Watch CBS News

Minnesota Supreme Court hears case at center of state House power dispute

Minnesota House’s power-sharing battle now in state Supreme Court’s hands
Minnesota House’s power-sharing battle now in state Supreme Court’s hands 02:20

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The power dispute at the state House is now in the hands of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

At the center of two cases before the justices is the question of quorum, which is the minimum number of legislators required to conduct any business, and if Republicans met that threshold when they organized as a majority on day one of the legislative session. Both parties are at odds over the definition.

Liz Kramer, the state solicitor general representing DFL Secretary of State Steve Simon in one of two lawsuits, said the whole debate comes down to five words in the Minnesota Constitution: "a majority of each house." 

"The question is whether a vacancy in either house reduces the number necessary for a quorum, or whether the quorum number is static," she told justices during oral arguments on Thursday.

House Democrats — and Simon who presided over the chamber on the first day — believe a quorum is reached when one party has 68 members present because that's a majority of the 134-seat chamber. But because of a pending election due to a vacant seat, the GOP believes that 67 members constitute a quorum. 

For more than an hour, justices grilled attorneys for both sides and suggested that each has a strong argument for its interpretation. 

"It seems to me that your reading is a reasonable one," Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson told Kramer. "Your reading of the quorum clauses is certainly a reasonable one. It's a plain language, straight sort of statutory interpretation. But it also seems to me that respondents' position is at least equally reasonable."

Voters delivered a 67 to 67 tie in November, which prompted negotiations between leaders about a power-sharing agreement. But then a DFL winner in a Roseville-area district said he wouldn't take the oath of office after a judge declared he didn't live in the district at the time of his election as required by law, which gave the Republicans a one-seat edge going into session.

Democrats boycotted the first day — and have stayed away every day since — in an effort to deny Republican lawmakers a quorum and keep them from acting on that advantage, but the GOP proceeded with organizing the House as a majority anyway. 

"A quorum is based upon the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed number of members — not the members that have been elected, not those who are seated, not those who are sworn in," David Zoll, an attorney for the House DFL, which is asking the court to agree with their interpretation of quorum and void everything House Republicans have done so far this session. 

Meanwhile, House Republicans' position is that the constitutional definition of quorum is based on a majority of actual members serving in the House, not the total number of seats in the chamber. 

They also argue that House Democrats lacked standing to bring the case forward in the first place and that the justices should stay out of it entirely because the Legislature is a separate branch of government.

"Judicial power includes reviewing the validity of statutes. It does not include reviewing the legislature's organization of itself or the legislature's leadership choices," said Nicholas Nelson, an attorney for the GOP caucus. 

Justices appeared skeptical that they couldn't weigh in on such matters, citing previous cases the Court decided related to work in the legislature. 

"We should be exercising judicial restraint when it comes to dabbling into the business of a co-equal branch. On the other hand, there are times, and we certainly have done this here in Minnesota where the courts are required to step in," Hudson said. 

"Is if this isn't a case where there is an urgency, as we've talked about in some of our case law, to step in what would be? Because what we have is a co-equal branch of government that is completely dysfunctional, that is not doing the will and the work of the people of Minnesota," she continued. 

The court did not say when it would issue a decision, but a ruling is expected soon due to the unique circumstances. 

The outcome could put lawmakers on a path to ending the stalemate in the chamber that's now lasted more than a week, but there are outstanding issues clouding the impasse, including the fate of another DFL representative who won by 14 votes.

Justice Karl Procaccini recused him from the case and wasn't present on Thursday. Caucus leaders, DFL Reps. Melissa Hortman and Jamie Long and GOP Reps. Lisa Demuth and Harry Niska observed arguments inside the courtroom.  

View CBS News In
CBS News App Open
Chrome Safari Continue
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.