After calling Minnesota House ‘dysfunctional,’ Supreme Court rules in DFL’s favor

UPDATE 4:06 p.m., Friday, Jan. 24, 2025: Just one day after hearing oral arguments in the dispute between DFLers and Republicans in the state House, the Minnesota Supreme Court Friday found in favor of the DFL: A quorum to conduct any business in the House is 68 seats.

That could drive a negotiated solution to a two-week long standoff that saw Republicans organize the House with their 67 seats and the DFL boycotting the sessions to deny their partisan rivals a quorum. Any actions taken by the House are voided, and in a statement calling for end to the boycott, House GOP Leader Lisa Demuth was described again as “speaker designate” not speaker.

But the ruling, issued Friday at 3:30 p.m. with a promise of a more-detailed decision to follow, doesn’t by itself end the stalemate. While Republicans cannot convene sessions of the House, DFLers can continue to stay away to wring concessions including a promise not to try to unseat Rep Brad Tabke.

The debate was one of math and constitution. While the state constitution says a quorum of the House — the number needed to conduct any business — is “a majority of each house,” with one seat vacant because a DFL election winner was not a legal resident of the district, the House was 67-66 in favor of the GOP. Republicans asserted that a majority is more than half of the filled 133 seats or 67 votes; DFLers argued the vacancy didn’t matter and the needed number was half of the possible 134 seats or 68. The court ruled that Secretary of State Steve Simon acted legally when he adjourned the House on the first day because a quorum was not present.

“… under Article IV, Section 13, of the Minnesota Constitution, which requires that “[a]majority of each house constitutes a quorum to transact business,” a quorum requires a majority of the total number of seats of each house,” the court wrote in the three-page order.

“Vacancies do not reduce the number required for a majority of each house to constitute a quorum.  By statute, the total number of seats in the Minnesota House of Representatives is 134 seats … Accordingly, in the Minnesota House of Representatives, a quorum for purposes of Article IV, Section 13, of the Minnesota Constitution, based on the current total number of seats prescribed by law, is 68.”

 “We assume that the parties will now conform to this opinion without the necessity of issuing a formal writ,” the order states.

Both sides have said they will follow an order from the Supreme Court.

---

Thursday’s MinnPost story on oral arguments:

In the opening minutes of a pretty darned historic hearing before the Minnesota Supreme Court Thursday, the chief justice called into question the belief by partisans that their arguments are so obvious that they will prevail with ease.

Republican attorneys argued during the hearing and in briefs filed over the last week that the Constitution and state laws clearly state only 67 House members constitute a majority when a seat is vacant and that this number is sufficient to organize the House. With 133 seats filled, half is 67, and the GOP currently holds a 67-66 majority.

Related: Unforced errors put DFL House in worse-than-a-tie position, but GOP’s high hopes for a majority could end in court

That math will remain valid until a vacant DFL seat in Roseville that awaits a special election is filled.

Attorneys for Secretary of State Steve Simon and DFL House leaders have said their position — 68 votes for both a quorum and to pass bills — is a slam dunk. Whether a seat is vacant or not doesn’t matter, the denominator remains 134 and half of 134 is 68.

Chief Justice Natalie Hudson Thursday seemed to agree … with both of them.

“Counsel, it seems to me your interpretation is a reasonable one,” Hudson told Assistant Attorney General Liz Kramer. “But it also seems to me that respondent’s interpretation is at least equally reasonable.”

But both can’t be right. For more than an hour, six of seven justices (Justice Karl Procaccini recused himself, presumably because he had served as DFL Gov. Tim Walz’s counsel) questioned attorneys in ways that at first seemed they agreed with the Republican position and then indicated they agreed with the DFL and Simon’s case.

Was it the Socratic Method in action? Or were the justices torn as to what the proper course of action should be? (Video of the oral arguments is here.) 

At one point, Justice Gordon Moore asked, as GOP lawyers argued, whether the court was opening a can of worms by weighing in on a partisan dispute in another branch of government, “a can of worms that might not be able to be closed again.” Should the court just stay out of it?

“The court could be viewed by parties as a place to resolve political disputes,” Moore said.  

Later, Hudson said it isn’t only a dispute within the legislative branch but an interbranch conflict over the constitution’s meaning. That’s because Simon is part of the executive branch and was directed by a statute written by legislators to preside over the House until a quorum is present and a permanent speaker is elected. Simon was interpreting a constitutional definition of a quorum; House GOP leaders disagreed.

“We should be exercising judicial restraint when it comes to dabbling in the business of a co-equal branch,” Hudson said. “On the other hand, there are times … where the courts are required to step in. If this isn’t a case where there is an urgency to step in, what would be?” She said the current House is “completely dysfunctional.”

“If not the judicial branch, then who?” Hudson asked. “Who steps in to resolve that?”

Justice Theodora Karin Gaïtas put the question of whether the court should resolve a constitutional dispute between the other branches more plainly.

“Isn’t that our thing?” she asked Nicholas Nelson, the attorney for the House GOP leader. “Isn’t that what we do as the Supreme Court?” And Justice Paul Thissen, a former DFL House speaker, asked, “The court can’t interpret the constitution? You started your whole argument only focused on statutes, too, which I thought was weird.”

Nelson said, Of course, the court should interpret the constitution, but he said this is a situation where power resides in a single branch of government, and the court should not weigh in. The quorum issue could be resolved by the DFL ending its boycott and showing up on the House floor.

“The petitioners cannot and should not invoke this court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction to address an alleged quorum problem that is of their own making,” Nelson said. 

Related: What does Minnesota law, state constitution say about legislative quorums?

At issue is whether Simon was correct on Jan. 14 when he adjourned the opening session of the House with just 67 of 134 members present, or whether Republicans were correct in disregarding Simon’s gavel to proceed with organizing the House, electing a speaker, and beginning to conduct business.

“Petitioners ask this court to resolve the interpretation of five words in the constitution – ‘a majority of each house,’” said state solicitor general Kramer, representing Simon. “The question is whether a vacancy in either house reduces the number necessary for a quorum or whether the quorum number is static.

“A quorum does not change with vacancies in Minnesota,” Kramer said. While there are no previous state Supreme Court cases on this point exactly, Kramer cited cases where the court said the denominator to decide whether lawmakers reached a two-thirds majority to override a governor’s veto used the total number of possible seats, not the number seated.

Nelson said the court’s authority involves the interpretation of statutes, not reviewing how legislators organize themselves.

“That’s a legislative power which, by constitution, is in the Legislature – not in the judiciary,” Nelson said. “Yet that is the power that petitioners are asking the court to exercise here, which to our knowledge is unprecedented in history. The court cannot do so under our separation of powers.”

 Closely watching the case – from the front row of the chambers in the Judicial Center – were the named plaintiffs and respondents in one of two cases. House DFL leaders Melissa Hortman, Jamie Long and Athena Hollins and House GOP leaders Lisa Demuth and Harry Niska. Simon, who also filed a case with the court, was not present.

Hudson said a decision will come “in due order.” A related case on the timing of the special election in Roseville came about 50 hours after it was argued last week. 

The less understood fact of the case is that regardless of how the court rules, the stalemate in the House could remain. If the court stays out of it, the status quo of a GOP-run House remains, though they are shy of being able to pass bills. House Democrats have said they will continue their boycott of the House but would be left to watch from a distance if the House moves to unseat DFL Rep. Brad Tabke and order a new election in the Shakopee district.

Related: Is Minnesota House GOP ignoring the courts in dispute over Tabke’s seat? Not really

If the court says 68 members are needed to do anything at all, it invalidates the convening of the House and the election of Rep. Lisa Demuth as the speaker of the body but doesn’t end the dispute. It would keep the entire House shuttered and preserve Tabke’s position, for now. Once Roseville voters fill the open seat, the House returns to a 67-67 tie and perhaps gives both parties an incentive to return to a power-sharing agreement reached before the Roseville election was invalidated.

Hudson asked what happens next if the DFL side prevails. When told Simon would again try to convene the House and adjourn each day until 68 members were present, she asked: “That could go on day after day after day, is that right?” 

“Yes,” answered David Zoll, attorney for the House DFL leaders.

As to what the House could do if the court lets the current situation remain, Nelson said the House could meet, hold hearings, discuss bills and even complete two of the three readings of bills on the floor required before passage. It could even move to compel the attendance of the absent members. It just couldn’t conduct that third reading and pass bills.

Said Thissen: “What is the House if you’re wrong? There is no House.” 

Editor’s note: Peter Callaghan wrote this story for MinnPost.com. Callaghan covers state government for MinnPost. 

This article first appeared on MinnPost and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for people who care about Minnesota.