On Thursday, Republicans in the Minnesota House of Representatives brought their first bill of the 2025 legislative session to the floor for a full vote.
Authored by Majority Leader Harry Niska, R-Ramsey, HF 20 would expand the amount of data in the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office (AGO) that is considered public data.
In particular, the bill would allow non-active investigative data, consumer complaint data, policy files, administrative files, and other matters from the AGO to become requestable, public data as long as it is not “data on individuals.”
Discussing his bill on the House floor, Niska explained that HF 20 would protect private data about individuals while also ensuring that relevant data from the AGO is accessible to the public in accordance with Minnesota’s public disclosure law.
“Government transparency needs to be an absolute value in our democracy,” said Niska. “We cannot hold our elected officials accountable, including those in such important positions as the attorney general’s office, unless we know what’s going on in that office.”
Niska said his bill corrects a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in which the court issued a 4-3 decision that extended special privacy protections for data about individuals to data that does not implicate individual privacy.
The case was related to a lawsuit filed by Energy Policy Advocates (EPA) against Attorney General Keith Ellison in 2020. In its lawsuit, EPA alleged that Ellison’s office withheld records on its hiring of outside lawyers funded by “Bloomberg Philanthropies, a charity organized by ‘climate’ activist Michael Bloomberg.”
Rep. Jamie Long, the House DFL floor leader, urged legislators to vote against the bill during Thursday’s floor debate. The DFL lawmaker criticized the bill as a “political attack on the attorney general’s office” and warned that HF 20 could allow for the disclosure of AGO data that is subsequently used against consumers and producers.
Long also told legislators that HF 20 was designed to thwart and jeopardize Ellison’s various efforts on climate issues, consumer protection, and combating opioids.
When the vote was taken, 67 Republicans voted for the bill and 65 DFLers voted against it. However, legislation in the Minnesota House requires at least 68 votes to pass. At present, there are 67 Republicans, 66 Democrats, and one vacancy in the 134-member chamber.
After it became apparent that the bill would not achieve the 68 votes required for passage, Niska changed his vote from “aye” to “nay.” This meant that HF 20 failed on a vote of 66-66.
A spokesperson from the House Republican Caucus later explained that Niska changed his vote in order to make a motion to reconsider HF 20. House rules require a member to be on the prevailing side of the prior vote in order to offer a motion to reconsider. As such, the majority leader needed to switch his vote at the last minute to bring the motion.
On the House floor, Niska explained that he was bringing the motion to reconsider to give the Democrats another opportunity to vote for the bill. The motion to reconsider, which does not require 68 votes, passed 67-65. HF 20 was subsequently “laid on the table,” meaning it was set aside and can be taken up later at any time.
Alpha News reached out to the Attorney General’s Office for this story but did not immediately hear back.
Luke Sprinkel
Luke Sprinkel previously worked as a Legislative Assistant at the Minnesota House of Representatives. He grew up as a Missionary Kid (MK) living in England, Thailand, Tanzania, and the Middle East. Luke graduated from Regent University in 2018.
