Minnesota Supreme Court to decide balance of power in state House

ST. PAUL (CN) — Whether or not Republicans currently have control of the Minnesota House of Representatives is now in the hands of the state’s Supreme Court following oral arguments Thursday by lawyers representing the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Republicans, and Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat. 

The justices are tasked with deciding what constitutes a quorum in the House and if they even have jurisdiction in two lawsuits filed by the state’s House Democrats against House GOP members for conducting business and electing a speaker without 68 members present. 

While justices appeared to wholeheartedly reject the GOP’s argument that the court lacks jurisdiction in the matter, Chief Justice Natalie Hudson said both sides made reasonable arguments. 

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

She also questioned whether ruling in favor of the DFL would put the minority party in power over the majority and what precedent that might set. 

In the lawsuits, Simon and DFL Party Representative Melissa Hortman, along with other DFLers, asked the court to declare the Republicans' “improper and unlawful” actions unconstitutional.

They argue that the court is obligated to decide what the five words “a majority of each house” mean and whether a vacancy reduces that requirement.

“When we look to the law, we find the number is 134, so applying those definitions from the [Minnesota] Constitution itself, the five words mean a majority of the 134 members,” Minnesota Solicitor General Liz Kramer, representing Simon, told the court. 

The GOP contends that a majority consists of those members present at the time.

However, the court faces an interesting issue: there is no direct precedent to rely on since the problem facing the state House has never occurred in Minnesota.

Minnesotans elected 67 Republicans and 67 DFLers to the state House during the 2024 election, which typically means a power-sharing deal would be implemented at the start of this year’s session. 

Those talks fell apart after a judge determined earlier this month that a DFLer who won his seat in a heavily Democrat-leaning district did not live in the district. That left Republicans with a one-seat majority until a special election occurs to fill his seat. 

While that one-seat majority means Republicans have the power right now to elect a speaker, Democrats attempted to subvert that power grab by refusing to attend the Legislature on its first day, denying Republicans the quorum needed to elect a speaker. 

Simon’s position as secretary of state requires him to call the House of Representatives to order and preside over the House until a speaker is elected. With only 67 members present, Simon adjourned the House.

The Republicans pushed forward anyway and elected Representative Lisa Demuth, who served as the Republican leader for the last two years, as speaker.

Simon contends that since Demuth’s election was invalid, he remains the presiding officer of the House, and Republicans can neither elect a speaker nor conduct any other business.

Hudson called the state House “dysfunctional,” and several justices questioned the GOP’s position that the issue falls outside their purview.

“Doesn't the quorum question that’s been presented here require us to interpret our own state constitution? Isn’t that our thing? Isn’t that what we do as the Supreme Court?” Associate Justice Theodora Gaïtas asked Nicholas Nelson, a partner with the law firm CrossCastle, who represented the state GOP Thursday.

Nelson argued that the court ruling on this issue would be an order directing the House on how to operate and not an interpretation of the law. 

He also argued that the quorum issue is entirely the Democrats' fault because they failed to show up. 

“The legislative petitioners are categorically refusing to participate in the legislative process that they were elected to, and Secretary Simon is actively, or at least purporting to actively, prevent the house from exercising its constitutional authority to determine the presence of a quorum, and quorum or not, to compel the absence the attendance of absent members,” Nelson told the court. 

David Zoll of Lockridge and Grindal, representing Hortman and other DFLers, told the court that a ruling in the Democrat’s favor would mean Simon would preside over the House and adjourn it if a quorum was not present. 

If so, this likely means the House would not conduct any business until a special election is decided and the House seats its 134th member.

Thursday’s arguments are just the latest salvo in what has become a contentious issue in the state. 

Earlier this month, Demuth threatened to remove Simon as secretary of state if he attempted to block her election as speaker. 

Additionally, questions surrounding the election of Scott County DFLer Brad Tabke, who won his seat by 14 votes in a district that lost 20 ballots, led Republicans to threaten not to seat him after earlier legal challenges against him failed.

Since then, Republicans have refused to say whether or not they would seat him if the DFL were to come back to the House.

Minnesota House Democrats have attempted to get around that threat by swearing in all of the party's members during a secret ceremony the day before this year’s session was to begin, which Republicans have called "illegitimate."

Further, GOP Representative Harry Niska, named as a respondent in one of the lawsuits, asked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a Democrat, to have the Minnesota State Patrol force Minnesota House DFLers to attend House sessions.