# UNANIMOUS! ## A Full-Census Analysis of 3,363 Roll Calls in Two Chambers: What Minnesota and Wisconsin Pass Without a Single No, What They Split Perfectly Over, and Why Lisa Demuth and Francesca Hong Have Never Once Been the Member Who Said No When Nobody Else Did *Format: 5000-word steelman. Every factual claim carries a numbered footnote to a primary source; footnotes appear at the end. Built from [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], the Demuth Dossier, the Hong Dossier, and the Convergence File. Companion to [[Essay_5000_The_Same_Woman_Twice]], which closed with the instruction this essay carries out: read the roll calls.* --- ### I. THE THESIS The Same Woman Twice ended with an assignment. "The record is public. It is in the roll calls, the Blue Books, the enrolled texts, the committee lists." Then: "Read them anyway. That is the whole assignment, in both states, before Tuesday."[^1] Tuesday is tomorrow. The roll calls have now been read — all of them, both chambers, both careers, 3,363 recorded floor votes retrieved and parsed member by member with zero discrepancies against the chambers' own published tallies.[^2] The reading produces one finding large enough to reorganize everything the two dossiers established before it: **Four hundred fifty-four of those roll calls were final-passage votes on which not one member of the chamber voted no. Lisa Demuth and Francesca Hong voted yes on every single one of the four hundred fifty-four.**[^3] Demuth is recorded in the affirmative on 333 of the 344 unanimous passage votes taken in the Minnesota House during her four bienniums, and not recorded on the other eleven. Zero nays.[^4] Hong is recorded in the affirmative on **all 121** of the zero-nay passage roll calls taken in the Wisconsin Assembly during her three sessions, with no absences at all.[^5] The Republican Speaker who calls one-party control a proven failure and the democratic socialist who calls her own governor's budget a capitulation have, between them, an identical record on every question their chambers did not contest. This is not a coincidence of two careers. It is the shape of American state legislating, and it inverts the ordinary account of what these institutions do. The ordinary account says legislatures are polarized, that party-line votes are the norm, that the parties agree on nothing. The record says the opposite. In the Minnesota House, **more than a third of all final-passage roll calls between 2019 and 2026 passed with zero nay votes, and nearly half passed with five or fewer.**[^6] In the Wisconsin Assembly, roughly a quarter of recorded passage votes were unanimous — and roughly **three of every four laws enacted in the period never received a recorded roll call at all**, because no member demanded that names be taken.[^7] The polarization is real. It is also a minority of the output, concentrated in a small set of bills selected precisely because they polarize. Underneath it runs a consent agenda that both parties ratify without dissent, that neither candidate has ever opposed, and that nobody campaigns on. The thesis of this essay is that the consent agenda is the government, and the party-line votes are the product line — and that the two women on tomorrow's ballots have spent their entire careers voting yes to the first and posturing over the second. --- ### II. THE ARITHMETIC Set the two chambers side by side. **Minnesota, 2019–2026.** Fourteen session keys, four regular bienniums and ten special sessions, 2,557 recorded roll calls, of which 992 were final passage or repassage. Of those 992: **344 unanimous (34.7%)**, and **477 with five or fewer nays (48.1%)**.[^8] The most common tally in the entire dataset is 134-0 — the full chamber, no dissent — which occurred 79 times.[^9] The rate is countercyclical to majority strength, which is the first surprise. Unanimity bottomed at 21.4% of passage votes during the DFL's 70-64 House in 2021-22 and peaked at **45.6%** in the 67-67 tied House over which Demuth presides.[^10] The tied chamber — the one the national press covered as a constitutional crisis, the one that opened with a three-week Democratic quorum boycott — produced more unanimous passage votes in two years (135) than the DFL trifecta produced in two years (83), on fewer total roll calls.[^11] When neither party can pass anything alone, almost everything that passes is uncontested. **Wisconsin, 2021–2026.** Three bienniums, 806 recorded roll calls, 525 of them third-reading passage or concurrence. Of those: **121 unanimous (23.0%)**, 167 with five or fewer nays.[^12] Eleven roll calls hit a perfect 99-0 — every seat filled, every member voting, nobody against.[^13] Both figures understate the consensus, because both chambers require recorded votes only where the constitution, a statute, or a rule demands one. Minnesota is the stricter of the two: its constitution requires the vote on every law to be "entered in the journal," and House Rule 2.03 requires a roll call to pass any bill, so the 992 Minnesota passage roll calls are a complete population.[^14] Wisconsin is not. Assembly Rule 76 permits a voice vote on any question not constitutionally required to be recorded, and the constitutional floor is a demand by one-sixth of those present.[^15] A fixed-seed random sample of 120 enacted Wisconsin laws across the three sessions found that **89 of them — 74.2% — cleared the Assembly on a voice vote with no names taken at all.**[^16] That is the operational definition of unanimity: not that everyone voted yes, but that not one member out of ninety-nine thought it worth fifteen seconds to make his colleagues go on the record. --- ### III. WHAT PASSES WITHOUT A NO Sorting all 454 zero-nay passage votes by subject matter produces six recurring categories and effectively nothing else. **Credentialing and licensure.** Minnesota, April 9, 2026: HF3516, "modifying dentistry profession licensure, registration, scope of practice, continuing education, and disciplinary grounds; establishing fees" — **134-0**.[^17] Minnesota, May 18, 2022: HF3955, private detective license requirements — 129-0.[^18] Minnesota, March 21, 2022: HF2919, certified public accountant reinstatement and the repeal of automatic revocation — 134-0.[^19] Minnesota, April 8, 2019: HF637, health-profession license suspensions and background checks — 127-0.[^20] Wisconsin, March 14, 2023: AB 28, reclassifying county jailers as protective occupation participants under the Wisconsin Retirement System "without a requirement that their principal duties involve active law enforcement" — **96-0**.[^21] Wisconsin, February 20, 2024: AB 255, a rural pharmacy practice grant program administered by the Higher Educational Aids Board — **99-0**, a perfect chamber.[^22] **Police, prosecution, corrections.** Minnesota, April 3, 2023: HF1182, "modifying the grounds required for a peace officer to use deadly force" — **124-0**, in the session immediately following the George Floyd protests, with zero recorded opposition from either direction.[^23] Minnesota, April 23, 2026: HF3404, increasing penalties for impersonating a peace officer — 134-0.[^24] Wisconsin: the sexual assault kit tracking system (98-0), a five-business-day processing deadline (94-0), $400,000 a year for internet crimes against children enforcement (97-0), critical incident mapping grants to schools awarded jointly with local law enforcement (94-0), and a $41.79 million bonded juvenile correctional facility in Milwaukee County (90-0).[^25] **Veterans and the military.** Minnesota's veterans finance bills pass 131-0 and 130-0; the Code of Military Justice, 133-0; armory bonding, 134-0; educational assistance for veterans' children and spouses, 134-0.[^26] Wisconsin matches military funeral honors reimbursement at 98-0 and a homeless-veteran per diem match at 98-0 twice.[^27] **Appropriations to institutions that already exist.** Rural Finance Authority bonds, 129-0. Board of Public Defense funding, 131-0. Federal infrastructure money, 134-0. Federal tax conformity, 132-0.[^28] **New boards, councils, task forces, and grant programs.** A University of Minnesota advisory council on rare diseases, 133-0. A Task Force on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, 128-0. A Wisconsin opioid and methamphetamine data system, 96-0. A crisis urgent care certification process, 97-0. A battery stewardship program, 99-0. **A new hydrogeologist position at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Division of Extension, inside an agricultural pilot bill, 96-0.**[^29] **Memorial highways.** Capt. Jeffrey Vollmer, 131-0. Sgt. Joshua A. Schmit, 134-0. Officer/Firefighter Gary L. Schroeder, Jr., 134-0.[^30] Now state the negative result, which is the finding. **In all 454 unanimous passage votes across two states and eleven years, not one bill reduced a license, eliminated a board, shrank a standing appropriation, or narrowed an agency's jurisdiction.** The ratchet clicks one direction, and it clicks unopposed. The Minnesota Model framework calls this the ratchet mechanism and the credentialing capture loop; the roll calls show it operating not as a partisan project but as the thing both parties do when nobody is watching, which is most of the time.[^31] --- ### IV. THE TWO PERFECT RECORDS Against that agenda, consider the two candidates the machine surfaced. Lisa Demuth holds no college degree on any public record.[^32] Francesca Hong's Blue Book entry has read, every session she has appeared in, "attended University of Wisconsin–Madison" — attended, no degree.[^33] The Convergence File established this as the shared specification: two flagship-university states nominating, from opposite parties, the two most prominent non-credentialed politicians either has produced in a generation.[^34] Now put the credential absence next to the voting record. The two non-credentialed candidates are, on the evidence of every roll call either has ever cast, **unanimous ratifiers of the credentialing state.** Demuth voted for dentistry licensure and fees. She voted for private detective licensure. She voted for CPA reinstatement procedures and the repeal of automatic certificate revocation. She voted for health-profession background checks and community EMT title changes. Hong voted for county jailer reclassification, for rural pharmacy grants tied to a state aids board, for graduate medical training grant expansion, for a certification process for crisis urgent care facilities, for veterinary loan repayment conditioned on rural practice, for EMS practitioner tuition reimbursement.[^35] Neither has ever cast a recorded vote against the expansion of a state licensing, credentialing, or certification structure. Not once. The candidate whose entire biography is the story of a woman who succeeded without the credential, and the candidate whose entire biography is the story of a woman who succeeded without the credential, have between them a perfect record of voting to make the credential more necessary for everyone else. That is not hypocrisy in the ordinary sense, and the essay does not offer it as a gotcha. It is something more useful: **evidence that the credentialing architecture is not contested by either party, in either state, at any point in the legislative process where a member would have to put her name on the objection.** The two people best positioned by biography to notice it have never noticed it out loud. --- ### V. THE SHADOW LAYER Wisconsin's unanimity has a second floor beneath it, and Hong is the person who documented it. In July 2022 she claimed publicly that in the 2021-22 Assembly session, "more than 75% of GOP bills received a public hearing" while "the GOP allowed less than 2% of Democratic bills to have a hearing." PolitiFact Wisconsin checked it against two nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau memos and rated it **True**: 76.5% of Republican-authored bills got hearings; **1.9%** of Democratic-authored bills did.[^36] The same memos show the mirror image in 2009-10 under Democratic control: 80.1% of Democratic bills, 39% of Republican bills.[^37] So the Wisconsin Assembly floor is not a place where the legislature's ideas compete. It is the terminus of a filter that eliminates 98% of the minority's output before any vote occurs. What arrives on the floor has already been selected by the majority for survivability. Three-quarters of it then passes on a voice vote. Of the quarter that gets a roll call, a quarter of those are unanimous. Hong got that filter fact-checked and then voted aye on 121 of 121 bills that came through it. This is the sharpest available demonstration of what the two dossiers call the institutional-layover doctrine: a legislator can be entirely correct about the machinery, say so on the record, have the claim independently verified — and still supply the machinery its unanimous consent, session after session, because objecting to the *contents* of the consent agenda has no constituency and no reward.[^38] The complaint is about process, and it is free. The votes are about substance, and they are also free, because nobody is counting them. Minnesota's version of the shadow layer is different and, for this essay, more damning, because Minnesota takes a recorded roll call on everything. There is no voice-vote hiding place. Every one of the 344 unanimous Minnesota passage votes has 130-odd names attached to it, printed in the Journal, with Demuth's among them. --- ### VI. THE STRICT PARTY LINE IS RARE, AND IT IS NOT ABOUT CONTENT Set against the consent agenda, the famous votes. In Minnesota's 2023-24 trifecta — the session that produced the PRO Act, cannabis legalization, universal school meals, driver's licenses for all, paid family leave, the ERA amendment, the red-flag law, and the CROWN Act — **exactly three of the marquee roll calls were strictly party-line with zero defectors on either side**: HF5, universal school meals, 70-58; HF4, Driver's Licenses for All, 69-60; and HF3, the elections bill, 70-57.[^39] Every other headline bill had at least one member crossing, and the crossings were concentrated in two names: **Reps. Gene Pelowski and Dave Lislegard, both DFL**, who between them account for nearly every Democratic defection of the biennium.[^40] Pelowski crossed on the PRO Act, on cannabis, on paid leave, on the ERA. Lislegard crossed on paid leave, on the ERA, on the judiciary and public safety omnibus that enacted the red-flag statute, on lost-and-stolen firearm reporting, and on firearm safe storage.[^41] Demuth voted no on all of them, with her caucus, every time. The instructive vote is the one she did not. **HF37, the CROWN Act, January 11, 2023: 111-19, Demuth in the affirmative, all nineteen nays Republican.**[^42] The Convergence File used this vote to show that the model text travels across party lines.[^43] The full roll call shows something further: forty-one Republicans voted for it and nineteen voted against, so Demuth's yes was not a defection at all. It was the caucus majority position. The genuinely interesting name on the nay list is **Harry Niska** — the Republican whose lone no vote two years later would kill the Preserving Girls Sports Act and then, minutes afterward, revive it.[^44] And here is the demonstration that the party-line vote is not a function of a bill's content. **HF1370 (2023), the deep-fake sexual images bill, passed the Minnesota House 127-0 on March 30, came back from conference on May 12 and passed 71-57 with exactly one Republican in the affirmative — Demuth voting no — and then passed again 131-0 on May 16.**[^45] One bill number. Seven weeks. Unanimous, then strict party-line, then unanimous. If that seems like a fluke of conference politics, consider what a bill number actually is. **HF447 passed the Minnesota House 70-57 on April 26, 2023, with zero Republican votes and Demuth among the nays** — as a contested civil-law package covering forfeiture, name change, property, civil rights, gender identity, data practices, and notaries. It came back from the Senate on May 22 as a different instrument entirely — the Revisor's corrections bill, *"correcting miscellaneous oversights, inconsistencies, ambiguities, unintended results, and technical errors"* — and **passed 132-0**, becoming 2023 Chapter 73.[^46] Same number. Opposite votes. Not the same bill. The chamber does this routinely, in both directions. **HF729 left the House 134-0 in April 2021 as a bill "providing for a new name for an advisory council," came back amended into the civil-unrest funding package, and repassed 107-25 — with all twenty-five nays cast by Democrats and not one Republican voting no.**[^46a] **HF3825 left the House 134-0 in April 2026 as a crime-victim-notification bill, came back as the health-occupations licensure omnibus, and repassed 123-10.**[^46b] And the state's own vote-search pages display each bill's *current* description rather than the one the members voted on, which means the published record of a unanimous vote can describe legislation the chamber never saw.[^46c] Whatever the party-line vote measures, it is not stable disagreement about a fixed text. The text moves underneath the number. --- ### VII. THE NAMED DISSENTERS — WHO ACTUALLY PAYS Both chambers have a dissent column. It is occupied by the same small set of names, year after year, and it is worth learning them, because the two candidates are defined by their absence from it. **In Minnesota**, across the 133 roll calls that passed with between one and five nays, the recurring dissenters are **Bahr (37 appearances), Drazkowski (29), Roach (27), Munson (26), and Mortensen (24)**.[^47] The first four of those, plus Miller, are the entire membership of the New House Republican Caucus — the splinter group that broke from the House GOP in 2019.[^48] From 2025 on, the role belongs almost exclusively to Rep. Roach. Minnesota's near-unanimous dissent is not a rotating cast of independent thinkers. It is a named, standing minority of the minority. The purest illustration: **HF4531, the $330.6 million COVID-19 relief package, March 26, 2020, passed 99-4 under a declaration of urgency, introduced and passed the same day.** The Journal names the four nays: **Bahr, Drazkowski, Miller, Munson** — the New House Republican Caucus, entire.[^49] Demuth voted yes and issued a release the same afternoon: *"It was good to see the House come together to help Minnesotans… I am proud of how well we worked together to get this done."*[^50] Six weeks later she began voting, with a unanimous Republican bloc, to terminate the peacetime emergency under which that money was being spent. She did so nine times between April 2020 and June 2021. All nine motions failed, on votes of 59-73, 61-73, 61-71, 64-67, 64-69, 60-73, 62-63, 64-70, and 64-68.[^51] Her stated reason, July 2020: *"should all 201 legislators be participating in the process?"* The same release notes, without apparent irony, that *"Tuesday's House move fell mainly on party lines."*[^52] Unanimous on the money. Party-line on the power. That is the whole grammar. **In Wisconsin**, across the 78 roll calls with between one and eight nays, the recurring dissenters are **Clancy (43), Madison (42), Hong (34), Phelps (25), Cruz (18), Moore Omokunde (14), and Tenorio (12)** on the Democratic side, and **Wichgers (10), Allen (9), and Sortwell (9)** on the Republican side.[^53] The Democratic names are the Legislative Socialist Caucus and its orbit. And the members who genuinely vote alone are named too: Wichgers was the sole no on pharmacy technicians administering vaccines (90-1) and on establishing a palliative care council (96-1); Clancy was the sole no on a personal financial literacy graduation requirement (95-1); Madison was the sole no on a City of Evansville tax incremental district (98-1); Knodl was the sole no on name-image-likeness rules for UW athletics (95-1).[^54] **Neither Demuth nor Hong has ever cast a sole nay.** Two more complementary dissents belong on the record because they cut against jersey. On Wisconsin's 2025 girls'-sports bill, AB 100, which passed 51-43 with Hong voting no, the single Democrat voting aye was **Rep. Russell Goodwin of Milwaukee**.[^55] And on every abortion restriction the Assembly passed in 2021, the only members breaking ranks were Republicans — **Brandtjen, Wichgers, and Ramthun**, voting against their own party's bills, two or three at a time, on each of four roll calls.[^56] On the 2025-27 budget, the lone Republican no was **Allen**, and the seven Democrats voting yes against their caucus were **Billings, Doyle, Emerson, T. Johnson, McCarville, Ortiz-Velez, and Palmeri**.[^57] --- ### VIII. THE TWO DEFECTION REGISTERS Computing each woman's divergence from her own caucus, roll call by roll call, produces the essay's most honest section, because the numbers do not say what the convergence thesis would prefer. **Demuth: 68 defections in 2,428 recorded votes — 2.80%.**[^58] Fifty-seven of them are yes votes cast against a Republican no majority; eleven are no votes against a Republican yes majority. **Two of the sixty-eight had no other Republican on her side, and both were procedural motions rather than positions on a bill.**[^59] **She has never joined a nay bloc smaller than eleven members, and never a yea bloc smaller than thirty-two, in eight years.**[^60] The defections that matter to the dossier are the identity-coded ones, and they are consistent. May 15, 2020: HF3103, adding a definition of race to the Minnesota Human Rights Act — the 2020 predecessor of the CROWN Act — passed 92-39 with Demuth voting yes against her caucus, alongside seventeen other Republicans.[^61] July 20, 2020, second special session: HF1, the police accountability package establishing a peace officer oversight council and a duty to report excessive force, 102-29, Demuth yes with twenty-seven Republicans.[^62] The same day: **HR1, "A House resolution declaring racism a public health crisis," adopted 82-40 — Demuth in the affirmative with exactly six Republicans: Boe, Haley, Hamilton, Jurgens, Layman, and Urdahl.**[^63] And in the other direction: May 9, 2024, HF4984, replacing the Henry Mower Rice statue in National Statuary Hall, 98-25, Demuth among the twenty-five nays.[^64] Then the structural fact of the tied House. Eleven of Demuth's thirty-one defections in the 94th Legislature are the June 9, 2025 special-session budget bills, on which the Republican caucus split roughly in half and **the Speaker sat with the smaller half that voted for the deal she had negotiated.**[^65] Her own caucus majority repeatedly voted against her budget. Her public account of it: *"We delivered really good things working together in a tie… Were all of these things we would have done as a caucus? No. Is this work over the last two years good for Minnesota? Absolutely."*[^66] **Hong: 59 defections in 799 recorded votes — 7.4%.**[^67] Fifty-seven are no votes against a yes caucus; two are yes votes against a no caucus. She appears in a small-dissent bloc **34 times, third in the entire chamber**, and her companions are stable: Clancy on 30 of the 34, Madison on 30, Phelps on 23, Cruz on 16.[^68] These are votes like SB 789 (police video redaction fees, 94-3), AB 1023 (expanding the child and dependent care credit, 92-4), SJR 81 (Victims of Communism Memorial Day, 95-4), AB 789 (ratifying the state law enforcement union contract, 94-5), and AB 677 (creating the crime of grooming a child for sexual activity, 93-6).[^69] **Hong has never been the only Democrat voting her way. Not once in six years.**[^70] This essay will not smooth over the asymmetry. Thirty-four appearances in a small-dissent bloc versus zero is a real difference, and the convergence thesis does not require pretending otherwise. What the two registers share is the property that makes dissent free. **Not one of Demuth's sixty-eight defections changed the outcome of a vote. Not one of Hong's fifty-nine did either.**[^71] Demuth's fifty-seven yes-defections joined bills that were carrying by margins far larger than one vote. Her eleven no-defections opposed bills that carried anyway. Hong's thirty-four near-lone nays were cast on bills passing 90-6, 92-4, 94-3, 95-4. Her two lone-ish ayes went to a bill that died and a bill her own party's governor vetoed.[^72] Hong's dissent is loud and costless. Demuth's is silent and costless. Both women dissent exclusively in company, exclusively when it cannot matter, and exclusively in a direction their own coalition has already licensed. The style is a party dialect. The function is identical. --- ### IX. THE ONE TIME EACH WAS NEARLY ALONE Each record contains a single episode in which the pattern was tested, and both are instructive. **Hong's.** On November 9, 2023, the Wisconsin Assembly passed AB 298, limiting how many polling places a municipality may close within thirty days of an election, by a vote of **95-2**. The two nays: Rep. C. Anderson of Beloit, and Hong. It is the thinnest company of her career.[^73] The Assembly Journal for that day, page 446, prints in reading order: > "Noes – Representatives C. Anderson and Hong – 2. > Absent or not voting – Representatives Donovan and Sapik – 2. > Motion carried. > **Representative Hong asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting 'Aye' on the previous question. Granted.**"[^74] The tally of record was never amended. The vote page and the bill history still read 95-2 with Hong a nay. But the Journal preserves her request, made within seconds, to be recorded the other way. A systematic check of all forty-seven Assembly Journal dates on which Hong cast a near-lone nay or voted in a zero-nay roll call turned up 123 unanimous-consent vote-correction entries by all members combined. **Exactly one involves Hong: this one.** The other twenty-nine of her near-lone nays carry no correction of any kind.[^75] The Journal's line does not name the bill, and the two-column layout leaves residual ambiguity about which question it refers to; the nearest preceding question is AB 298's passage. That caveat is stated here rather than buried, because the finding survives it: the single occasion on which Francesca Hong found herself one of two people in a ninety-nine-member chamber, she moved immediately to make it ninety-six. **Demuth's.** Her two solo defections in eight years are both procedural, and both land on the two most charged subjects of her career. On February 2, 2023, on a question of whether the Speaker's ruling would stand as the judgment of the House during debate on HF28, Restore the Vote, the roll was 70-60 — sixty-nine Democrats and Demuth, against sixty Republicans.[^76] And on March 26, 2026, on HF3402, a large-capacity magazine ban: the motion to recall the bill from committee failed 66-68 with "Spk. Demuth" printed in the negative list; the motion to reconsider that failure then carried **68-66**, with the affirmative list running sixty-seven DFL members and ending "**Spk. Demuth**."[^77] She voted against recalling the gun bill, and then, on the next roll call, voted to reconsider the vote against recalling the gun bill. She was the only Republican to do so. On the recurrence, the recall motion failed again, 67-67.[^77a] The record states no reason. No source supplies one. A presiding officer's vote on reconsideration is frequently a procedural courtesy, and this essay does not assert intent — the same standard the dossiers apply to Rep. Niska's nay on the Preserving Girls Sports Act, which killed the bill and enabled its immediate revival.[^78] What can be said without inference is this: in eight years and 2,428 recorded votes, the two occasions on which Lisa Demuth stood alone against her caucus were both motions, neither was a recorded position on a bill, and both concerned felon voting rights and gun control. --- ### X. THE STATED PURPOSES The dossiers' Stated/Institutional split applies here as everywhere. What did each woman say she was doing? Demuth, on the unanimous COVID money: *"I am proud of how well we worked together to get this done."*[^79] On the workers' compensation presumption that passed 130-4, in a release noting the bill was "a compromise agreement made by legislators from all four House and Senate caucuses" and was "approved unanimously" by the Workers Compensation Advisory Council: *"We can't wait for a pile of denied COVID-19 claims to accumulate before we act."*[^80] On the DFL trifecta: *"It has been proven one-party control is bad for Minnesotans"* — and, four paragraphs later in the same release, *"in the end they all serve as examples of good work that can be accomplished when partisanship is set aside."*[^81] On the girls' sports bill: *"This bill upholds family values rather than catering to extreme activist agendas."*[^82] Hong, on the Brewers stadium package she opposed as the sole committee no: *"My 'no' vote is the fact that this is a public investment and the return can be greater for the public."*[^83] On the 2025-27 budget, in a joint Socialist Caucus statement with Clancy, Madison, and Phelps: *"This is not a compromise, this is capitulation"* — a *"catastrophic failure of leadership that surrenders to Republican austerity."*[^84] On 2023 Act 12, retrospectively, on her campaign site: *"Act 12, a Republican policy, entrenched a conflict between state and local governments by establishing unreasonable state power over how cities and towns can raise and spend money."*[^85] Now the negative result, which is the point of the section. **Neither woman has ever explained a defection.** No statement from Demuth was located on HF3103, on HR1, on the CROWN Act, on Metropolitan Council redistricting, on the Rice statue, or on the magazine-ban reconsideration — the six most interesting votes of her career. Her press office issues releases on caucus priorities. It does not narrate her crossovers.[^86] No statement from Hong was located on SJR 81, on the commercial driver training grants, on the child and dependent care credit, on the grooming bill, on the police union contract, on rural veterinary loan repayment, on EMS education, or on the polling-place closure bill she voted against and immediately tried to un-vote. Wisconsin's Journals do not transcribe floor debate; a search of all forty-seven for "Representative Hong" returned seven hits, all procedural.[^87] What exists instead, on the grooming bill, is a statement from a colleague. Rep. Christian Phelps, one of the six nays: *"Creating redundant crimes to advance a political agenda doesn't make anyone safer; it just pads the statute books, locks more people in our failed carceral system, and ignores real solutions like prevention and survivor services."*[^88] That is an argument. It may be right or wrong. It is on the record, attributable, and defensible. Its existence establishes that the reasoning was available to be given, and that Hong did not give it. --- ### XI. THE OBJECTIONS, RAISED AND ANSWERED **Objection 1: Unanimous bills are trivial, so unanimous votes prove nothing.** Answer: the 454 include the standard for when a peace officer may use deadly force, a $200 million pandemic health care response fund, a $41.79 million juvenile prison, the entire Minnesota Code of Military Justice, every veterans budget of both states, and the licensure and scope of practice of an entire health profession.[^89] "Trivial" is a description of how they were covered, not of what they did. The objection concedes the thesis: the government that nobody argues about is the government nobody reads about. **Objection 2: Voting yes on a unanimous bill is meaningless, since it changes nothing.** Answer: correct, and symmetrical. Voting no on a bill that passes 92-4 also changes nothing. The essay applies the same standard to both, and finds that **neither woman has ever cast a vote that changed an outcome, in either direction.** If costless yes votes prove nothing about Demuth, costless no votes prove nothing about Hong. The socialist's dissent and the Speaker's assent are the same instrument in different fonts. **Objection 3: This is a hit on Hong, since she is the only one with a real dissent record.** Answer: read Section VIII again. Hong is credited, on the record, with thirty-four small-bloc dissents, third in her chamber; Demuth is credited with zero, and the file says so plainly. If the essay were engineered against Hong it would not hand her that. What the essay says about her is narrower and harder: that her dissents were free, that she never stood alone, that the one time she nearly did she asked to be recorded the other way within seconds, and that she has never explained one of them publicly. **Objection 4: This is a hit on Demuth, since it implies her bipartisanship is fake.** Answer: it implies nothing of the kind. It documents that Demuth's bipartisanship is real, extensive, and almost entirely invisible — 333 unanimous yes votes, 68 caucus defections including a resolution declaring racism a public health crisis, and eleven votes for a budget her own caucus majority opposed.[^90] The essay's claim is that none of this is what she runs on, none of it is what the press covers, and none of it cost her anything, because her caucus had already licensed every instance of it. **Objection 5: The comparison is unfair because Minnesota and Wisconsin have different rules.** Answer: they do, and the differences are stated in Section II rather than hidden. Minnesota records everything; Wisconsin records a quarter of it. That difference makes Wisconsin's unanimity larger, not smaller — three-quarters of Wisconsin's laws passed without anyone caring enough to demand names.[^91] The rules differ. The consent agenda does not. **Objection 6: Legislatures are supposed to agree on most things. This is functioning government.** Answer: that is the strongest objection available, and it is partly right. Chambers that ratify EMT titles and memorial highways without a fight are working as designed. The finding is not that consensus is sinister. The finding is about **direction**: 454 unanimous votes, and not one of them contracted a license, a board, an appropriation, or a jurisdiction.[^92] A consensus that only ever expands is not a consensus about good governance. It is a consensus about who benefits from expansion, held by everyone who will ever be asked to vote on it. --- ### XII. CONCLUSION: WHAT TOMORROW DOES NOT DECIDE Tomorrow, August 11, 2026, Minnesota Republicans and Wisconsin Democrats vote on the same day, and the front-runner in each field is a woman without a college degree whom the other party's apparatus has spent months advertising.[^93] The Convergence File established what that selection mechanism is and how it built both of them. This file establishes what they did once it seated them. They voted yes. Four hundred fifty-four consecutive times, on every question their chambers agreed on, they voted yes — for licenses, boards, credentials, certifications, grant programs, memorial highways, and appropriations to institutions that already existed. Between them they have never cast a lone no. Neither has ever changed an outcome. Neither has ever explained a defection. On the twenty or thirty votes a year that generate coverage, they are opposites, and the opposition is authentic in the sense that matters least: each is genuinely where her jersey says she is. Demuth voted no on school meals and yes on girls' sports. Hong voted no on girls' sports and would have voted yes on school meals if her chamber had ever let the bill reach the floor. That is real. It is also, measured against the record, roughly two percent of what either of them did with the office. The other ninety-eight percent is the consent agenda, and the consent agenda is unanimous. It is unanimous in a DFL trifecta and in a Republican-adjacent tie. It is unanimous under Vos's supermajority filter and under Evers's veto pen. It is unanimous with a socialist voting for it and a Speaker voting for it and forty-one Republicans and seventy Democrats voting for it on the same afternoon. Nobody campaigns on it because nobody opposes it, and nobody opposes it because it is the machine itself — the licensing, credentialing, boarding, certifying, granting architecture that both dossiers traced from 1851 and 1848 forward, and that neither party's most successful outsider candidate has ever once voted against. Whichever of them wins tomorrow, and whichever wins in November, the consent agenda continues, expands, and goes unreported. Its expansion is the only bipartisan achievement either state has managed without interruption for eleven years, and it is the only one that appears on no campaign website. The last essay asked voters to read the roll calls instead of the narrative. Here is what the roll calls say, now that they have been read in full: **the narrative is the two percent. Read the ninety-eight.** It is all public, all named, all dated, and all unanimous — and the exclamation point in that word is the tell. Nothing that is genuinely contested ever earns one. --- *Built from [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], [[Demuth_hub]], [[Hong_hub]], [[Hong_Demuth_Convergence]], and the primary sources below. Companion pieces: [[Essay_0850_The_Consent_Agenda]], [[Essay_Killshots_Unanimous]], [[Essay_5000_The_Same_Woman_Twice]].* --- ## FOOTNOTES [^1]: [[Essay_5000_The_Same_Woman_Twice]], § XII, closing paragraph. [^2]: Method and full census in [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Executive Framework. Minnesota: 2,557 roll calls across 14 session keys, from the Chamber Voting System, https://www.house.mn.gov/votes/. Wisconsin: 806 roll calls across three bienniums, from https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly and the 2021/2023 equivalents. Parsed member-by-member; zero mismatches against published tallies in either dataset. [^3]: 344 Minnesota unanimous passage/repassage roll calls + 121 Wisconsin zero-nay passage/concurrence roll calls = 465 chamber-level unanimous votes; Demuth is recorded on 333 of the Minnesota set and Hong on all 121 of the Wisconsin set, for 454 unanimous roll calls on which one of them personally voted. Neither is recorded in the negative on any. [^4]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part I-A and Part IV. [^5]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part I-B and Part V. [^6]: Minnesota House, 2019–2026: 344 of 992 passage/repassage roll calls unanimous (34.7%); 477 of 992 with ≤5 nays (48.1%). https://www.house.mn.gov/votes/ [^7]: Wisconsin Assembly, 2021–2026: 121 of 525 passage/concurrence roll calls with zero nays (23.0%). Voice-vote share from a fixed-seed random sample of 40 enacted acts per session (n=120): 89 of 120 (74.2%) passed the Assembly on a voice vote. Acts indexes at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/acts (and 2021/2023). [^8]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part I-A table. [^9]: Distribution of nay counts across all 2,557 Minnesota roll calls: 0 → 436; 1 → 55; 2 → 34; 3 → 17; 4 → 19; 5 → 29. Most common unanimous tallies: 134-0 (79), 133-0 (58), 132-0 (57). [^10]: 92nd Legislature: 40 of 187 passage roll calls unanimous (21.4%). 94th Legislature: 135 of 296 (45.6%). [^11]: 93rd Legislature (2023-24): 83 unanimous passage roll calls of 267. 94th (2025-26, incl. 2025 special session): 135 of 296. [^12]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part I-B table. [^13]: 99-0 roll calls: AB 255, SB 780 (2023); AB 182, AB 219, SB 529, AB 786, AB 787, AB 788, AB 685, AB 713, SB 576 (2025). [^14]: Minnesota Constitution, art. IV, § 22, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/constitution/#article_4; Minnesota House Rule 2.03, https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/rules/permrule/203.htm; Rule 2.05, https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/rules/permrule/205.htm [^15]: Wisconsin Assembly Rule 76, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/rules/assembly/9/76; Wisconsin Constitution art. IV, § 20, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/wisconsinconstitution/IV,20 [^16]: Per-session voice-vote share in the sample: 2021-22, 34 of 40 (85%); 2023-24, 27 of 40 (67.5%); 2025-26, 28 of 40 (70%). [^17]: HF3516, 04/09/2026, 134-0. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=302&BillNumber=HF3516 · Journal https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2025-26/J0409055.htm [^18]: HF3955, 05/18/2022, 129-0. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=257&BillNumber=HF3955 [^19]: HF2919, 03/21/2022, 134-0; 2022 Ch. 72. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=257&BillNumber=HF2919 [^20]: HF637, 04/08/2019, 127-0; 2019 Ch. 49. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=249&BillNumber=HF0637 [^21]: 2023 AB 28, 03/14/2023, 96-0; 2023 Act 4. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0009 [^22]: 2023 AB 255, 02/20/2024, 99-0; died when the Senate failed to concur, 04/15/2024. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0174 [^23]: HF1182, 04/03/2023, 124-0; enacted as 2023 Ch. 52, art. 10, § 8. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=300&BillNumber=HF1182 · Journal https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2023-24/J0403044.htm [^24]: HF3404, 04/23/2026, 134-0; 2026 Ch. 98. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=302&BillNumber=HF3404 [^25]: 2021 SB 94, 98-0, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/votes/assembly/av0151; 2023 AB 36, 94-0, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0023; 2025 AB 957, 97-0, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0278; 2021 SB 449, 94-0, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/votes/assembly/av0138; 2021 SB 520, 90-0, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/votes/assembly/av0271 [^26]: HF1937, 04/18/2023, 131-0 (2023 Ch. 38); SF1959, 05/17/2025, 130-0 (2025 Ch. 30); HF1442, 04/04/2022, 133-0 (2022 Ch. 89); HF1443, 03/17/2025, 134-0; HF3741, 03/23/2026, 134-0 (2026 Ch. 49). [^27]: 2025 SB 810, 98-0, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0253; 2025 AB 596 and AB 597, 98-0 each, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0119 and av0120. [^28]: HF463, 04/13/2023, 129-0; HF90, 02/06/2023, 131-0; HF26, 01/23/2023, 134-0; HF31, 01/09/2023, 132-0. [^29]: SF973, 05/20/2019, 133-0; HF70, 05/09/2019, 128-0; 2021 SB 49, 96-0; 2023 SB 462, 97-0; 2025 AB 713, 99-0; **2021 AB 727, 96-0**, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/votes/assembly/av0230, LRB analysis: "creates a new hydrogeologist position at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension." [^30]: SF1618, 05/16/2019, 131-0; HF854, 04/10/2025, 134-0; HF3593, 04/20/2026, 134-0. [^31]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part II-C. On the ratchet mechanism and the credentialing capture loop as framework elements, see the mn-essay framework and [[Demuth_hub]]. [^32]: Vote Smart, "Lisa Demuth — Biography." https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/183728/lisa-demuth [^33]: Wisconsin Blue Book 2025-26, "State Legislators." https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lrb/blue_book/2025_2026/030_state_legislators.pdf [^34]: [[Essay_5000_The_Same_Woman_Twice]], § III; [[Hong_Demuth_Convergence]]. [^35]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Parts II-A and II-B. [^36]: PolitiFact Wisconsin, July 26, 2022, rating Hong's claim True on two nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau memos. https://api.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/26/francesca-hong/state-gop-only-let-less-2-democratic-bills [^37]: Ibid. [^38]: On the institutional-layover doctrine, see [[Essay_5000_The_Same_Woman_Twice]] § V and [[Hong_hub]] metric #10. [^39]: HF5, 02/09/2023, 70-58, https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2023-24/J0209020.htm; HF4, 01/30/2023, 69-60, https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2023-24/J0130015.htm; HF3, 04/13/2023, 70-57, https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2023-24/J0413048.htm. All three: zero cross-party defectors. [^40]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part III-A. [^41]: HF1, 01/19/2023, 69-65 (Pelowski); HF100, 04/25/2023, 71-59 and conf. 05/18/2023, 73-57 (Pelowski; R: Hudella, West, and on conference Garofalo, Mueller, Skraba); HF2, 05/02/2023, 68-64 and 05/17/2023, 68-62 (Lislegard, Pelowski); SF37, 05/18/2024, 68-62 (Lislegard, Pelowski); SF2909, 04/26/2023, 69-60 and 05/16/2023, 69-63 (Lislegard); HF601, 04/29/2024, 68-63 (Lislegard); HF4300, 05/02/2024, 68-64 (Lislegard). [^42]: HF37, 01/11/2023, 111-19. Journal, 6th Day, p.128: https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2023-24/J0111006.htm · Vote page (Demuth in the affirmative): https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=300&BillNumber=HF0037 · 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 3: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/Session+Law/Chapter/3/ [^43]: [[Essay_5000_The_Same_Woman_Twice]], § IV, Exhibit A. [^44]: The 19 nays, verbatim from the Journal negative list: Burkel, Davis, Dotseth, Fogelman, Franson, Garofalo, Grossell, Heintzeman, Hudson, Joy, Kresha, Mekeland, **Niska**, Schomacker, Schultz, Swedzinski, Torkelson, West, Wiener. [^45]: HF1370: passage 03/30/2023, 127-0; conference report 05/12/2023, 71-57 (R 1Y/57N, Demuth nay); second conference report 05/16/2023, 131-0. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=300&BillNumber=HF1370 [^46]: HF447: passage 04/26/2023, 70-57 (R 0Y/57N, Demuth nay), on the 2nd Engrossment — "relating to civil law; amending certain policy provisions related to forfeiture, name change, property, survival of cause of action after death, mediation for debtors owning agricultural property, State Board of Public Defense, construction contracts, civil rights, gender identity, data, notaries public, and health care incident open discussion." Senate-amendment repassage 05/22/2023, 132-0, on the 3rd Engrossment, enacted as 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 73: "relating to legislative enactments; correcting miscellaneous oversights, inconsistencies, ambiguities, unintended results, and technical errors." https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=300&BillNumber=HF0447 · https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=House&f=HF0447&ssn=0&y=2023 · https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/Session+Law/Chapter/73/ [^46a]: HF729: passage 04/22/2021, 134-0, on a bill titled "relating to public safety; providing for a new name for an advisory council"; Senate-amendment repassage 04/27/2021, 107-25 (R 63Y/0N; DFL 44Y/25N), Demuth yea; enacted as 2021 Ch. 13. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=257&BillNumber=HF0729 [^46b]: HF3825: passage 04/20/2026, 134-0, on a crime-victim-notification bill; Senate-amendment repassage 05/16/2026, 123-10, Demuth yea; enacted as 2026 Ch. 115. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=302&BillNumber=HF3825 [^46c]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part VII-D, methodological warning. The description field on house.mn.gov vote pages reflects the bill's current version, not the version voted on; the Journal title for the day of the roll call is the authoritative text. [^47]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part VI-A. [^48]: New House Republican Caucus roster: Drazkowski (leader), Miller, Bahr, Munson, joined 2021 by Mortensen. https://www.house.mn.gov/Caucus/View/NR/43789 and https://www.house.mn.gov/Caucus/View/NR/41518 [^49]: HF4531, 03/26/2020, 99-4; Journal 76th Day, p.7108: https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2019-20/J0326076.htm. Enacted as 2020 Ch. 71. Contemporaneous account: https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/15211 [^50]: Demuth press release, March 26, 2020. https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/news/15498/42898 [^51]: Peacetime-emergency termination roll calls: HC10 04/28/2020 (59-73); HC2 06/12/2020 (61-73); HC1 08/12/2020 (61-71); HC1 09/11/2020 (64-67); HC1 10/12/2020 (64-69); HF19 11/12/2020 (60-73); HC1 12/14/2020 (62-63); HF1051 02/11/2021 (64-70); HC1 06/14/2021 (64-68). Session vote summaries at https://www.house.mn.gov/votes/ [^52]: Demuth press release, July 14, 2020. https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/news/15498/43409 [^53]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part VI-C. [^54]: 2021 AB 4, 90-1, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/votes/assembly/av0010; 2025 AB 23, 96-1, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0044; 2023 AB 109, 95-1, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0040; 2023 SB 787, 98-1, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0186; 2025 AB 1034, 95-1, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0260 [^55]: 2025 AB 100, 03/20/2025, 51-43. Assembly Journal for that date lists Goodwin among the 51 ayes: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/journals/assembly/20250320.pdf · Vote record: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0030 · Member index confirming a single Goodwin in the chamber, "Goodwin, Russell (D - Milwaukee) District 12": https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/legislators/assembly · Vetoed 03/31/2026; override failed 05/13/2026. [^56]: 2021 SB 16 (55-38, noes incl. Brandtjen, Wichgers); SB 503 (55-38, Ramthun, Wichgers); SB 591 (55-39, Ramthun, Wichgers); SB 593 (55-39, Ramthun, Wichgers), all 10/27/2021, all vetoed 12/06/2021. [^57]: 2025 SB 45, concurrence 07/03/2025, 59-39; enacted with partial veto as 2025 Act 15. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0084 · Corroborated by Wisconsin Examiner, July 3, 2025: https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/07/03/evers-signs-compromise-budget-quickly-after-wisconsin-legislature-gives-final-ok/ [^58]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part IV. Career record 1,871 YEA / 557 NAY / 129 not recorded. [^59]: HF28, 02/02/2023, 70-60 (R 0Y/60N excluding her); HF3402, 03/26/2026, 68-66 (R 0Y/66N excluding her). [^60]: Smallest nay bloc: SF4942, 70-11, 05/19/2024. Smallest yea bloc: 32, on a caucus-line amendment to HF2335, 04/19/2023. [^61]: HF3103, 05/15/2020, 92-39. https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2019-20/J0515095.htm [^62]: HF1 (2nd special session), 07/20/2020, 102-29. https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2019-20/J0720003.htm [^63]: HR1 (2nd special session), 07/20/2020. Journal: "HOUSE RESOLUTION No. 1 A House resolution declaring racism a public health crisis." · "Richardson moved that House Resolution No. 1 be now adopted." · "There were 82 yeas and 40 nays" · "The motion prevailed and House Resolution No. 1 was adopted." Demuth appears in the affirmative list. Republicans in the affirmative: Boe, Haley, Hamilton, Jurgens, Layman, Urdahl, and Demuth. https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2019-20/J0720003.htm [^64]: HF4984, 05/09/2024, 98-25. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=300&BillNumber=HF4984 [^65]: Special session, 06/09/2025: HF2 (73-58), HF3 (96-37), HF5 (97-36), HF9 (93-39), HF14 (78-55), HF17 (96-34), SF1 (95-36), SF2 (90-41), SF17 (96-37) — Demuth YEA on each against the Republican caucus majority. https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2025-26/J0609001.htm [^66]: Minnesota House Session Daily, May 18, 2026. https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/19201 [^67]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part V. 59 defections in 799 recorded votes. [^68]: Ibid., Part V-A. [^69]: 2023 SB 789, 94-3, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0168; 2023 AB 1023, 92-4, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0163; 2023 SJR 81, 95-4, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0108; 2025 AB 789, 94-5, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0154; 2025 AB 677, 93-6, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/votes/assembly/av0150 [^70]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part V-A, final paragraph. [^71]: Ibid., Parts IV-D and V-H. [^72]: 2021 AB 242, 62-32, died; 2021 SB 454, 62-32, vetoed by Gov. Evers 11/05/2021, override failed 05/17/2022. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/votes/assembly/av0060 and av0136. [^73]: 2023 AB 298, 11/09/2023, 95-2; enacted as 2023 Act 124. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/votes/assembly/av0120 [^74]: Wisconsin Assembly Journal, November 9, 2023, p.446. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/journals/assembly/20231109.pdf [^75]: Systematic review of 47 Assembly Journal dates; 123 unanimous-consent vote-correction entries by all members; one involving Hong. Five land on bills in her near-lone-nay set: S. Rodriguez on AB 991, Stubbs on AB 49, Hong on AB 298, Miresse on AB 812, Mayadev on AB 1004. [^76]: HF28, 02/02/2023, 70-60. https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2023-24/J0202017.htm [^77]: HF3402, 03/26/2026. Journal, 53rd Day: https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2025-26/J0326053.htm · Vote page: https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=302&BillNumber=HF3402 [^77a]: Same Journal. The reconsideration carried; the recall motion then failed on the recurrence, 67-67. Reconsidering the vote is not the same as recalling the bill, and the bill was not recalled. [^78]: HF12, 03/03/2025: passage 66-67, "The bill was not passed," Demuth yea and Niska nay; Niska motion to reconsider carried 67-66. https://www.house.mn.gov/Votes/Details?SessionKey=302&BillNumber=HF0012 · Journal https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2025-26/J0303008.htm. This corrects the "failed 67-66" formulation used at [[Essay_5000_The_Same_Woman_Twice]] n.28. [^79]: https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/news/15498/42898 [^80]: HF4537, 04/07/2020, 130-4. Release: https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/news/15498/42967 [^81]: Demuth press release, May 21, 2024. https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/news/15498/49644 [^82]: Demuth press release, March 4, 2025. https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/news/15498/50258 [^83]: Wisconsin Examiner, October 16, 2023. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/10/16/assembly-to-vote-tuesday-on-modified-brewers-stadium-deal/ [^84]: Wisconsin Examiner, July 3, 2025. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/07/03/evers-signs-compromise-budget-quickly-after-wisconsin-legislature-gives-final-ok/ [^85]: Francesca Hong for Wisconsin, "Cities, Towns & Transit." https://francescahong.com/policy/cities-towns-and-transit/ [^86]: Full index of Demuth's press releases: https://www.house.mn.gov/members/profile/news/15498 [^87]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part VIII-B and Part IX-B. [^88]: Wisconsin Examiner, January 14, 2026. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2026/01/14/assembly-passes-constitutional-amendment-child-grooming-proposals/ [^89]: HF1182 (124-0); SF4334 (108-0, $200M, 2020 Ch. 70); 2021 SB 520 (90-0, $41,791,000); HF1442 (133-0); HF1937, SF1959, and 2025 Act 30; HF3516 (134-0). [^90]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Parts IV and IV-C. [^91]: See n.7 and n.16. [^92]: [[Unanimous_Roll_Call_File]], Part II-C, negative result. [^93]: Minnesota Secretary of State, primary election date: https://www.sos.mn.gov/elections-voting/how-elections-work/primary-election/ · Ballotpedia, Wisconsin gubernatorial election, 2026 (August 11 Democratic primary): https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_election,_2026_(August_11_Democratic_primary) · On the RGA's $3.6 million and the Minnesota DFL's amplification, see [[Essay_5000_The_Same_Woman_Twice]] § VII. #Actors_and_Architects