ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Thursday regarding a partisan conflict that has disrupted the state House for over a week. Democratic lawmakers have opted to boycott the state Capitol in an effort to thwart their Republican counterparts from taking advantage of a precarious one-seat majority.
This ongoing standoff is not typical for Minnesota politics; however, similar tactics have been employed in various states across the nation. In some instances, lawmakers have resorted to hiding to evade state officers tasked with ensuring their attendance in the statehouse for legislative business.
The current political situation has been characterized as a complex maneuver since the November elections resulted in a deadlock with a 67-67 tie in the House. Although Democratic and Republican leaders had initially devised a power-sharing agreement, it fell apart after a Ramsey County judge determined that a Democratic candidate from the Roseville area did not reside within his district. Consequently, the session commenced with a 67-66 Republican majority, pending a special election to fill the contested seat, which is anticipated to restore the tie given its Democratic-leaning demographic.
Originally, Governor Tim Walz set the special election date for January 28. This would have limited the dispute to approximately two weeks. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the governor’s timeline was premature, as the seat left vacant by a retiring legislator did not officially open until the Legislature convened the previous week. As a result, Walz indicated he would likely reschedule the election for early March, extending the stalemate at least seven weeks under the law’s constraints.
Political scientist David Schultz from Hamline University, who specializes in election laws and constitutional issues, remarked on the situation, suggesting it offers captivating political drama but is far from an effective method of governance. According to Schultz, “It’s great from a spectator’s point of view, but from a public interest viewpoint, it’s utterly detrimental.”
During Thursday’s proceedings, the state’s highest court will address the larger constitutional issue raised by the Democrats. They are arguing that a quorum, as per the state constitution and other regulations, should be counted at 68 members present. This majority reflects all seats in the House, implying that any actions taken by the GOP since the recent convening are invalid. Conversely, Republicans maintain that the quorum necessary for organizing the House and executing essential functions is simply 67 members, given the current roster.
In a court filing, House Republican leaders contended that the Supreme Court ought to honor the constitutional separation of powers, affording the lawmakers the autonomy to resolve the matter independently. Their legal representatives stated, “The parties to this dispute, and Minnesota’s voters, have all the tools they need to resolve it themselves. Judicial interference is both unnecessary and unwarranted.”
Schultz expressed skepticism about the robust legal grounds of either side, noting that both Democrats and Republicans have played roles in creating the current impasse. He predicted that the Supreme Court would probably conclude that the House lacks the required quorum, and he suggested it would also be prudent for the justices to refrain from intervening, recognizing both factions’ culpability.
There’s some uncertainty regarding whether House Republicans have the authority to summon absent Democrats in order to achieve a quorum of 68 members. Schultz noted that it might not be a desired course of action for Republicans to undertake. The anxiety that Democrats have regarding being forcibly returned to the House has diminished somewhat, as they argue that without a legally organized chamber, Republicans lack the authority to use the sergeant-at-arms for enforcement.
Despite the uncertainty, House Democrats reiterated their commitment to abstaining from the Capitol until Republicans consent to reinstating the previous power-sharing arrangement and guarantee not to attempt to unseat Democratic Representative Brad Tabke, who won by a mere 14 votes in a district where low voter turnout could favor the GOP in a special election. Republicans have resisted offering such assurances, even after a Scott County judge confirmed Tabke as the legitimate winner.
House Minority Leader Melissa Hortman acknowledged the rather genteel nature of Minnesota’s rules, which likely prevents the sergeant-at-arms or state troopers from physically compelling lawmaker attendance. She recounted her experiences during her previous tenure as speaker, inquiring about the potential actions the sergeant-at-arms could take to handle absent members. “Are you going to go bear hug somebody and bring them on in?” she humorously recalled, noting the sergeant-at-arms’ suggestion to simply contact those lawmakers via cellphone.
