Virtual File - Item

Text: [PDF is missing page 1]

Mr . Russell Fridley
February 6, 1980
Page Two
However, during this negotiation and even during most of the first
session, one problem hung over the entire agreement and the Independent
Republican Caucus in particular: The Damocles ' sword of a contested
election. Mr. Bob Pavlak, upset winner in District 67A, had sent out
some information at the end of the 1978 campaign which copied an
editorial that appeared in the St. Paul paper containing false information.
Because of this and because of the closeness of Pavlak's defeat
of Representative Arne Kempe, the election was challenged in court. The
court, in late December, came down with a decision that vindicated Pavlak,
but this was appealed. The appeal went up to the Supreme Court and was
held throughout virtually all of the first session. Towards the end of
the first session, in late May , the decision came down which was adverse
to Representative Pavlak, but said that the decision had to be made in
the House on whether Pavlak should retain his seat. The DFL, on a
straight party-line vote , threw Mr. Pavlak out of the House, which
resulted in a special election in June. In June, unfortunately, the
DFL candidate beat Bob Pavlak, which upset the 67-67 balance and gave
the DFL a majority.
Because of their majority , the DFL should have taken control of the
House in June. However, there was doubt that this could be done because
of the nature of some language contained in the Organizational Agreement
between the caucuses . In addition, due to severe internal DFL Caucus
dissension created by a strong dislike for Representative Anderson ' s
modus operandi, the DFL Caucus could not unite and no change in House
organization occurred. This dissension solidified during the summer
and fall of 1979, much to the chagrin of the DFL Caucus . They simply
were unable to mend their own wounds . Late in 1979 and early in 1980,
Representative Anderson made attempts to do this , but many dissident
DFLers had gone too far in opposition and simply could not support him.
The result was a substantial fracture within the DFL Caucus: a minority
group of liberals opposing Representative Anderson and the remainder
supporting him. The liberals -had been substantially affected by
Representative Anderson over the past few months and, in many cases,
over the past few years. They coalesced their opposition and continued
to approach the Independent Republicans for a coalition speaker. The
possibility of a coalition had been discussed since the June special
' election but became more likely as the session drew near. These
dissidents wanted a DFL speaker, but definitely not Representative
Anderson.
With this continued caucus upheaval , the Independent Republicans were
uncertain as to how to proceed. They did not wish to engage in a coalition
government and then lose because Representative Anderson, should he then
become speaker, would extract a fearsome revenge. Thus the Independent
Republicans wanted some ironclad guarantees from the dissidents . These

Mr. Russell Fridley
February 6, 1980
Page Three
guarantees basically involved putting Representative Norton's name into
nomination when the House reconvened on January 22, 1980 and at l east 19
votes in his favor at the end of the first roll call . In addition,
Independent Republicans wanted an even split on the Rules Committee , a
new Rules Committee chairman and minimal organizational changes . this, the Independent Republicans felt that the dissidents would show
their good-faith seriousness and the effort would be worth pursuing.
The dissidents accepted these conditions and pushed their efforts to
keep Representative Anderson from the speaker's chair. This caused
much animosity within the DFL Caucus, but it did not boil over because
many people felt that the dissidents would finally support Representative
Anderson when the real voting took place. Representative Anderson's
faction tried to assuage the feelings of the dissidents to minimize any
potential negative impact on Representative Anderson ' s speakers hip chances.
Anderson himself held a press conference shortly before the reconvening
of the session to announce his chairmen of various committees. I n this
list, he was generous to many of his opponents. He obviously hoped that
this would help bring wayward members of his caucus back to his banner.
Meanwhile , the Independent Republicans simply kept their channels of
communication open with the dissidents and planned accordingly . Thus
the stage was set for January 22, 1980.
On January 22, tension mounted as 12 o'clock drew near. Representative
Anderson still confidently expected to be nominated, though he di d expect
some opposition to his nomination on the floor . Independent Republicans
were expecting to have Representative Norton ' s name put into nomination ,
which it was , but we were not really clear as to what Representative
Anderson was thinking or what he felt his options would be. It was our
thinking that Representative Anderson expected opposition on the first
ballot, but then that opposition to be diffused after the second and
third ballot s by the strong peer pressure of Democratic Caucus loyalty
and the operations of his lieutenants . Further, if worse came to worse ,
we also even felt that he could substitute somebody else for speaker,
though clearly we felt that he would push as long as he- possibly could
to secure the objective that he has sought for some years.
When the voting took place , Representative Harry Sieben-, Democratic Caucus
floor leader, put Representative Anderson ' s name into nomination. Representative
Glen Anderson then put Representative .Norton ' s name into
nomination . Representative Dave Jennings then put Representative Searle's
name into nomination. The nominations were closed and the balloting was
viva ~- votes , had 66 votes. Representative Searle then moved, before the balloting was
closed, to switch his vote to Norton, after which followed 48 other
Republicans. This gave Representative Norton 75 votes , Representative
Anderson 42 votes and Representative Searle 16 votes, which was more than
enough to elect Mr. Norton speaker . One dissident Independent Republican ,
least call. Committee, changes. With
faith Th i s Representative
Anderson's speakership session committees. In Meanwhile, accordingly. did floor. Norton's nomination,
was, ballots Democratic lieutenants. if worse,
place, Sieben, Anderson's Norton's nomination. Representative taken viva voCe. When the last name was called, Representative Anderson
had 45 votes, Representative Norton had 23 votes and Representative Searle
votes, speaker. dissident Independent Republican,
Mr. Russell Fridley
February 6, 1980
Page Four
Representative Doug Carlson, voted for Representative John Rose. To
detail this , I have attached a copy of the vote count that I took on
the floor while this was going on. The X' s indicate the first vote of
each member of the House, but the arrows then show how the voting changed
when Representative Searle got up and changed his vote . As you will see ,
49 Republicans switched to Representative Norton, as also did three
Democrats.
After assuming the chair of speaker and being duly sworn in, Representative
Norton gave his speech and announced that on Thursday he would
nominate a 26- member Rules Committee which shall be comprised of 13
Democrats and 13 Independent Republicans. This was one of the major
trading points that the Independent Republicans had requested as a
condition for shifting their votes. This insures that the Independent
Republicans have some measure of say in the running of the House and
will not have to suffer under the perceived abuses of the potential
Anderson speakership. In addition to this, Independent Republicans
secured the promise that there would be virtually no committee member
changes so that the existing committee structures would remain basically
as they are with the exception that Democrats would be committee chairmen
and vice chairmen. This, again, was one of the guarantees that the
Independent Republicans demanded .
Henceforth, the deliberations of the House will depend in great measure
upon the ability of the DFL to heal some of their own internal wounds ,
though those wounds run deep and it is doubtful that they will ever be
healed for years to come . Thus, on all procedural challenges, the 49
Independent Republicans and 26 Democrats who voted for Representative
Fred Norton will have to vote together in order to keep the governing
coalition in power . What remains to be seen is if this bloodless coup
could lead to a purge of the present DFL leadership, which seems to be
almost a requisite corollary of the speakership action.