The Minnesota House on a final vote passed House File 2432, an omnibus bill covering public safety, judiciary and related data-practices provisions, after extended floor debate and multiple amendments. The bill cleared the House as amended by a recorded vote the clerk reported as 128 yeas and 4 nays.

The bill drew particular attention for a package of budget and policy items for law enforcement, corrections and victim services. Representative Mueller, co-chair of the Public Safety Committee, described the measure as one that “recognize[s] the importance” of victim services and noted federal funding uncertainty; she said the committee included what state dollars it could and highlighted recruitment and training investments for law enforcement. Representative Novotny, the bill’s author and public safety committee co-chair, said the bill “will make a difference in Minnesota.”

House File 2432 combines operating and policy changes for multiple agencies. Sponsors and supporters pointed to: funding for victim services (discussed on the floor as $16,000,000 in the bill for victim services), targeted operating adjustments for judiciary personnel to hold pay “harmless,” restoration of a guardian ad litem volunteer program with new FTEs for training, expanded corrections funding and recruitment efforts, technical updates to forensic navigator responsibilities, and statutory changes to protect judges’ private information from easy public lookup. The bill also includes a range of policy items the committee processed, from Met Council data-practices changes to a provision aligning penalties for exposing children or vulnerable adults to fentanyl with existing statutes for other controlled substances.

Floor action included several amendments. A floor amendment carried by Representative Robbins (coded A10 on the floor) — described by the sponsor as increasing transparency for small cities by making certain settlement details public — was adopted by voice vote. Representative Robbins framed that amendment as making municipalities subject to the same disclosure requirements as larger jurisdictions when they reach employee settlements.

Some offered amendments were withdrawn. Representative Niska withdrew an amendment tied to earlier debate about recordings involving the attorney general (the transcript shows the A11 amendment was withdrawn). Representative Scott withdrew an amendment (A13) that would have redirected increased prisoner phone revenues to hire and pay corrections officers after the author described a steep rise in monthly minutes used in correctional facilities; Scott said she would withdraw the amendment for further study.

One of the most contested floor amendments, offered by Representative Reimer (A15), would have required reporting to federal immigration authorities in certain local arrests and blocked state or local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The amendment prompted extensive debate on the floor. Opponents — including Representative Feist and other members who cited letters submitted in committee — argued the amendment risked public-safety harms by undermining trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. Rep. Feist said, "This amendment is not going to achieve public safety goals," and pointed to statements from national and local law enforcement organizations raising concerns about commingling local policing with federal civil immigration enforcement. Supporters of the amendment invoked specific violent-crime cases and urged additional reporting and communication with federal authorities; Representative Reimer said the amendment was intended to “increase communication between all pertinent law enforcement.”

During debate on germaneness and procedure, members invoked House rules (including House Rule 3.21 and a supplemental rule provision described on the floor) and Mason’s parliamentary guidance; a separate, earlier appeal of the presiding officer’s ruling on germaneness produced a roll-call sequence and extended floor discussion about whether the chamber should enforce the plain language of a supplemental agreement governing appeals and what that language requires. The transcript records a roll call on that procedural appeal and many members speaking to the importance of honoring rules and interparty agreements, but the speaker ruled the point of order not well taken and the appeal was ultimately upheld by the presiding officer; the underlying procedural record in the transcript includes the argument but does not change the bill text.

Committee and floor speakers noted funding constraints throughout debate. Representative Mueller said the public safety committee had been given a target of $50,000,000 in each biennium for public-safety-related operating adjustments but cautioned that, even with that total, operating needs for agencies such as the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Department of Corrections would not be fully met. Multiple members urged continuing work in conference committee to address funding shortfalls and to protect victim services and staffing investments.

The bill’s passage on the House floor completes one chamber’s action and sends the measure to the conference process with the Senate. Representative Novotny thanked staff and committee members before the vote and said the package was intended to cover many operating adjustments and policy items; Representative Mueller repeated a request that members consult local advocacy groups and service providers about victim-services needs as the bill moves forward. The final recorded announcement on the floor was, “There being 128 yeas, 4 nays, the bill is passed as amended, and its title is agreed to.”

Votes at a glance: House File 2432 (third reading as amended) — final passage recorded as 128 yeas, 4 nays. Robbins amendment (A10) — adopted by the House (voice vote; recorded on the floor as prevailing). Amendments A11 (attorney general/transparency) and A13 (prisoner-phone funds to corrections) were withdrawn by their sponsors on the floor. Representative Reimer’s immigration-related amendment (A15) received extended debate and a roll-call process on the floor; the transcript records the debate and roll-call sequence but does not state an outcome for that amendment in the excerpted record provided here.

Reporter’s note: This article reports floor statements and actions recorded in the Minnesota House transcript excerpt provided. It does not infer outcomes beyond the actions explicitly recorded (for example, the transcript excerpt shows extended debate and a roll call for certain amendments but does not include a numbered tally for every amendment).