Minnesota Supreme Court to hear arguments Thursday in case related to power dispute in state House
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a case that could mark a step towards resolution in the power dispute playing out in the state House.
At issue is what constitutes a quorum — or the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct any chamber business. Both parties are at odds over the definition, which is described in the state's constitution as "a majority of each house" of the Legislature.
Democrats are boycotting the session in an effort to keep Republican lawmakers from meeting that threshold, which they interpret as 68 members. The GOP has a one-seat, 67 to 66 majority at least for now, until a special election for a vacant seat is rescheduled for what likely will be March. They believe 67 members amounts to quorum due to that vacant seat, clearing the way for them to convene as a majority, which they did on the first day of session without any DFL lawmakers there.
Democrats promptly sued, asking the state's highest court to nullify everything the Republicans have done since session's start and prohibit them from doing anything else until 68 lawmakers are present in the House.
"In the absence of a quorum, the members that were present were not permitted to transact business, make motions, nominate, or elect a speaker, or take any of the other actions that they took or plan to take," the House DFL's petition to the court said.
In the Republicans' response filed Tuesday, attorneys representing Rep. Lisa Demuth and other GOP leaders argued that Democrats don't have grounds to file the lawsuit in the first place.
They also maintain that the court should not intervene in a dispute about the House's organization because it violates separation of powers between two branches of government.
"In pursuit of a fleeting political advantage, petitioners demand that the Court completely reverse these settled definitions [on quorum]," the response to the petition reads. "That is not worthy of the Court's serious consideration. In short, Minnesota's courts are not a tool to be wielded for partisan advantage."
Oral arguments in the case are set for Thursday morning, nearly a week after the Supreme Court voided the Jan. 28 special election for the Roseville-area House seat, ruling that Gov. Walz called for that contest too soon.
That decision could prolong the Democrats' boycott of the session. They have vowed to continue to work in their districts and not show up in St. Paul if no power-sharing agreement is reached. It's expected the House will return to a tie once that special election for the blue-leaning district is over, but now it's delayed at least a month if not longer.
When asked Tuesday during a news conference if a ruling from the Supreme Court on the quorum question will bring Democrats back to the capitol, DFL Rep. Melissa Hortman said she believes it would change the course of negotiations with Republicans, which she said have stalled, but did not put a date certain for when they'd return.
She fears without written assurances, Republicans will take action with their one-seat advantage to unseat DFL Rep. Brad Tabke, despite a judge's ruling that his 14-vote victory in the election for a Shakopee seat was valid. Ultimately the Minnesota Constitution empowers lawmakers to determine the eligibility of its own members.
"The reason why we're taking this unprecedented step of denying quorum here in Minnesota, first time in state history, is because we've never had a political party propose to use a voting advantage to kick out a member for a partisan reason: to try to obtain a partisan advantage at the end of the special election," Hortman told reporters Thursday. "The only reason they want to kick out Brad Tabke — not that he did anything wrong — is because they can."
When specifically asked by reporters, GOP leaders have not said whether or not they'd move as a caucus to remove Tabke. But Demuth on a podcast before the judge's ruling suggested that they would move in that direction.
On the first day of session, Republicans did set up a process to review that court decision and how they'd move forward, as the law allows for election contests. But so far they haven't done anything else.
Despite the outstanding litigation before the Supreme Court, Hortman said she would prefer both parties find common ground on their own.
"Their risk going into court is to have the Minnesota Supreme Court rule that everything that they've done is illegitimate. Our risk going into court is for the Minnesota Supreme Court to stay out of it and not really take a position," she said. "Both of us have huge downsides, and those are uncertainties that you can control through a settlement agreement."