Summary
Republicans temporarily gain a 67-66 majority in the Minnesota House after Democrat Curtis Johnson resigned over a residency ruling.
Johnson, deemed ineligible by a judge, chose not to appeal, prompting Gov. Tim Walz to schedule a Jan. 28 special election in the Democratic-leaning district Johnson won by 30 points.
Republicans will control committees and legislative processes until then, potentially advancing their agenda and launching investigations into the Walz administration.
Meanwhile, the Minnesota Senate is split 33-33 after a Democratic senator’s death, with another special election pending.
Democrats remain confident of regaining both seats.
I think vacant seats should automatically count as a no vote.
Otherwise we have shenanigans…
Why should vacant seats get a vote?
So you have a hypothetical 218-217 US House, only a majority of one seat
Senate and President are the opposite party of the house
two members of the majority party mysteriously dies
house majority flips
theres now a government trifecta
free reign to pass laws until the special elections happen
Vancancy = “No” Vote, means that it doesn’t matter how many of your opponents you assassinate, you can’t gain a majority by killing and bypassing elections.
And if you assassinate those who would be voting yes?
See the thing is. Things should be made as fail-safe not fail-deadly.
[Edit:
TLDR: I kinda rambled a bit. But my point is:
Its better for a good law being slightly delayed from a few deaths, rather than a bad law being passed because of a few deaths.]
Example:
If they want to pass a law that, say, gives everyone universal healthcare.
The president, and both chambers want to pass it. House is at 218-217, one seat majority.
Big pharma doesn’t like it and assassinates 2 members of the house that belongs to the party that wants to pass it.
Okay now they lack the votes since the 2 dead members means a “no” vote.
Okay doesn’t matter, special elections are held in a few months.
Meanwhile, an investigation is done.
The assassination plots will most likely be linked back to Big pharma.
Arrests will be made. Charges will be filed. Conviction will take longer, but its inevitable as long as theres enough evidence.
The assassination also motivated people to vote for the dead legislator’s replacement candidate that is most aligned with the dead legislator.
So, special elections happen, seats are filled.
There is now higher protection to all members of congress. Some might even have their own private security on top of that.
Law is eventuallt passed, just with slight delay.
This is also the same with or without the “Vacant = ‘No’ Vote” policy, without such policy, the bill will also fail, but with [216 yes to 217 no], instead of [216 yes to 219 no], the assassinations are just a minor delay. Its not like they could assassinate the president, some senators at the same time, if that happened, there’d be bigger issues anyways.
In contrast, the other scenario involves the President and Senate wanting to pass a law that give the government more power, but the house opposes, by a 218-217 vote. So they assassinate 2 house members voting no.
If theres mo “Vacant = No” policy, then they could pass any “Enabling Act” now with the 2 members voting no dead.
But with the “Vacant = No” rule, they can kill 5 or 10 members of the house, and still cant get an “Enabling Act” through. But meanwhile, investigations would happen and the plot would be revealed. But had “Vacant = No” rule not exist, they would already passed the Enabling act would would allow them to interfere with the investigations into the assassination plots.
When theres power shifts in the legislature due to deaths, its better to be safe and make it harder to pass laws rather that make it easier.
Couldn’t they just like, play opposite day for whatever they want?