Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Powers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House deadlocks on emergency-powers overhaul after hours of debate; measure ultimately tabled
Summary
Debate over House File 21, which would automatically end a governor-declared emergency after 14 days unless extended by a three-fifths vote of each chamber, produced divided votes and amendments; the bill failed an initial vote and was later laid on the table after a successful reconsideration and procedural motions.
House File 21, a bill that would change Minnesota law so a governor-declared peacetime emergency would automatically expire after 14 days unless extended by a three-fifths vote of both the House and Senate, prompted extended floor debate on Feb. 26 and a series of amendments and procedural contests. The bill did not pass on initial final passage and was later laid on the table after a reconsideration vote.
Representative Kristen Robbins, the bill’s author, said the proposal would ‘‘fundamentally change the orientation of the governor's emergency powers’’ to require bipartisan legislative support for extensions beyond 14 days. ‘‘This bill will change that fundamental orientation so that the governor can still declare an emergency, but after 14 days, the emergency would expire automatically unless it was extended by a 3/5ths vote of both the House and the Senate,’’ Representative Robbins told the chamber.
Opponents warned the change would hamper rapid executive response to certain emergencies. Representative Bonner emphasized cybersecurity risks, citing recent incident counts handled by state IT and national trends, and said some cyber incidents can last longer than 14 days and require continuity of executive authority. ‘‘That is an emergency... With time and persistence, the cyber attack will succeed,’’ Representative Bonner said in floor remarks.
Floor action included several amendments. Representative Robbins’ offered A1, which prohibits the governor from simply declaring successive 14-day emergencies for the same circumstances; that amendment was adopted after a roll call (67 ayes, 66 nays). Representative Alten Dorf offered an amendment (A6) that enumerated protections for specified constitutional rights and proposed shortening the automatic-expiration period to 10 days; the A6 amendment was divided and both portions were adopted in divided votes (first portion 127-6; second portion 67-66). Representative Long offered DE1 (substituting language from a different bill, House File 26) but the speaker sustained a point of order finding the amendment not germane; the ruling was appealed and the House upheld the speaker’s ruling 67-66.
After final debate, the clerk announced a closely divided roll-call result on final passage: the bill failed on the floor (the clerk recorded 67 ayes and 67 nays and announced the bill did not pass). Representative Niska then moved to reconsider; the motion to reconsider carried on a roll call (67-66), and Representative Nisga moved to lay House File 21 on the table; the motion to lay on the table prevailed, ending further immediate floor action on the bill.
Votes and formal actions (selected) - Amendment A1 (Robbins): Adopted on roll call, 67 ayes, 66 nays — prevented consecutive automatic renewals for the same circumstances. - Division and adoption of A6 (Alten Dorf): First portion adopted (127 ayes, 6 nays); second portion adopted (67 ayes, 66 nays). - DE1 (Long): Ruled not germane by the speaker; appeal of that ruling failed (67 ayes to uphold the chair, 66 nays against). - Final passage vote on House File 21: Recorded tie/near-tie and the bill did not pass (clerk recorded 67 ayes and 67 nays). - Motion to reconsider: Carried (67 ayes, 66 nays). - Motion to lay on the table: Adopted (non-debatable motion; voice vote reported as prevailing).
Why it mattered Supporters said the bill would prevent an extended unilateral emergency period by the governor and require bipartisan legislative agreement for long-term emergency measures; they tied the measure to public complaints about the 2020–21 COVID-19 emergency. Opponents said the change would limit the executive branch’s ability to respond to fast-moving, technical, or large-scale emergencies—examples cited included cyberattacks, contagious disease outbreaks, and infrastructure failures—and could imperil continuity of government operations when a quick executive response is required.
Next steps Because the bill was laid on the table, it is not advancing immediately. Sponsors said they would continue to press the policy in future sessions or seek alternative drafting; opponents argued the current statutory structure preserves necessary executive capacity in emergencies.
Speakers and attribution Direct quotes and attributions in this article come only from persons who spoke on the House floor and are listed in the speakers section below.
