ST. PAUL, Minn. — In a display reminiscent of historical legislative tactics, Minnesota House Democrats are currently boycotting daily sessions to challenge their Republican counterparts, who hold a slender temporary majority. This strategy, which has been employed by lawmakers across various states numerous times in U.S. history, aims to prevent the GOP from capitalizing on a vacant Democratic seat. The stakes are high, as the Minnesota legislative landscape is poised for a potential tie, with expectations of an even split in the House after a special election. The Senate also finds itself in a tied situation, with both chambers affected by the absence of Democratic representatives.
The state’s political history is rich with notable events centered around legislative standoffs. For instance, back in 1857, a contentious proposal arose concerning the relocation of Minnesota’s capital. A resourceful Democratic senator physically seized control of the bill and escaped to a hotel, effectively stalling efforts to move the capital to St. Peter, a decision that would have significant implications for governance in the territory.
These tactics of delay and disruption have roots in various legislative crises throughout American history. In 1863, Indiana’s Democratic legislators, frustrated by the Civil War, aimed to usurp control of the state militia. Their efforts were thwarted when Republican lawmakers responded by leaving the Capitol, allowing the Republican Governor, Oliver Morton, to govern without a legislature for an extended period.
A tumultuous moment in Kansas occurred in 1893, known as the “Legislative War,” during which both Populists and Republicans claimed they had the majority in the House, ultimately resulting in a physical altercation and the forced entry of Republican lawmakers to evict their Populist peers.
Similar displays of unrest took place in other states throughout the years. In 1924, Rhode Island Democrats engaged in a remarkable filibuster that lasted over five months, leading to a chaotic scene involving gas attacks in the Senate. More recently, the state of North Dakota saw a “pretended session” in 1934 when a group of lawmakers convened despite the governor’s attempts to cancel a session following his ouster for corruption.
The unfolding drama continued in 1979 Texas, where “Killer Bees,” a group of Democratic senators, successfully sabotaged a legislative proposal by fleeing the Capitol for several days. This tactic was revisited in 2003, when Democratic members of the Texas legislature facilitated another walkout to resist a redistricting plan, though this time they were not successful. The 2021 Texas session also saw Democrats thwart a restrictive voting bill by walking out just in time to meet the deadline.
Across the years, state legislators in Wisconsin and New Hampshire have also been known for their dramatic exits to protest various bills. Protests against union rights in Wisconsin led to the Democratic senators fleeing to Illinois, while in New Hampshire, members of the House disrupted proceedings over mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Nebraska this year, Democratic senators engaged in significant filibustering, effectively bringing many legislative efforts to a standstill as they opposed bills affirming restrictions on transgender rights. A similar pattern of resistance was observed in Oregon, where a Republican-led boycott stymied legislative progress over a series of contentious social issues, resulting in ten Republican senators facing restrictions on their ballots due to absences.
The political turmoil is further highlighted in Michigan, where a Democrat’s choice to skip a legislative session with their Republican colleagues forced the abandonment of key measures aimed at addressing gun control and health data protections. This recent disruption underscores ongoing divisions within the Democratic Party, reflecting the broader complexities of legislative governance in a polarized landscape.
Ironically, the actions taken by lawmakers today mirror historical instances where power struggles have led to profound debates and uncertainties around control and representation in government. As the Minnesota House Democrats continue their tactical boycott, they are not only engaging in a presentist battle but are also participating in a long-standing tradition of legislative maneuvering that has shaped the political narrative in the United States for generations.
