ST. PAUL, Minn. — This Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court is set to deliberate on a tense partisan conflict that has emerged in the state House, where Democratic lawmakers have initiated a boycott of the Capitol in an effort to curtail the influence of their Republican counterparts, who currently hold a flimsy one-seat majority.
While such a standoff is unusual in Minnesota, similar tactics have been witnessed in other states, where lawmakers have even gone as far as hiding out in different locations to evade officials intent on bringing them back to the legislature for essential business.
Since the November election resulted in a 67-67 deadlock in the House, a much more intricate political scenario has been unfolding. Although the leadership from both the Democratic and Republican parties nearly established a power-sharing agreement, it collapsed following a ruling from a Ramsey County judge declaring that the Democratic winner of a seat representing the Roseville area did not reside within the district. Consequently, this led to a session start with a 67-66 Republican majority, leaving the stage set for a special election that is expected to reinstate the even split due to the district’s historically Democratic voter base.
Initially, Governor Tim Walz had scheduled the special election for January 28, which would have curtailed the prolonged standoff to around two weeks. However, a ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court last Friday contended that the date set by the governor was premature since the vacated seat did not officially become available until the Legislature reconvened the previous Tuesday. As such, Walz is anticipated to reschedule the election for around March 11, but he cannot officially announce it yet as it is still too early under current law.
Political expert David Schultz, from Hamline University, expressed that while the ongoing dispute may provide captivating political drama, it ultimately hampers effective governance. He remarked, “From an observer’s perspective, it’s exhilarating. Yet, from an academic standpoint, it presents a challenging question for evaluation. However, from the viewpoint of public interest, it’s profoundly detrimental.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court will address the broader controversy during Thursday’s session, as it considers petitions submitted by Democrats aiming to declare that a quorum as per the state constitution requires 68 members present, constituting a majority of the House. In contrast, Republicans contend that a quorum of 67 — the current number of members — is sufficient for the House to organize, elect leadership, and form committees.
Republican leaders submitted a statement Tuesday asserting that the Supreme Court should uphold the constitutional separation of powers, allowing legislators the space to arrive at a resolution independently. They emphasized that “the involved parties, alongside Minnesota’s electorate, possess all necessary tools to resolve this matter without judicial involvement.”
Schultz suggested that neither side holds particularly strong legal footing. He noted that actions taken by both Democrats and Republicans have led to the current impasse, suggesting that both parties share guilt in the situation. He believes it is likely that the Supreme Court will conclude that the House does not possess a quorum, and he indicated that the justices might also rule that both parties have culpability and thus opt not to intervene.
The uncertainty looms over whether House Republicans have the authority to compel absent Democrats to attend and form a quorum of 68, something Schultz also doubted Republicans genuinely desire to pursue.
Continuing with their pressure tactics, GOP lawmakers passed a nonbinding resolution on Wednesday, urging Governor Walz to engage the State Patrol to secure the attendance of absent Democrats. “We need to finalize a budget as there are pressing matters in Minnesota demanding our attention. This resolution calls on the governor to enforce the law,” stated Rep. Harry Niska, the No. 2 House Republican, emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
Despite this, there was no immediate comment from the governor’s office regarding the resolution.
Diminished fear of being compelled to return to the Capitol has emerged among Democrats, who argue that until the House is legally organized, Republicans lack the authority to order law enforcement to round them up. Nevertheless, House Democrats reaffirmed on Tuesday their intention to remain absent until Republicans agree to revert to the previous power-sharing arrangement and offer assurances to not attempt to unseat Democratic Rep. Brad Tabke, who secured victory by a mere 14 votes in a competitive district favorable to Republicans in low-turnout elections. Even though a Scott County judge confirmed Tabke’s status as the legal winner last week, Republicans have refused to grant that assurance.
House Speaker Melissa Hortman, the leading Democrat, acknowledged that Minnesota’s legislative procedures are “fairly genteel,” likely disallowing the use of state troopers or sergeants-at-arms to forcibly bring members back to the Capitol. Reflecting on past experiences, she expressed curiosity about the capabilities of the sergeant-at-arms in such circumstances, humorously recalling a past inquiry: “Are you going to bear-hug someone and drag them in? Their response was essentially ‘We’ll try their cell phone.’”
