Which Minnesota senators have publicly stated how they will vote if the House impeaches Gov. Walz?

1. What the news says has happened: articles filed and the path to a Senate trial

Multiple outlets report that Republican Minnesota House members have drafted and filed four articles of impeachment accusing Gov. Walz of “corrupt conduct” related to alleged statewide fraud and oversight failures, and those articles would need a majority in the House and then a trial in the Senate where conviction would require a two‑thirds vote ^{[2] [3] [4] [5]}.

2. The coverage’s blind spot: senators’ public stances are not in the reporting

Despite extensive local and national coverage of the impeachment filing, the reporting supplied does not quote any Minnesota senator saying how they would vote if the House impeaches Walz; summaries center on the House authors of the articles, the constitutional threshold in the Senate, and political analysis rather than on individual senators’ commitments ^{[2] [3] [5] [4]}.

3. One senator’s social‑media activity does not equal a vote pledge

A report notes that the senator from District 10, Nathan Wesenberg, shared on social media that House members had filed articles — an act of amplification rather than a recorded promise to convict or acquit in a Senate trial — and the available text does not contain a documented vote intention from him ^[1].

4. Institutional math and political context that shape senators’ incentives

Reporters and analysts stress the high procedural bar in the Senate — conviction needs two‑thirds — and the political difficulty of achieving that threshold, context that likely affects whether individual senators publicly commit to a future vote; Newsweek and legal observers framed the Senate hurdle as making removal unlikely and characterized early impeachment moves as at least partly performative ^{[6] [5]}.

5. Competing motivations and potential implicit agendas in coverage

House Republicans who drafted the articles argue the move is accountability for alleged fraud and mismanagement, while Walz’s office and some outlets suggest political motives or performative posturing; the reporting often frames the impeachment push as both an institutional response to alleged wrongdoing and a partisan strategy, but none of these pieces supplies a roster of Senate pledges or direct quotes from senators explaining how they would rule ^{[2] [4] [6]}.

6. What can be concluded, and what remains unknown

Based on the available sources, the only firm factual conclusions are that articles were filed and that a Senate conviction would require a two‑thirds vote; there is no documented statement from any Minnesota senator in these reports indicating how they would vote in a trial, and thus no claim about any senator’s position can be substantiated from the supplied reporting ^{[2] [3] [5]}. If senators later make public statements, that would change the record, but such statements do not appear in the material provided here.