that we don't have a clear-cut majority one way or another. Because then we wouldn't be impugning the motives the some of the people in this body by bringing this action before us. And some of the motives I know our suspect. Some people see it as a vehicle a way to overturn the balance in the house. Want to move on this issue strictly for partisan political reasons? and I also believe that there are some of you out there that the feel that there is an issue here in terms of election law change. That needs to be addressed. Your motives are genuine. Only problem is we have no way of differentiating between each other. the actions that we took the body The early part of this week. No doubt of injured Bob have lack. physically, mentally And perhaps what happens here this afternoon? We'll add to that. It's already been done. Last week the early part. I noticed a number of articles in the paper statements were made one by the chairman of rules. As to mr. Pavlov X guilt prejudgment Minneapolis Tribune carried some of the statements that we had made in discussing the matter earlier this week. representative Pharisee said if mr. Pavlik is not going to be in attendance I don't think there's a person in this room or thinks it should proceed it's Friday proceeding one of the implications of all this and it relates back I think To the good faith argument in the way in which candidates conduct themselves in campaigns. This is Supreme Court is basically said to candidates. You don't really have any protection. That a majority party. Can inflict its will on the minority? You have no recourse. The legislature decides its makeup of its own members. That's one of the scary implications of what's Happening Here. Is that matters can be brought to the house floor from now on? With the Supreme Court not being the court of last resort or providing any relief potential relief for candidates. The majority can use its will on candidates are seated members the minority. The editorial that was distributed on the house floor Minneapolis Star today. As representative Crandall pointed out it contained some erroneous. Language or an Omission I should say. But the article was obviously distributed with the attempt to try to influence your vote. distributed before you voted distribution of this article the individual who distributed this article is in fact guilty of the same thing that you're asking representative Kim representative Pavlik to be judged guilty of think about that. one other implication we've got to look at terms of what we're doing here on the house floor. is a violation alleged violation of the unfair campaign Practices Act there are a lot of Provisions in that particular Act distribution of circulars is only One for which this matter has been brought to court and is now before us. Do you want to hear some of the other violations the fair campaign Practices Act? for which you Could be on trial here today. Wearing a political button at or about the polls on Election Day. I'll bet some of us have done that. Forgetting to put proper disclaimer on any campaign letter card pamphlet flyer sign Banner or leaflet. Well, we all know somebody that's done that somebody that's probably sitting in this room right now. Mailing campaign literature prior to election day, which arrives for whatever reason on Election Day all those things happen. You have no control over it. Sometimes sometimes it's deliberate I would suggest in some campaigns. The display of any campaign material by anyone transporting an individual to the polls on Election (02:51:46) Day. I'll bet that's happened. (02:51:53) Placing an ad in a newspaper, which says paid advertisement but not in six point capital letters. I'll bet that's happen especially in probably a lot of the small rural papers. You're guilty of the same things if one of those things occurred. In the section of law. That represented pant legs being tried under. there go for the grace of God go (02:52:23) I so what you're doing (02:52:29) today? Is setting up to standards. If you vote to unseat represented (02:52:37) Pavlik. (02:52:40) You're saying there has to be two standards for campaigning. (02:52:47) There's a standard. (02:52:49) That goes on out there during the heat of a (02:52:51) campaign. (02:52:55) But yet when we get up here on the house floor. safe and secure We can impose higher standards. On someone than we were willing to impose upon ourselves. And you know, that's not right. But you know that some of you sitting here in these chairs today. Are going to do that. You're going to have to think about that and you're going to have to live with that because that's the way you're going to see Bob have lacks guilty that he acted in bad faith. You're going to have to determine what a judge's couldn't determine. With your own set of standards and rules. (02:53:54) double and triple standards for some but at some point (02:54:03) you're going to meet bad. Pavlik you're going to have to look them in the eye and it's going to be pretty uncomfortable for (02:54:15) some people. Just going to have to face up to (02:54:18) that square within yourself what you've (02:54:20) done. (02:54:25) Bob paddy whack May be guilty of poor judgment. and that's something that happens every day. I think that's something we're all guilty of to some degree on some things. But you know how a campaign is when it gets to be the last part. shortly before election most campaigns is as I understand it, you know you really end up relying on five or six people that do all the (02:55:02) work. (02:55:04) And here we have the unique situation where Bob poundmax daughter it died and the responsibilities in the work sort of fell to them. Because his is grief and his interest in other places. Bob Pavlik had a different emphasis at that time. You knew what was important? end I think that. Gives rise to the question that all of us can put to ourselves. Where our values what do we think are (02:55:49) important? (02:55:52) We could so wrapped up in this place. Sometimes that's what we're doing. And what's not being done. thinking this is the end all control Power committee assignments passing legislation We really lose sight of what's important. And we can (02:56:15) smaller and lesser people for it. (02:56:23) This isn't a bill that you're dealing with. Something that's impersonal, you know, and you make a few changes in it and it moves along the process and maybe it'll come back but it won't touch it personally. It's a man's wife. Your vote makes a difference. Your vote makes a difference to that (02:56:52) man. And it was family. (02:57:00) And how you're going to how you going to live with (02:57:03) yourself? (02:57:12) If you treat it. In a manner any other than one of (02:57:16) fairness? (02:57:20) So there may be enough votes in this house, (02:57:22) too. kick bad pavlok out (02:57:33) There may be enough votes for the issue. But there's he's going to be no winner. I think the people that vote for that particular (02:57:45) motion are going to lose something. (02:57:51) something of themselves They're going to become smaller (02:57:56) and lesser people because of it. Mr. Nelson Mr. Speaker members, this is Ken Nelson from Minneapolis City FL her (02:58:13) representative Knickerbocker as concluded with is probably true that in some ways. There will be no real winner. However, I would like to say today that I am not voting against Bob Pavlik. And I would like to say that over and over again. This is not a judgment of Bob public or his person. I would also like to say that I am not voting for any party position today. I am voting against what I feel is a very significant violation. of campaign practice Which has been documented substantiated? By the Supreme Court of this state to the degree that it met those three criteria. I would hope that if I had done that you would judge me accordingly. I would not ask for any special Mercy. I respect this process. That we have ourselves designed through legislation and our forefathers through constitutional law. Bob Pavlik also is a friend of mine. And I respect him very much as a friend. I think he's a good legislator. I think he did make a poor judgment. And it's too bad that at times those sometimes hasty decisions in the last minutes of the campaign can be some become so significant. As this one did to the degree that it was. material according to the Supreme Court You know, sometimes we'll just recently I read an article by Alan Rosenthal and maybe some of you know him from the Eagles to Institute of politics and he's studied State legislatures pretty thoroughly and he has a recent article called. the legislator and the legislature and sometimes we get very involved personally as politicians. and our own livelihoods in her own self perceptions as well as how others perceive us. Certainly we need Votes to be here. We need other people to Believe in Us and support us. But I guess I would believe that sometimes at this point even institutions. legislative process legislative law legislative body (03:01:12) Is (03:01:12) far more important? Than my legislative career or than my re-election. And that in part is what it is. What is at stake here? I frankly is one individual do not believe that Bob kavlock would have much difficulty winning a new election if you were faced with that possibility. I think he would probably do that rather handily. So from my perspective, I don't not think this indicates any shift in power in this place. I just think that it's very crucial that we keep in mind. the context of our decision today is not only based upon a lots of Precedence terms of legislative law attorney general's decisions Supreme Court Constitution, but in terms of the future I think this legislative process is going through some real painful (03:02:16) times. (03:02:20) And I think this is one of the tests of it and it's a test that I don't think any one of us wanted to have to pass the vote on. However, we have no alternative. I'm sure this is going to be billed as a political vote by a lot of the media. I would wish that that were not true, but I suspect it will be. And I'm sorry for that too. Because a lot of people are going to believe that and that is also a sign I think. of maybe wear Public's perception of the legislature is act I think that too. Is going to be voted upon today. For me it's too. Vote for the future as well. And it's a price we pay for that. But it's a price that I hope to be able to look Bob Pavlik in the eye as one who cares about him. But one who simultaneously says, I think there are principles by which we all must abide. And I want him to call me to test tube. If he sees me in violation of any of what we of called. our campaign Practices Act So I would hope that these decisions today would not so much involve personalities or even politics. And yet we know that this process is just so deeply ingrained with both of those. We have seen some cartoons and we've seen posters outside this entranceway saying that he who is without sin cast the first stone or the first vote. That hurts me very much because it almost implies to vote. Against Bob public is to sin. Or to cast a stone. I'm not against Bob Pavlik not in any way. I am all more for this process. that we can trust it that our people can trust it and they can trust us and if any one of us has found in violation May we also be taken to (03:04:59) task. He Minnesota house is deciding today whether to unseat Robert Pavlik for violating the election law 1978 this coming to you live from the Minnesota state capitol. And here is John Rose an independent republican from Roseville. (03:05:20) regardless of which side of the aisle of your seated and ultimately we must make that decision. But there's something that's before us that might be more critical in that decision at this time. And that is a principle that has gone back many years and I would hope would continue for year upon year on this floor. You've seen it witness today and you will see it in the future unless we set a precedent. every member of this body has the right and the privilege to defend himself or herself We saw it yesterday. When The Honorable representative Anderson stood up at that microphone and pleaded with the speaker for an apology on a motion. And pleaded again until that motion was changed. We saw today. When represent a Pharisee stood up and defended himself. And when he left this chamber his colleague defended him. It's not what we have to do. That's before us. It is how we are doing it that's critical at this time. I do not know if we have another course of action. But for us to move ahead and make a decision of this magnitude. without having another chance for representative Pavlik to stand back there with his trembling body to defend himself is an issue that we can change. And I would hope that we would take that into account before we set a precedent of taking action on one of our members before we let that member defend himself or herself. (03:07:38) Thank you. Mr. Janardan, this is Galen de noddin independent republican from Prinz Berg. Earlier this week is very confused very upset. I had more or less judged representative pavelec (03:08:07) from my reading the (03:08:08) newspapers listening to the radio. You know, I've been reading some of this (03:08:17) stuff reading the facts. And I keep going back to his statement he (03:08:24) made. (03:08:26) If I'm guilty prove (03:08:28) it. I think back to the area where we say in the law (03:08:36) that were innocent until proven guilty. I feel people need due process would even give that to a criminal the worst criminal in the (03:08:48) land. (03:08:52) I believe that we should look up there. (03:08:55) the last phrase that (03:08:56) says no free government or the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to Justice I don't think justice has been carried out. I don't think he has that due process. I can't stand here and say I didn't intend on standing up I did. I can't say stand here and say that I'm having a terribly hard decision because it's becoming easier all the time. I do not believe that. Mr. Pavelec has had a fair and adequate hearing and trial. I'm very disappointed to hear the Indian does-- that criticisms that have gone on today. I respect mr. Pharisee. I'm not proud to be a member of this house. I'm humbled. (03:09:53) Thank you. (03:09:57) Mr. McDonald (03:09:59) KJ McDonald independent Republican (03:10:01) Watertown. I did plan to speak today. I Rise to speak against mr. Rice's motion. When Benjamin Franklin was leaving the hall. After the Constitution had been written someone approached him and said, mr. Franklin and you've heard the story just a reminder. Mr. Franklin. What kind of government did you give us? And he said we gave you a republic if you can keep it. My major concern from the beginning when I made the state and the other day that I would attend the meetings. We do not have time constraints on them. So that due process could take place. I have grappled with the Constitutional question. And I had prepared some remarks which I pretty much thrown aside and want to speak for a moment only in terms of reconciliation. and in terms of love I to respect mr. Pharisee. And I cannot make any judgments about what any of you will do today. I can only speak about myself. And I can only report to you what I see you doing and I can only interpret what I hear you saying? And in no way do I want to suggest that anyone in this room does not have the highest integrity. But I think I am a political realist enough to recognize that the fulcrum upon which all of this rests is the 6767 tie. and in my heart of hearts I know that is true for me. Because I could vote to unseat a fellow Republican. If it was proved to me that he acted in bad faith and that what he did seriously affected the outcome of an election. I would not hesitate to cast the vote. I respect their system of government and that Republic which Ben Franklin gave us too much to cast only a partisan vote. But ladies and gentlemen, I have not had the privilege of looking at mr. Pavlik and asking the questions that I must ask in order to arrive at a subjective decision of his good judgment. Neither have most of you So all I'm going to ask you to do. Is to look at the law recognized in truth that we have not had. Mr. Pavlik here to give them due process. And to look at the law temperate with Mercy turn to each other in forgiveness. and forgive in almost every campaign of the new freshmen that came into this house. Almost everyone ran an ad suggesting that their opponent had voted for himself. Egg pension after 6 years. Now those of us who were here know that that isn't true. We know that it was a vote cast in good judgment on all our parts to make an adjustment that was necessary and I have told my fellow Republicans the freshmen that are in this room and those I'm talking about know exactly what I said when they arrived at this house in January that I did not approve of their advertising that I thought their campaign in that respect was on Fair was untruthful. They know that I have told him that I over however know that they did it in good faith. But I forgive them. My opponent ran the very same end my name appears in this ad that's on your desk. It is untrue. It's an impoverishment of my Integrity. I'll forgive him. I only want to ask you to set aside which is so extremely difficult for me as it is for you truly partisan considerations. Turn to your neighbor. Mr. Pavlik to mr. Pharisee or whoever and say I forgive you and let's continue on. It's droning. Mr. Chairman (03:14:21) Tony on an independent republican from coquito (03:14:24) committee that made the decision. And I went in there not intending to vote. on a partisan basis I went in with the premise that My padlock was innocent until proven guilty. And over the period of a couple days. This was some of the information we received. on the first day we heard mr. (03:15:06) Weinblatt. (03:15:11) And one of the references was 210 a point 38. And a refers as to a candidate. Doing if he does not do these violations and in any case and in any case did not arise from anyone of good (03:15:32) faith. (03:15:38) It would be unjust that the candidate shall forfeit his nomination position our office generally what it says. Because I did not have a chance to as I had asked. Mr. Swanson to be able to talk to the author the the witnesses task questions. I refer to the conclusions of law of Judge Bruning one. There was no violation of the campaign Fair practice campaign Practices Act of the state of Minnesota but to in any event. in any event It appears from the evidence that the claimed offense did not arise from want of good faith and under the circumstances. It would be unjust that Robert Pavlik. Should forfeit his office. on page 15 the Supreme Court decision in view of the above. It is our conclusion that mr. Pavlik violated Minnesota statute to 10A .04 and that this violation was deliberate serious and material. However, those can conclusions a through G above do not resolve this case ultimately this contest reduces to a question of mr. Pavlik state of mind that he acted in good (03:17:02) faith. (03:17:05) Page 16. We are of the opinion that this election should not be set aside if mr. Pavlik acted in good faith. They did not question. The second part of the district court whether he acted in good faith or not. They did not say he did not act in good faith. What we're really dealing with today is that we are expected to overturn. a judgment by District Judge Bruning We're expected to overturn his decision. He had a chance. to end up talking to the witnesses He had a chance to question in his opinion. It appears from the evidence that the claimed offense did not arise from one of good faith. That's what it (03:17:59) says. (03:18:05) After seeing this information on the first day. I realized that it would take more time than a few short days to make a proper decision based on that information. So I had to rely to a large degree upon this information and what I heard and saw That's why I (03:18:24) believe (03:18:26) that Bob Pavlik is innocent. You know, I've heard the attorneys talk about cases court cases. Well, you know, I'm not an attorney but this morning I had a chance to think of another case and I think that today it's appropriate that it's Friday. because in this other trial that individual did not defend himself. (03:18:57) Bob (03:18:57) Pavlik cannot defend himself because he's not here. and this trial this other triumphs thinking of that that case was really decided a long time before. I guess the question is has this case been decided before? in this other case that person was capable of calling on 10,000 Legions. All Bob can call on are the people of Minnesota. I believe there's another similarity. in my opinion Bob Pavlik is also (03:19:57) innocent. The debate continues here in the Minnesota House of Representatives on whether Robert Pavlik should be unseated Mr. Speaker. I believe this is Lynn Carlson dfl. They're from Brooklyn Park (03:20:16) and I had an opportunity to review those documents to listen to the testimony that was presented in the committee and I rise today to ask you to support. (03:20:28) representative Rice's motion (03:20:31) And I tell you what I think is at stake here. It's the election process that we're going to have in the future. in the state of Minnesota few moments ago and other speaker commented that there were people that were here because they had advertisements and so on that he felt were misleading. Well if we want to stop that kind of thing, I think we have to get a message out to all potential candidates. Those that may be running for re-election those that may be challenging. That you campaign. On issues you take your positions, but you don't distort. Your opponent's position. You don't in other words mislead the voter. So the question is then as I view it what kind of campaigns do we want to Minnesota? I want to make sure that the voters have accurate information by which to judge the candidates for public office be at legislative be in local be it Statewide. I don't think that was the case in this particular election contest. Has the Supreme Court has stated and I'd like to quote from page 15 and point out. First of all, one of the factual conclusions the last one because there has been quite a bit of discussion about how damaging that particular piece of literature may have been. Well the Supreme Court found by the way on a 7 to 2 vote with justices that come from all political Persuasions. Mr. Pavlik received four thousand four hundred and fifty four votes at the November 7th election. Mr. Campy received 4133. If a net of 161 votes were cause to switch their votes from mr. Campy to mr. Pavlik because of the distribution of the false statement on November 4 and 6 or 4 through 6. Mr. Pam lacks action in publishing false statements produced his election. The Supreme Court went on further and set in view of the above. It is our conclusion that mr. Pavlik violated Minnesota statutes to 10A .04 and that this violation was deliberate serious in material within the meaning of Minnesota statute to 09 .02. It was deliberate in the sense that the distribution of the statement as worded was intentional and it was intended to affect the voting at that election. Now, that's from the decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Okay, then I think we should take a look at what happens if we decide here today to support (03:23:23) Rice's motion representative races motion. (03:23:27) We are in effect going to cause a new election. And I think in light of the misinformation that the voters were provided in that legislative district that there should be a new election. I think we're a part of the process. We're going to allow if we support representative Rice's motion the people that were most affected by that election. The people that are residents of that District to make the ultimate decision. It may or may not be the two former contestants who run for re-election if this motion passes, that's something we don't know but those people will have the opportunity to make that (03:24:09) decision. This is Hawkinson Shirley Hawkinson the dfl heard from Richfield. People have prefaced their remarks today some of them by saying I plan to get up. I am up and I planned it others have said I didn't plan to get up and I'm up. I'm on the in the camp that had really not plan to get up but hours ago. I took the quote because it seems significant that representative stole made. And I may have one word out of place here, but I believe it was I tend to think that when it's all over referring I believe to today when it's all over that. This will be a political decision rather than a moral one. Raised an interesting question. I think there are people in each of the caucuses. I put myself in the category. Anyhow that were thin skin. Egg and ice too much over things probably on occasion ought not have the jobs that we've got gotta toughen up a little bit. I would hope that certainly there's more at stake here today. The judgment is not a political one on either side. It's not for me. I've taken the materials. I've tried to read them some of us who are not on the committee who have been in conference committees and so on and have looked these over and I don't think we can continue to belabor what's happened in each of the campaign's how there were Miss statements made untruth falses falsehoods, but I had that for the first time last fall sort of crept up on me. Didn't know how to handle it. It affects your family. It really does your friends your campaign workers there in the last week. What are you going to do? What can you do about a misstatement a sense of panic really disappointment? You're hurt. You become almost immobilized. This happened. I called up friends of mine and my district is many of you probably know it's a swing district and I'll tell you without the Republicans there. I wouldn't be in the in the house today and I called up Republicans and Democrats. What am I going to do about this? Well, it was probably enough people won't read it. (03:27:11) They'll throw it away. Anyhow (03:27:14) lot of people if they do read it, they just plain won't believe it about you that was reassuring those two things. I said well, what can we do (03:27:25) if I lose then I file some charges or something. (03:27:29) It'll be interpreted as sour grapes if I win and do the same thing and pursue it. They'll say what's the use you want? It's a dilemma. Continued to plague me, even though I was fortunate enough to win. What about those people who did believe the misstatements and in the midst of all of us this I don't know representative pavlok well, but I do know from both sides of the aisle that people do like him they really do and I hope to get to know him better myself, but one thing that stood out as we agonized in my campaign towards the end there. Younger son is 12 years old you get this but Mom, it's not true. It's not true about it what they're saying about you. I didn't do anything about it. I hope and this discussion today. Mr. Speaker is one of process. Not versus but process and person and it simply is not as comfortable to be arguing on the side of process as it is on the side of person but there is emotion that can go with process as well as with person. I hope mr. Speaker and members of the body that however this goes. However, the vote is it's a vote for process. So that I don't nor any of you nor anybody else running for office ever again has to say look at your son daughter campaign workers anybody else and stand there without an answer when they say to you Mom. It's just not true and you don't know what to say to him. Thank you. This is awesome. Sally Olsen dfl ER. I'm sorry independent republican from Golden Valley. I had a number of things that I wanted to say today about the facts in the case. I've read these materials. I served on the committee and I think there were a number of things that I should point out to you. But some of the last few comments, I think carry more significance for us. One of the problems that were in is exactly the process. The process is representative Pavlik was accused of doing something he went before a court. He was found innocent. It wasn't good enough for some people. So he was brought before a second Court. And the second Court did not overturn the findings of the first court. But that still wasn't good enough. He is brought before a third court today. How many times are each of us required to prove our innocence? That is a process? Secondly, we might ask the question about the process in this chamber. on Monday when representative pavlok wasn't here. Some members of this body insisted that we move forward. They simply could not wait. We went to the committee on General legislation again. Nobody said we ought not to conduct the hearing there was a simple request we ought to wait until representative Pat a black is back here so that we can question him so that he can listen so that he can prepare his own defense. We ought to wait. But who is listening? Who is protecting that process? Who is rushing it? That doesn't deal with the facts of the case. It doesn't deal with the good faith or the bad faith of Bob Pavlik. It deals with the good faith in the bad faith of each of us in this chamber. There is nothing that says that we cannot postpone our action on this matter for a short while even for a date certain. It is my understanding. Although it is second-hand information to me. That's some negotiations have been attempted and have failed which in private which would have allowed this to wait a few weeks. Perhaps even one month but a few weeks. I think it's interesting. That if we look back in history, and again, I'm reminded. That somebody was warned to beware the Ides of March. And I wonder if representative Pavlik. Should have been aware. Somebody should have issued him the caveat beware the Ides of May. A number of people have stood up and professed their friendship for representative Pat black. I am not a friend of Representative Pavlik. I am a an acquaintance. I barely know him. I do not sit on any committees with him. I am not office next to him. I have an acquaintance with him. Yet many people are professing friendship. I wonder going back to the Ides of May and do and Julius Caesar the person I'm thinking about. That one representative Pavlik sees you if he might say at to boot a and you too Brutus. And I am reminded of the story that representative honor has referred to. the person in that case in history had a friend. We remember his name. His name was Judas. And we remember. That Judas betrayed his friend for 30 pieces of silver. And we also remember what happened to Judas. He went out and he hanged himself. And then we remember that the Sanhedrin could not find the accused guilty. And we remember that pilot could not find the accused guilty. And we remember that pilot said I wash my hands of this. And that reminds me of another story. And that is the story of Macbeth. And do you recall what Lady Macbeth did after she had done the dastardly deed? She wiped her hands and she said out damn spot out. How many of us will have spots to wipe from our hands after today? I think we need to ask ourselves. Whether what we are doing will be self-serving and a grab for power. Or whether what we are doing will be for the power of the people because we too have a copy odd or a warning and I would ask you to look up there. It says box (03:36:06) pop lorem as the Box (03:36:08) D the voice of the people is the voice of God. Sally Olsen is from st. Louis Park. And this is Myron nice Etheridge independent Republican members of the body. I (03:36:29) I've been a little troubled (03:36:31) by some of the speeches (03:36:41) and I'm trouble because I don't believe that there's any one in. In this body that ought to be inferred to be a traitor. And I think that it's not (03:36:56) appropriate. (03:37:00) That we compare. What we're about today? To an event in history of 2,000 years ago. That is of a much different sort of (03:37:15) significance. (03:37:20) I think that. My colleague to the South. Mr. Eakins point was a (03:37:29) good one. (03:37:32) And that is that we better do what we have to do. without impugning one another's integrity. Or one another's motives. and I know because I talked with mr. Pharisee moments after he left the chamber we chatted briefly out on the balcony, and I know that he and (03:38:02) many. (03:38:06) representatives from the other side of the aisle are deeply troubled by what we are about just as those of us on this side of the aisle are but I think we should not get. Too carried away (03:38:30) here. Because (03:38:34) it's just not appropriate. I don't think of any person here no matter how he or she will vote as A Brutus or or a (03:38:49) Judas? (03:38:53) And I just wanted to I felt I had to say (03:38:58) this. Myron nice feather from Roseau. Minnesota is my profession Lutheran Minister who's Bruce Nelson was independent republican from Staples. (03:39:11) One of the key things have been discussed. Today is good faith. and I guess That's the part that troubles me the (03:39:24) most. Because I (03:39:29) can. determined good faith or lack of it. When the person who was supposed to have exercised it has not been a part of the whole (03:39:43) process. (03:39:48) I agree with representative rolls. It's not what we're doing. It's the way we're doing it. The one thing that bothered me all session. Has been the high number of votes that we've all cast that we don't really feel in our gut. Are right? But we're doing something collectively instead of individually. And maybe the end product is all right. And we know that there's some reassurance in what we're doing that the end product is going to be alright. We hope so and we can vote collectively because of it. There's been a lot of those (03:40:39) votes. (03:40:41) And I hope that this isn't one of them. This is not the time. Nor the place to do it. At a time when the accused is not been present will not be present. For the rest of this legislative session all of us have bills in committee. every one of us That were maybe trying to get out and how often we hear. We're going to have to lay that over till next session. We just don't have time to deal with that. Good bill. But not this (03:41:25) matter. (03:41:31) We couldn't wait. And I'm not going to make any accusations that the vote that's about to be cast as a political vote. I am not prejudging anybody on that. But somewhere there was a decision made to deal with it this time and in this manner, and I wonder if that decision was in good faith. When this is all over I wonder who's going to have the first bill up on special orders. and I (03:42:06) hope (03:42:20) I guess not. I know it is representative Pavlik went through. I hope and I pray that we can set our feelings aside. And be representatives of our district and deal with the issues. when this is all over the same way we have earlier this session. You people out there in my friends. I love you all. Thank you. (03:42:57) Mr. Jairus (03:43:00) speaker some speakers have today have asked me to cast this vote on the basis of whether mr. Pavlik acted in good or bad faith. I cannot make that decision. I don't believe that any judge politician journalist or anybody is capable of making a decision whether or not somebody else acted in bad faith or good (03:43:30) faith. (03:43:33) What our decision has to be based on is on evidence physical evidence, and I don't think there's anybody that disagrees that what control those contained in the editorial of whatever the date was three days, November 4th 78 is not fault and that it was distributed and approved approved and distributed by the Campaign Committee That's the decision that we have to make based on physical evidence. Metaphysical Supernatural decisions can only be made by God not by politicians judges or anybody else. (03:44:23) The Minnesota House of Representatives has been engaged in a debate since about 10:30 quarter to 11:00 this morning on whether representative. Robert Cadillac should be unseated for violating the campaign laws in his campaign in 1978. The Debate began at about a quarter to 11 with a request that the speaker rule that take a two-thirds vote to unseat representative pad lack at about 11:30 or so that ruling by the speaker was overturned 67 265 and ever since then the two sides have been arguing the case both for and against the unseating of Representative Pavlik the debate as you have been following for the past time has become a bit repetitious. Most of the major points have been made. I think at this point we're going to end our live coverage of the debate. However, we will keep you up-to-date on the developments will have a report on what the final outcome is at the earliest possible convenience and a complete summary of the debate here on the house floor during all (03:45:31) things considered this evening (03:45:33) the funds for this broadcast were provided by the Minneapolis Tribune technical director Linda Marie, this is Bob putter speaking and your tune to Minnesota Public Radio a listener-supported service