Senator Rasmussen moved on Jan. 27, 2025, that the Minnesota Senate expel Senator Nicole Mitchell under Article 4, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, saying Mitchell faces felony burglary charges and that her conduct and later actions to delay a criminal trial warrant removal from the chamber.

The motion came during the Senate’s floor session after the body returned from recess. Rasmussen said: “Pursuant to Article 4, section 7 of the constitution of the state of Minnesota, I move that Senator Nicole Mitchell be expelled from the Minnesota Senate, effective immediately, and that a vacancy in the office for Senate District 47 be declared.” He told colleagues the allegations stem from an incident on April 22 in which police found Mitchell in a home basement and quoted police reports that led to her arrest.

Rasmussen argued the charges — which he described as felony burglary and terrorizing an elderly family member — and what he said was Mitchell’s subsequent use of her office to delay court proceedings constituted ethical violations warranting expulsion. “Felony burglary and terrorizing an elderly family member is a severe violation of this ethical standard and alone warrants expulsion,” Rasmussen said. He also alleged Mitchell used her status to seek a delay in her trial and that the delay limited her constituents’ representation during the session.

Several senators raised procedural and due-process questions. Senator Frentz argued a longstanding internal process should apply, saying the Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct had already reviewed the matter and recommended waiting for the criminal case to be resolved. “No member of the senate has ever been expelled short of the resolution of the criminal process,” Frentz said, urging the presiding officer to find the Rasmussen motion out of order under Mason’s Manual section 562 and related precedent.

Rasmussen and others cited provisions of Mason’s Manual (sections 562 and 563) and Article 4, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution in rebuttal, saying the Senate has an absolute constitutional power to expel members and that a two‑thirds vote requirement provides due process. Rasmussen said Mitchell had a prior subcommittee hearing on May 7, 2024, and asserted that she then used her status to delay the trial set to begin Jan. 27, 2025.

Presiding officers conferred with leaders and took the point of order under advisement, then recessed the Senate for consultations. After returning, the presiding officer ruled that the point of order raised by Frentz was well taken; Senator Rasmussen appealed that ruling. By procedural practice, senators voted to sustain or overturn the president’s ruling. The roll call produced a tie: "There being 33 ayes and 33 nays," the secretary reported, and the presiding officer announced that the decision of the president was upheld.

Because the appeal vote upheld the president’s ruling, the transcript does not record a final floor vote on the expulsion motion itself during the Jan. 27 proceedings. After the ruling, the Senate moved to other business and ultimately adjourned to Thursday, Jan. 30, at 11 a.m.

Clarifying details from the floor record: Rasmussen said the alleged incident occurred “a little after 4 AM on April 22nd.” He told the chamber that Mitchell had a subcommittee on ethics hearing on May 7, 2024, and that she filed a request on Jan. 10 to delay her criminal trial; the judge granted that request and the trial was rescheduled to after the current legislative session, according to Rasmussen’s remarks.

The Senate’s floor debate included repeated references to internal rules (Senate rules 55, 56.1 and 56.3 were cited during discussion) and to Mason’s Manual procedures for expulsion. The transcript attributes the motion to expel to Senator Rasmussen and records procedural interventions by the presiding officer and multiple senators but does not show a final expulsion vote on Jan. 27.

What happens next: The motion to expel was made on the record but no final vote to remove Senator Mitchell appears in the January 27 transcript. Further procedural steps or a future floor vote would be required for expulsion to take effect.