MinnPost’s user guide to the Great 2025 Minnesota House Quorum Wars

It’s only one sentence, 38 words, but Article IV, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution has been doing a lot of work over the past six weeks.

“Sec. 13. Quorum. A majority of each house constitutes a quorum to transact business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and under the penalties it may provide.”

The first part triggered a historic state Supreme Court battle over what the word “quorum” means (68, as Democrats argued, not 67, as the GOP maintained). 

Now, the second clause of that provision is getting its own star turn. On Thursday, the justices will hear a case seeking clarification on when and how a body with less than a quorum can turn it into one.

As Republicans and DFLers in the Minnesota House have been playing a game of political chicken for the last three weeks – seeing who will blink first in a stalemate over control of the body – it is appropriate that the latest legal fight involves a question of which came first.

That is, can members of a body with less than a quorum make those motions now – at least after the secretary of state rules that a quorum is not present but before he adjourns? Or are these and any other motions out of order until Steve Simon finds that a quorum is present? In other words, if the 2025 House isn’t a thing yet, can its members make any motions, even those allowed in the Constitution for a body with less than a quorum?

It’s complicated and confounding. Way more than 38 words have been written by GOP and DFL lawyers over the last several weeks to parse each of those words.

Here is MinnPost’s user’s guide to the Great 2025 Minnesota House Quorum Wars:

What got us here? 

The 2024 election left the House tied 67-67 – the second such tie in state history and the first in 45 years. But a botched candidate recruitment by the DFL (the party endorsed a winning candidate for a Roseville-area seat who didn’t live in that district) gave the GOP a one-seat majority, 67-66. It will be that way until a special election can be held in mid-March in the heavily DFL district.

DFLers have boycotted the session since its start on Jan. 14, acting to deny the GOP a quorum. The GOP concluded 67 was a quorum, overriding Secretary of State Steve Simon’s ruling that it wasn’t, and Republicans began behaving as if it were by electing a speaker in a half-empty chamber and starting committee work. The DFL House and Simon went to court, and the court sided with the DFL.

What is a Quorum?

While everyone involved in the stalemate in the House agreed it means one more than half, they couldn’t agree which half. Both sides presented valid legal arguments and case law supporting their perspective. With one seat vacant, is the denominator 133, as in the number of members of the House elected? Or is the denominator still 134 because that is the number that constitutes the House?

“Vacancies do not reduce the number required for a majority of each house to constitute a quorum,” the court wrote. “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.” 

So that’s that … or not.

Why is this back in court?

The six members of the court that ruled on the quorum case were perhaps a little too optimistic that their refereeing of the House would lead to a resolution of the battle.

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

The GOP did conform to the opinion, dissolving the House, which it organized, and stripping Rep. Lisa Demuth of the title “speaker.”

But the conflict continued because the boycott continued. Each day, when Secretary of State Steve Simon convenes the House at 3:30 p.m., as required by state law, he takes roll and then adjourns when only 67 members are present. He does the same thing the next day, and the next and the … (fill in your Groundhog Day jokes here).

Why is the DFL House still boycotting the session?

The House DFL continues to boycott for fear of two results if they help provide the magical 68th vote: A GOP takeover of power for the next two years and the GOP threat to unseat a DFL member who won a close election. 

Because the GOP would have a majority, at least temporarily, the House could then elect Demuth speaker again and give its members control of all the committees again, and keep those positions for two years — even if the DFL wins a special election in March. If DFLers show up, the House would then have the 68 members present needed to organize itself. And because it would take a majority vote to undo Demuth’s election, the most the DFL can hope for is a 67-67 tie, which isn’t enough.

The second threat sustaining the DFL’s boycott is that the one-seat GOP majority could move to unseat elected Rep. Brad Tabke, DFL-Shakopee, who won a close election that the GOP is suspicious of but that a judge ruled valid. 

When could the DFL House boycott end?

The extreme estimate for an end is St. Patrick’s Day when whoever is elected in the open Roseville seat could be sworn in.

Nothing against the Irish, but the Republicans want to break the deadlock long before that holiday by offering a motion that “absent members be compelled to attend the next House session.” The penalty would be that they would no longer be paid and would forfeit their per diem — the daily living expense payment — for the entire two years of this Legislature.

Simon hasn’t let them.

“After this Court ruled that the Minnesota House of Representatives lacks a quorum, Secretary of State Steve Simon has seized control of the House and exercised that control in a way that could prevent it from ever obtaining a quorum,” the GOP petition states. “Ending the constitutional crisis and restoring a functioning Legislature requires the Court to put a stop to this violation of the Constitution.” 

“The state Supreme Court helped contribute to this mess. They may have to clean it up,” said Rep. Harry Niska of Ramsey, the No. 2 leader of the House GOP.

This time all seven justices will weigh in, as it appears that Justice Karl Procaccini will not recuse himself as he did in the first case.

What does it mean to compel?

Legislative bodies need ways to bring absent members to the chambers to conduct meetings. Mason’s Manual, the rules that help guide the Minnesota Legislature and many others, puts it bluntly: “The absence of a house of a state legislature to compel the attendance of all members at all times would destroy the ability to function as a legislative body.” Mason’s says compelling might include arrest and even proposes that any expenses for retrieving absent members be borne by that member.

But it also has seemingly conflicting advice related to the current case of the Minnesota House.

“Until a house of a state legislature is organized, it has no authority, unless granted by the constitution, to compel the attendance of absent members, but it can adjourn for the day until a quorum can be secured and the body organized,” it states. “After organization … less than a quorum is usually given the right by constitutional provision.”

Does the language about compelling absent members in Section 13 apply before organization or after?

It is not uncommon during sessions that the House or Senate adopts a motion to place the body under a call of the speaker or president and orders the sergeant at arms to go find absent members. It usually means finding them in the building or the office and asking them nicely. But Mason’s say it can include physically bringing them in or even arresting them.

The Simon response envisions such an event if the House GOP position prevails: “It could ultimately allow a small number of legislators to authorize the arrest of their absent colleagues.”

What about fines? Mason’s says they are allowed. But Minnesota’s lawmakers are paid according to statute, which is why the House GOP has two versions of its motion: one to dock their pay and the other to issue fines equal to their pay.

In addition to wanting to pass the pay penalty now, the GOP, in the early days of the session, also passed a resolution that called on Gov. Tim Walz to “direct the Minnesota State Patrol to locate absent members of the DFL caucus and ensure their presence” in the chambers.

But because the House is not legally organized, it can’t elect a sergeant at arms. And Walz did not recognize the previous GOP House, so any requests weren’t accepted. So absent any physical means of getting DFLers back in the chambers, the House GOP wants to fine them instead.

Says the GOP petition to the court: “As presiding officer of the House, then, the Secretary of State’s constitutional duty in the absence of a quorum is clear: he must entertain motions by the Members present, including motions to compel the attendance of absent members or to adjourn to a time and place specified in the motion, and preside over votes on those motions.” 

The brief filed by assistant attorneys general on Simon’s behalf say neither method is allowed, even if such motions could be made.

“Logic dictates that the ‘compel clause’ cannot apply until the house is organized and ‘it’ provides penalties or another process,” the assistant attorney general writes in its response to the GOP petition.

“First, because the House has not yet been able to elect a sergeant-at-arms, there is no method to compel the attendance of absent members. Second, the House does not currently have any existing provision for penalties for absent members. The House would need to take action to implement such a provision, which it cannot do without a quorum of 68 members.”

But the GOP reply to that brief responds this way: “Nothing in the Quorum Clause says that the Legislature must be ‘organized’ before absent members may be compelled to attend. Indeed, nowhere does the Constitution ever refer to the Legislature (or either house) being ‘organized.’ Simon wants the Court to add an implicit provision to the 13 Constitution – that a minority of legislators can adjourn or compel the attendance of absent members once the House is organized. But of course, the courts ‘cannot add words or meaning’ to a constitutional provision.”

What happens if the court rules in favor of Simon?

The status quo remains, and until the House DFL ends its boycott, the daily roll call and adjournment will continue.

What if the House Republicans win?

That changes the power dynamics again. They could offer a motion to compel attendance or issue fines, though it is unclear who would fetch the missing lawmakers and who would issue or collect any fines.

So how do they get out of this box?

While issuing fiery statements via press releases and press conferences, the House GOP and DFL leaders have been meeting in private to find a negotiated solution. Should one be reached before Thursday’s court hearing, it could be canceled.

The House DFL has offered to attend and provide a quorum if they are guaranteed that Tabke not be messed with and that GOP control of the speakership and committees lasts only until the Roseville seat is filled. They have also offered to keep the GOP in control of a new fraud committee.

The GOP has not made its counteroffers public but has said the DFL’s offers are unacceptable. Meanwhile, whether the GOP has enough votes within its caucus to unseat Tabke remains an open question. The sides met several times Monday and again on Tuesday.

What are the politics around this?

Republicans appear to have the stronger messaging here. The DFL isn’t showing up for work yet continues to collect its pay, though DFL members argue they are working – just not at the Capitol. Still, the GOP state party is already raising funds around the optics of that and has created a drive in each DFL district to recall the missing members for nonfeasance.

Recall petitions must be reviewed by a special master for the state Supreme Court, which passes judgment on whether the claims are valid and the grounds worthy of recall. It is a high bar, and the court has not approved any recall of legislators since the current constitutional amendment and state law were passed in 1996. And even if the court approves, signature demands are high, and the recall election will be months in the future, well beyond this legislative session.

A KSTP poll released Tuesday gives both sides something to tout, with a majority of those surveyed saying the GOP should return to the equal power agreement reached before the Roseville seat became vacant and a plurality saying DFLers should not be paid while boycotting.

Still, it would likely become a campaign issue in 2026.

DFLers have a tougher message to convey. They argue that Tabke’s election is being threatened – something that has rarely happened and never to a lawmaker who prevailed in a court review. They also contend that, despite their mistake in the Roseville election, they will eventually regain a tie and should be allowed to share power equally in the House.

While it is working with the base, it is the voter in the middle that might matter.

APPENDIX

The GOP’s Supreme Court petition

Republican Rep. Harry Niska’s declaration 

Memorandum in support of GOP petition   

GOP response to the Attorney General’s filing

Secretary of State Steve Simon’s response via the state Attorney General’s Office

Supporting DFL documents  

Simon’s declaration

---

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.