Politics we can be proud of
© 2026 Majority in the Middle CC BY-NC-ND
Majority in the Middle Copyright Disclaimer
This Copyright Disclaimer (“Disclaimer”) sets forth the rights, limitations, and obligations concerning the use of copyrighted materials owned by Majority in the Middle. By accessing or using any materials, content, or intellectual property owned by Majority in the Middle, you acknowledge and agree to the terms of this Disclaimer.
Copyright Ownership: All materials, content, and intellectual property, including but not limited to text, images, graphics, logos, audio, video, and software, made available on Majority in the Middle’s website, publications, or other platforms, are protected by copyright laws and owned by Majority in the Middle unless otherwise stated.
Permission for Personal Use: You may view, download, or print copyrighted materials from Majority in the Middle solely for personal, non-commercial use.
Disclaimer of Liability: Majority in the Middle shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or special damages arising out of or in connection with the use of copyrighted materials, including but not limited to errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the content or loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any copyrighted material.
Modification and Termination: By accessing or using any copyrighted materials owned by Majority in the Middle, you acknowledge and agree to abide by the terms of this Copyright Disclaimer. If you do not agree with any of these terms, please refrain from accessing or using the copyrighted materials.
For any inquiries regarding this Disclaimer, please contact Shannon Watson, Executive Director.
Welcome
Welcome to the 2026 “The State of Bipartisanship” report produced by Majority in the Middle.
Majority in the Middle is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that promotes systems, tools, and stories that help leaders govern effectively in a polarized civic climate.
This report is designed to analyze bipartisan bill authorship as one important reflection of effective collaboration. This effort identifies where cooperation happens, elevating those who are leading the way. The report also aims to collect replicable ideas to cultivate a healthier political environment -- in St. Paul and in state capitols across the country.
Our first report in 2023 set the baseline and uncovered what we named hidden bipartisanship: the work being done across the aisle that doesn’t get a lot of attention and isn’t reflected in the outcome of large omnibus bills when final votes fall along party lines.
Our 2026 report, the fourth report we’ve published, is the first opportunity for a full comparison of bill introductions and committee hearings across an entire biennium, as the Minnesota legislature operates on a two-year biennial cycle.
Why Highlight Bipartisanship?
In the current political environment, everywhere from DC to state capitols across the country, bipartisanship is on display less than most Americans would like.
Binary red-vs-blue narratives lead Minnesotans to believe that legislators are irreparably segregated along party lines. This report shows that’s not entirely true.
Bipartisanship is difficult to measure, as it’s highly qualitative, subjective, and relationship-based. We have chosen one quantitative measure we believe provides an illustration of some of the work that goes on at the State Capitol: bill authorship.
Legislators who are collaborating with colleagues across the aisle should get credit for the work they’re doing. This report, the only one of its kind in Minnesota, uncovers where that credit is due.
Even though some lawmakers may face backlash over their bipartisan work, we know there are many constituents who not only applaud that effort, they expect it.
The bottom line: even when the legislative bodies are tied, and working together is not just an ideal but a requirement, there is a lot of bipartisanship at work in Minnesota, and there is also room for improvement.
What Systems Have Been Designed?
If there is one lesson that emerges clearly from this research, it is that bipartisan behavior is not an accident — it is a product of structures and incentives. Legislators respond to the environments they operate in. When the rules, norms, and expectations reward collaboration, we see more of it. When they reward conflict, we get exactly that.
Rules, leadership decisions, caucus culture, and even the physical layout of the capitol shape how lawmakers interact. Structures that create shared work — leadership expectations, bipartisan working groups, co-presented bills — make collaboration easier and more natural. Conversely, structures that isolate members or concentrate power in a few hands tend to reduce opportunities for relationship‑building and shared problem‑solving.
Incentives matter just as much. Legislators are human. They respond to what earns them credibility, safety, and support. When the loudest political incentives come from nationalized media ecosystems or hyper‑partisan communicators, collaborative behavior becomes riskier. But when peers, constituents, community leaders, local media, and civic organizations publicly value bipartisan work, the incentive landscape can shift. Lawmakers gain cover — and sometimes courage — to act in ways that reflect Minnesota’s shared governing tradition rather than national polarization.
The takeaway is clear: if we want more bipartisan behavior, we must design for it. Structures and incentives are levers that make a difference.
A Tale of Two Power Structures
This biennium the House operated under an unusual power‑sharing model: every committee but one was co‑chaired, bipartisan support was required for bills to advance. At the end of the biennium, the DFL had a chief author on 51% of the bills heard, Republican chief authors on 49%. Like normal, only a fraction of bills were enacted into law, but unusually, any progress depended on bipartisan support.
The Senate, by contrast, followed a traditional winner‑take‑all structure for all but the first three weeks of the 2025 session. With the DFL holding a one‑seat majority, control of committees and agendas remained solely with the DFL caucus. That dynamic showed up in the numbers: 79% of the bills heard in the Senate had DFL chief authors.
The two chambers functioned under fundamentally different expectations about how power is distributed and how work moved.
This isn’t entirely dissimilar to the way legislators navigate systems inside and outside the building -- they reflect the dual pressures legislators face in a politically divided environment. On one hand, the structure of the tie in the House incentivized cooperation: bipartisan support was required for bills to become law. On the other hand, the current political climate (driven by activists, allies, constituents, and media) doesn’t frequently reward bipartisanship.
The legislature is navigating two realities at once: a procedural need for collaboration and a political impulse toward division. The result is a session where more bipartisan work is visible — but so is the sharpening of partisan identity. This tension is not a flaw of the system, but a feature of governing in a moment where trust is fragile, incentives are shifting, and every bill carries both policy and political weight.
Topline Results
This year’s The State of Bipartisanship Report confirms what many Minnesotans already sense: despite the noise, bipartisan collaboration is still happening — and happening more consistently than the public narrative suggests. The data show that cross‑party bill sponsorship, shared committee work, and bipartisan floor votes remain a routine part of governing. In other words, bipartisanship is not disappearing; it’s simply less visible than the conflict that dominates headlines and social media.
Our topline findings reinforce a pattern we’d seen in the prior year: any legislation that became law had to pass with support from both parties. And while high‑profile issues break along party lines, the majority of the Legislature’s work — the governing work — is still shaped by negotiation, compromise, and shared problem‑solving.
These results don’t mean the system is functioning perfectly. They do, however, challenge the assumption that polarization has made collaboration impossible. The data show a more nuanced reality: bipartisan behavior is happening, and is often overshadowed by the loudest moments of disagreement.
The takeaway from the Tie Biennium is simple but important, especially in this election year with every seat on the ballot: Minnesota’s governing culture will be well served by preserving the experience of working together, and that foundation is worth strengthening.
A Subset of Statistics from the Report
Individual Legislators
69 of 70* members of the Senate, and 130 of 137* members of the House, had at least one member of the opposite party signed onto the bills they carried as the chief author.
Five Senators (two DFL and three Republican) had bipartisan co-authors on at least 50% of the bills they authored.
When sole-authored bills are subtracted from the analysis, 26 Senators (15 Republican, 11 DFL) had bipartisan co-authors on at least 50% of the bills they carried.
Eight House members (7 DFL and 1 Republican) had bipartisan co-authors on at least 50% of the bills they authored.
When sole-authored bills are subtracted from the analysis, 36 House members (22 Republican, 14 DFL) had bipartisan co-authors on at least 50% of the bills they carried.
*Elevated totals due to vacated seats and special elections throughout the biennium
Committees
Senate committees that heard the highest proportion of bills with minority chief authors:
-
Transportation – 46%
-
Taxes – 42%
-
(tie) Human Services; Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband, & Rural Development; Energy, Utilities, Environment & Climate – 28%
Senate committees that heard the highest percentage of bipartisan bills:
-
Human Services – 49%
-
Labor – 44%
-
Taxes – 43%
(All committees had at least 20%)
House committees that heard the highest percentage of bipartisan bills:
-
Ways and Means - 50%
-
Human Services - 48%
-
Health - 45%
Why We Created This Project
Surfacing hidden bipartisanship and elevating examples of bipartisan behavior are part of the organizational mission of Majority in the Middle.
It’s a fact that the cooperation and collaboration happening at state capitols don’t often get public attention – the fight does. Dueling talking points, outrageous floor speeches and social media skirmishes get much more attention than crafting nuanced public policy and developing relationships.
As an organization, we do what we can to shine more light on the bipartisanship that IS happening.
A reality we contend with: Not every legislator wants attention for their bipartisan work and not every legislator finds collaboration to be an electoral benefit in their district.
We would argue that any bipartisanship is still important. Why? All legislators, even those who run unopposed, have people in their district who didn’t vote for them. Representing all the citizens in the district, not just the ones who voted for them, is their duty.
Why We Should All Care About Bipartisanship
Bipartisanship is difficult, messy, and subjective. It is also essential.
We believe that political division in the United States is the overarching problem of our time. If you care about cost of living, mental health, immigration, democracy, climate change, school funding, you should care about political division that can slow or even block solutions that address these issues.
Big topics of justice and freedom and liberty and safety – that we all need to tackle – are off the table if we don’t reverse this trend.
Issues don’t get solved when we’re divided. Instead, power and public policy swings back and forth on a pendulum, from one extreme to another.
Divisiveness means that issues that didn't used to be controversial are now partisan. Our culture and political system need to incentivize and reward collaboration if we are going to make progress on challenging problems.
Bipartisanship as a Tool
Bipartisanship in the Minnesota Legislature isn’t just a nice idea — it’s how good policy gets made.
Minnesota is a purple state, thus meaningful and lasting change only happens when lawmakers from both sides work together. When leaders put party politics aside and focus on what Minnesotans actually need, policies end up being stronger, longer-lasting, and more representative of the state’s diverse communities.
When legislators collaborate, they build policies that stick, rather than being reversed when the balance of power shifts. Most Minnesotans want solutions, not party loyalty, and bipartisanship is a way to make sure our government is working for everyone.
Our focus on bipartisanship is not about bipartisanship for its own sake — it’s about getting things done and creating a more collaborative culture at the capitol for people who choose to serve in these roles and work in these jobs.
Leaders recognize they aren’t just passing laws – they are strengthening trust in government. They’re making sure voices across the state are heard, proving that democracy works best when people meet in the middle.
Minnesota State Government is an Ideal Subject for a Study of Bipartisanship
In Minnesota, majorities in the House and Senate, and the occupant of the Governor’s office, have been held by members of different parties in 32 of the last 36* years.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “Among the 99 state legislative chambers, Minnesota’s House has experienced the most party control flips over the past 50 years, having done so 10 times before [2025].”**
This split control of government is a recipe for forced bipartisanship – every idea that becomes law must be vetted and approved by more than one party. This idea of bipartisanship was pulled into sharp focus in 2025 with the Minnesota Senate split 33-33 until February 3, and the House split 67-67 after March 17.
“Tied chambers are rare, but not unheard of. Nationwide, over the past 20 years, elections have produced nine tied chambers—about one tie for every two-year election cycle. In the event of a tie, legislative chambers need to figure out how business will operate, as usually the majority party determines this. To solve this, half of state legislatures have rules written in statute. In the other half, including Minnesota, the parties write a power-sharing agreement.”**
*https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Minnesota_state_government
**https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/minnesota-legislature-is-tied-up-in-ties
Nobody Expected This
When this biennium began, most observers assumed the biggest challenge the legislature would face was navigating the tied House. Instead, the tie turned out to be the least dramatic part of the year. The real tests came from outside the marble halls.
The assassination of Melissa, Mark and Gilbert Hortman, the attack on the Hoffman family, and the uncertainty and fear during the two-day manhunt in June affected every member of the legislature. Speaker Hortman’s absence also changed the human calculus of the institution; it altered who people turned to, who mediated conflict, and who set the example of how to share power.
The shooting at Annunciation School in August and the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September showed that the violence was neither isolated nor partisan. Then Operation Metro Surge introduced a complex set of constitutional, operational and moral questions for Minnesotans. Positions became dividing lines at best, and irreconcilable differences between members at worst.
Layered on top was a historic number of special elections during the biennium. Relationships had to be built and rebuilt. Trust had to be earned and re‑earned. The churn made it harder to find a stable rhythm, but it also revealed something important: Minnesota’s legislature is resilient, but not invincible.
This biennium tested every assumption about how the institution functions under strain — and showed how much depends on the human infrastructure that rarely makes headlines.
“Normal” Depends on Perspective
One of the quieter but more consequential dynamics shaping bipartisan behavior this biennium was generational — not in age, but in experience.
Minnesota’s Legislature is unique in part because of the regular changes in party control, but turnover among individual members has accelerated.
As a result, fewer lawmakers have lived through both sides of the governing equation: serving in the majority and serving in the minority.
Legislators who have experienced power from multiple vantage points tend to have a more calibrated sense of what is routine, what is negotiable, and what is simply “the way things are done“ depending on the status of their party at the time. They recognize that norms are not personal; they are structural.
This dynamic was especially visible among many DFL members who entered during the recent trifecta. Their baseline for “normal” was shaped by a moment when their caucus could set the agenda without needing to negotiate with, need votes from, or even consider the perspective of members of the minority party.
Moving into a tied chamber required a different muscle — one that some had not yet had the opportunity to develop. The result wasn’t hostility so much as disorientation and frustration. The institution functioned, but it did so while a significant share of its members were learning, in real time, what sharing power actually feels like.
What This Report is Not
Although comparisons will naturally occur, this report is not an effort to label legislators as best or worst.
Bipartisanship is complicated. Bill authorship is just one measure. Since authoring legislation is essential to legislators’ job, it is an important measure.
There are many ways a legislator can work across the aisle that are not captured in this report. It is our position that any efforts by legislators to cross the aisle and build relationships should be celebrated.
To ensure this report is objective, more subjective forms of collaboration by legislators are not measured. We are exploring opportunities to expand the scope of the report in future years and will do so if resources allow.
Vote totals, which bills passed and which did not, are also not included in this report.
There are several paths for a bill to become a law: passed as a standalone bill, as a numbered amendment, or as part of an omnibus bill or conference committee report. Following the path for an individual bill is difficult. When the work is unfinished, as it was in 2025, bills are then “reset” in special session. Mapping every provision from those reset bills to the bill from the regular session is all but impossible.
This report also does not track bills that were heard vs. which bills passed. See page 29 of the report for more information.
Click the image for a pdf of the detailed results.
This section of the report examines the authorship of bills that received a hearing in a committee during the 2025 and 2026 regular sessions.
When a bill is labeled as DFL or Republican based on the party identity of the chief author, a binary picture emerges. But bills in Minnesota have more participation beyond the chief author. A Senate bill can have up to five total authors, a House bill can have up to 35. Party affiliation of the co-authors matters as well, because a member is unlikely to put their name on a bill they – and their constituents – might view as “too extreme.”
To illustrate total authorship, we created two graphs for each committee: one showing bill hearings classified by the party affiliation of the chief author – red or blue – and one showing the same bills, with total authorship taken into account.
As you’ll see, including shades of purple to represent the proportions of Republican and DFL authors paints a very different picture. We believe it is a better illustration of the influence and participation by members of each of the political parties – especially when, in this era of omnibus bills, the red-blue divide is often more stark when it comes to final votes.
Note: We did not parse the committee numbers by date (i.e. when Republicans had a functional majority in the House, or the Senate was tied, in 2025). We also did not separate out committee hearing statistics based on which co-chair had the gavel. Co-chairs meant co-responsibility for the committee so they both get the results credited to them equally.
Click the image for a pdf of the detailed results.
Click the image for a pdf of the detailed results.
How do Individual Legislators Influence Bipartisanship?
Unlike most roles at the legislature that are based on seniority and hierarchy, individual legislators have enormous agency and power to create and cultivate bipartisan support for bills.
They do this by actively including colleagues across the aisle on their own bills, as well as signing on to bills authored by others.
These connections may be built on shared interests, from practical similarities of districts (e.g., shared county or school districts, similar industrial base) to personal (relationships, similar personal or family backgrounds, professional experience, legislative interests). Based on these commonalities, members can actively work to build these connections and collaborate on legislation.
Ideally, individuals will recognize and use that agency to build trust within their caucus while also building and nurturing relationships across the aisle – as well as down the hallway with members of the other legislative body. Every bill in the House needs a Senate companion and vice versa, so bicameral relationships are also important.
Members who serve in the 19 “split” districts – where the Representative and Senator belong to different parties – have a built-in opportunity to create bicameral bipartisan relationships just by working on legislation that affects their district.
Bill Authorship by Individual Legislators
For each member of the legislature, we counted two actions.
First, the proportion of co-authors from either party included on bills for which legislators are chief author*, and therefore in charge of leading.
Second, how frequently legislators signed onto bills as a co-author that were carried by members of their own party, versus those bills carried by members across the aisle.
The individual information is visually presented as a percentage on the graphs. Different legislators have different preferences on the number of bills they carry and/or sign onto, and sometimes their bill load is affected by other roles in the legislature.
As a reminder, it is our position that bipartisan cooperation is nuanced, and bill authorship is just one piece. There are many ways a legislator can work across the aisle that are not captured in this report.
*Our analysis differentiated bills for which the legislator was the sole author. Including party identification for those bills seemed to paint an overly partisan picture of the entire dataset. Those bills are still included, but show as grey, instead of red, blue, or a shade of purple.
Outside Factors Also Shape Bill Authorship
While legislators have some agency and choice in which bills to carry or sign onto, there are additional outside factors that influence the partisan makeup of bill authors/co-authors.
Local projects, particularly those that have to do with infrastructure needs, are often nonpartisan or bipartisan.
The party makeup of the delegation that represents a geographic area can influence the partisanship of the bill. For instance, communities represented entirely by members of the same party will have that reflected in more seemingly-partisan bills. In split districts, the opposite might be true.
Bills being driven by individuals, special interests, or advocacy groups are typically “shopped” to members of the majority for chief authorship. Obviously this biennium that strategy had to be shifted in the House, although legislators of both parties reliably carried the same bills and maintained the closest working relationships to the advocacy organizations that they were likely to work with in prior sessions.
Senate and House: Unequal Playing Fields
There are key structural realities between the two bodies in the Minnesota legislature that may contribute to partisan differences.
The Senate is a smaller group of people (67 versus 134), which makes the Senate a bit more personal. With fewer colleagues in total, it can be harder to dismiss others on a purely partisan basis.
Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years, while Senators are on a 4-4-2 cycle.*
The consistent two-year election cycle may lead House members to be in perpetual campaign mode, feeling pushed to seek media coverage, and/or to be more extreme in policies, statements and social media.
For this reason, it’s important for constituents who care about cooperation and collaboration to regularly engage with their elected officials to communicate those values.
*In election years ending in 0, Senators serve for a two-year term to accommodate the redistricting process done in conjunction with the decennial census.
Senate and House: Civility Rules
The House and Senate operate under different internal rules and rhetorical expectations, and those differences can also shape the tone of each chamber.
In the House, members may address one another directly on the floor, which naturally allows debate to become more personal, more pointed, and more reactive to the moment. The chamber’s culture tolerates — and at times encourages — sharper exchanges, because the rules create space for interpersonal dynamics to surface in real time.
The Senate, by contrast, requires members to address only the President. That structure places a layer of formality between speakers and their colleagues, creating guardrails that can diffuse tension and prevent comments that might otherwise damage working relationships.
These contrasting norms matter. The Senate’s procedural distance may protect long‑term collaboration by keeping disagreements focused on issues rather than individuals. The House’s openness can foster candor but also increases the risk of rhetoric that lingers after the vote.
This year a few members of both chambers also pushed back against broad, party‑based generalizations that oversimplified the diversity of views within each caucus. That signaled a growing awareness that maintaining space for nuance — and acknowledging internal variation — is essential to sustaining the possibility of finding common ground.
Top-level Findings
from Individual Statistics in the Senate
Senate individual chief authored bills
-
Almost every member of the Senate (69 of 70*) had at least one member of the opposite party signed onto the bills they carried as the chief author.
-
Five Senators (two DFL and three Republican) had bipartisan co-authors on at least 50% of the bills they authored, including ones they authored solely by themselves.
-
When sole-authored bills are subtracted from the analysis, 26 Senators (15 Republican, 11 DFL) had bipartisan co-authors on at least 50% of the bills they carried.
Senate individual cosigned bills
-
Three Republican Senators had DFL chief authors on at least 50% of the bills they signed onto.
-
Two DFL Senators had Republican chief authors on at least 50% of the bills they signed onto.
-
All but one (69 of 70) of the Senators co-signed at least one bill chief-authored by a member of the opposite party
*Elevated totals due to vacated seats and special elections throughout the biennium
Top-level Findings
from Individual Statistics in the House
House individual chief authored bills
-
130 of 137* members of the House had at least one member of the opposite party signed onto the bills they carried as the chief author.
-
Eight House members (seven DFL and one Republican) had bipartisan co-authors on at least 50% of the bills they authored, including ones they authored solely by themselves.
-
When sole-authored bills are subtracted from the analysis, 36 House members (22 Republican, 14 DFL) had bipartisan co-authors on at least 50% of the bills they carried.
House individual cosigned bills
-
Two Republican Representatives had DFL chief authors on at least 50% of the bills they signed onto.
-
All but two (135 of 137) of the House members co-signed at least one bill chief authored by a member of the opposite party
*Elevated totals due to vacated seats and special elections throughout the biennium
Click the image for a pdf of the detailed results.
Click the image for a pdf of the detailed results.
Best Practices
While researching this report, we identified some best practices and opportunities we would recommend for future sessions to increase cooperation and collaboration:
-
Several bipartisan bills were co-presented with members from both parties at the testifier table in both the House and the Senate during the biennium. We encourage bill sponsors and committee chairs to continue this practice.
-
We would encourage members in both chambers to alternate the seating arrangements in committee. Mixing members by party encourages relationship building, bipartisan collaboration, and more productive conversations during committee.
-
We would highly encourage both chambers to process as many stand-alone bills as possible. We aren’t calling for abolishment of all omnibus bills, that would be silly, but we do call for more judicious use of that tactic.
-
Some legislative leaders avoid signing onto bills authored by members of the other party. While leadership roles are inherently partisan, this is understandable. But we would argue that leaders are the ones who should be setting a collaborative example, so we applaud and encourage leaders to model cross-party collaboration.
Recommendations
This year we are continuing to highlight recommendations that came from our own observations, current and former legislators, staff, lobbyists and other individuals, to try and make the legislature a more collaborative place to serve and work.
-
Evaluating the rules before the 2026 elections, when voters will decide which party controls each chamber in the 2027 session, is an opportunity to employ a veil of ignorance. We highly encourage members of both chambers to come together to agree on a set of rules they can live with whether they wind up as members of the majority or the minority.
-
We encourage House members to consider putting a framework of power-sharing rules in statute in case of another tie in the future. Our recommendation would prioritize power-sharing over divisions of power as best practices.
-
We encourage nonpartisan House and Senate media services to develop a policy or production standard to feature co-presenters on camera side-by-side if they are both at the testifier table co-presenting a bill. The public watching on tv or a web live stream does not currently always get the opportunity to watch this kind of collaboration, as they would if they were present in a committee room.
-
We encourage institutionalizing more groups that enable and support collaboration. Clarify the role of the bipartisan bicameral Civility Caucus as an opportunity for social and educational engagements between members; and re-establish and expand the Purple Caucus to serve as a forum for members to work together on a shared legislative agenda.
-
Minnesota’s bonding bill requires a two‑thirds vote. Because it is often the only bill that cannot pass without minority support, it becomes the minority’s primary source of leverage — and, at times, the only meaningful bargaining chip they have. We encourage expanding the number of bills or procedural actions that require a supermajority to distribute that involvement more evenly throughout the session.
-
We encourage a prohibition on caucus-branded social media attacks towards individual legislators during session. One clear opportunity for improvement lies in how official partisan communications operate. When a caucus produces negative content about individual members on the other side of the aisle, it strains the very relationships needed for bipartisan work. Legislators are human; it is difficult to collaborate while being publicly targeted by the opposing party’s official apparatus.
-
We encourage the Senate to adopt a remote voting process similar to the one used by the House. When a member can be heard casting their own vote it enhances confidence that they are actively engaged in the floor session. (This change was recommended by a bipartisan group of members on the Subcommittee on Joint and Permanent Rules in 2024 but was never implemented.)
Role of the Governor
The Governor holds a distinct role in Minnesota’s political landscape — elected with a party label, yet (ideally) positioned outside the Legislature’s majority–minority caucuses. Many Governors articulate a post-inauguration message along the lines of, “I’m responsible for governing the whole state, not just the people who voted for me.”
While no Governor can be fully bipartisan or nonpartisan, the office carries an opportunity — and arguably an obligation — to model the kind of cross‑sector, cross‑party leadership required of a divided state. That role becomes even more important in years when control of the House and Senate is held by a single party.
Several steps could reinforce an expectation:
-
Designate a staff member or initiative specifically focused on legislative bipartisanship and/or bringing Minnesotans together across political and geographic lines.
-
Regularly convene all four legislative leaders, not just the majority, to signal that every caucus has a stake in governing.
-
Host legislators of both parties at the residence to build the interpersonal trust that makes bipartisan work possible.
-
Avoid partisan or single-party media availabilities or press conferences.
-
Use the platform of the office to highlight, model, and celebrate collaboration.
The Governor cannot eliminate partisanship, but the office can be a leader by example.
Outcomes
We hope this report will accomplish two things:
First, to give support and acknowledgement to those legislators who are working collaboratively. We see you and we thank you for work that often goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Keep it up.
Second, to the public: Despite what you may see in the news, or on social media, or from political campaigns – not all politics is divisive. Not every legislator sees enemies on the other side of the aisle. If you look hard enough, you can see the good work that’s being done behind the scenes.
Legislators often hear from people who are really happy or really unhappy about an issue. They hear from advocates who are being paid to persuade them. They hear from political staff and campaign operatives who want them to toe the party line. They do NOT often hear from constituents who want compromise and collaboration – which, polling shows, is what most Americans want.
The best thing constituents can do to support legislators working across the aisle is to let them know you care about bipartisanship and support them with your voice and your vote. (And if bipartisan cooperation is something you want to model, we encourage you to run for office. This work needs more champions.)
Acknowledgements
This report is a production of Majority in the Middle.
Shannon Watson was responsible for data collection and analysis.
Aaron Cieslicki provided technical assistance in data collection.
Members of our Board of Directors and key volunteers assisted with proofreading and pre-publication reviews. Thank you to everyone for the assistance.
While no legislative staff members participated directly in the production of this report, many participated indirectly, and we thank them for their work. The production of correct and timely committee minutes and agendas seem like a small thing, but they were integral to our understanding of what happened in rooms that we were not able to be in at the time.
For more information, media requests, or future sponsorship opportunities, contact Shannon Watson at shannon@majoritymiddle.org or 651-295-8515.
Methodology
The bill authors in the committee graphs are authorship as of the hearing date. (If an author was added or removed the same day as a hearing, we took that change as of the hearing – whether or not the floor session happened before or after the committee meeting.)
Hearings in the Rules and Ethics committees were not included in the report because bill referrals to those committees operate differently than the policy and finance committees.
Some bills were counted multiple times because of multiple hearings across committees.
Bill totals on the legislator pages are not always the sum of individual years, due to changes made to bill authorship throughout the biennium.
The graphs illustrating Senate bills will not have any bills in the 1-19% or 81-99% categories, because of the mathematical limits of 5 bill authors or less. These categories only apply to House bills.
Committees and individual legislators are presented in alphabetical order.
Several members of the House and Senate did not serve full terms during the biennium. Pages for each member are retained in the report, based on the time they were in office.
Authorship is based on information contained on the Minnesota legislative website, which is populated by information from the Revisor's office, and the House and Senate staff.
Hearings information is based on information publicly published in committee minutes, bill status spreadsheets, and individual bill information on the Minnesota Legislature websites.
