Minnesota Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Democrats in Quorum Dispute, Halting House Proceedings
in a landmark decision, teh Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Friday that a quorum of 68 members is required for the Minnesota House to conduct official business, delivering a important victory for House Democrats. The ruling effectively halts all proceedings in the lower chamber, which has been in limbo since Democrats boycotted the session to prevent Republicans from taking control.
The dispute began on January 14, when House Republicans, with only 67 members present, elected a speaker and assigned committee chairs.Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, who presided over the session, declared the lack of a quorum and adjourned. House Democrats, along with Simon, subsequently sued Republicans, arguing that 68 members—a majority of the 134-seat house—must be present to conduct business.
The Supreme Court agreed, issuing a three-page order that cited Article IV, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution.“We further hold that 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 stated. “Vacancies do not reduce the number required for a majority of each house to constitute a quorum.”
the justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, emphasized that their interpretation of the quorum clause should resolve the issues raised by the petitions. This decision marks the first time in state history that the court has definitively ruled on what constitutes a legislative quorum.
A Stalemate in the House
The ruling leaves the Minnesota House in a precarious position. With Democrats boycotting the session since January 14, Republicans have been unable to advance any legislation. Democratic house leader Melissa Hortman has signaled that her caucus may continue withholding a quorum unless Republican leader Lisa Demuth agrees to negotiate a power-sharing agreement.
“Republicans tried to seize power that the voters did not give them. Now that it is clear Republicans must work with Democrats for the House to operate, I am hopeful we will be able to shortly negotiate an acceptable path forward,” Hortman said. “We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and return to the negotiating table instantly.”
Hortman invited Demuth to begin negotiations Friday evening but had not received a response by the time of her press conference. Demuth, simultaneously occurring, called for Democrats to end their boycott.
“This decision drives home the fact that House democrats are disrespecting not just their own constituents, but the entire state of Minnesota by refusing to do their jobs,” Demuth said. “House Republicans will be showing up to work on Monday—it’s time for the Democrats’ walkout to end and for the Legislature to get on with its work.”
Unresolved issues and Future Implications
The House remains one seat short, with Governor Tim Walz yet to call a special election to fill the vacancy. Hortman anticipates the special election will take place on March 11. The seat, which leans Democratic, is expected to restore the chamber to a 67-67 tie.
another point of contention is the seating of DFL Rep. Brad Tabke, who won his south metro election by 14 votes despite 20 missing ballots.A judge recently ruled that Tabke would have won nonetheless, but Republicans have indicated they may refuse to seat him without a do-over election.
Secretary of State Simon, who will reconvene the House on Monday, praised the court’s decision. “I thank the court for its promptness and clarity in this case. This was a closely contested legal issue, and for the first time in state history we now have a final answer on what constitutes a legislative quorum,” Simon said.Key Points at a Glance
| Issue | Details |
|——————————–|—————————————————————————–|
| Quorum Requirement | 68 members required for House business, per Minnesota Constitution. |
| Supreme Court Ruling | Vacancies do not reduce the quorum requirement. |
| Democratic Boycott | 66 Democrats boycotted session to prevent Republican control. |
| Special Election | Expected March 11 to fill vacant seat, likely restoring a 67-67 tie. |
| Brad Tabke’s Seat | Republicans may refuse to seat Tabke despite court ruling. |
The minnesota House now faces a critical juncture. With the Supreme Court’s ruling in place, the path forward hinges on whether democrats and Republicans can reach a power-sharing agreement. As the state watches closely, the outcome will shape the future of Minnesota’s legislative process.
What do you think about the court’s decision? Share your thoughts below and stay tuned for updates as the situation unfolds.
Minnesota Supreme Court sides with Democrats in Historic Quorum Ruling, Halting House Proceedings
Table of Contents
in a landmark decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a quorum of 68 members is required for the state House to conduct official business, delivering a meaningful victory for House Democrats. The ruling has effectively halted all proceedings in the chamber, which has been in limbo since democrats boycotted the session to prevent Republicans from taking control. This decision marks the first time in state history that the court has definitively ruled on what constitutes a legislative quorum, setting a precedent for future disputes.
The Quorum dispute: A Breakdown of the Ruling
Editor: Can you explain the core issue that led to this Supreme Court decision?
Guest: Absolutely. The dispute began on January 14 when House Republicans, with only 67 members present, elected a speaker and assigned committee chairs. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, who presided over the session, declared the lack of a quorum and adjourned. house Democrats, along with Simon, afterward sued Republicans, arguing that 68 members—a majority of the 134-seat House—must be present to conduct business. The Supreme Court agreed, citing Article IV, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution, which states that a majority of each house constitutes a quorum. The court emphasized that vacancies do not reduce the number required for a quorum.
Impact on House Proceedings
Editor: How has this ruling affected the functioning of the Minnesota House?
Guest: The ruling has left the House in a stalemate. With Democrats boycotting the session since January 14, Republicans have been unable to advance any legislation. Democratic House Leader Melissa Hortman has indicated that her caucus may continue withholding a quorum unless Republican Leader Lisa Demuth agrees to negotiate a power-sharing agreement. Hortman has invited demuth to begin negotiations, but as of her press conference, no response had been received. Meanwhile, Demuth has called for Democrats to end their boycott, accusing them of disrespecting their constituents and the state by refusing to do their jobs.
Unresolved Issues and Future Implications
Editor: What are the key unresolved issues following this ruling?
Guest: There are a few critical issues still up in the air.First, the House remains one seat short, with Governor Tim Walz yet to call a special election to fill the vacancy. Hortman anticipates the special election will take place on March 11, and the seat, which leans democratic, is expected to restore the chamber to a 67-67 tie. Another point of contention is the seating of DFL rep. Brad Tabke, who won his south metro election by 14 votes despite 20 missing ballots. A judge recently ruled that Tabke would have won regardless, but Republicans have indicated they may refuse to seat him without a do-over election.
Reactions and Next Steps
Editor: How have key figures reacted to the court’s decision?
Guest: Secretary of State Steve Simon, who will reconvene the House on Monday, praised the court’s decision, thanking the justices for their promptness and clarity. He noted that this was a closely contested legal issue and that the ruling provides a final answer on what constitutes a legislative quorum. On the political front, Hortman has expressed hope that the ruling will lead to productive negotiations, while Demuth has urged Democrats to end their boycott and return to work.
Conclusion
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling on the quorum dispute has set a historic precedent,clarifying the constitutional requirements for legislative business. With the House now in a precarious position, the path forward hinges on whether democrats and Republicans can reach a power-sharing agreement. As the state watches closely, the outcome of these negotiations will shape the future of Minnesota’s legislative process.
