ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Supreme Court heard arguments from House Democrats, Republicans and Secretary of State Steve Simon on what constitutes a quorum Thursday afternoon, though justices repeatedly expressed reluctance to weigh in on the issue.
Democrats and Simon asked the Supreme Court on Thursday, Jan. 23, to help bridge the parties' differences in opinion about what defines a quorum. Republicans argued the judicial branch should stay out of the legislative branch altogether.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We certainly, certainly are hesitant,” Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson said about the court weighing in on the conflict. “On the other hand, there are times where the courts are required to step in … and what we have is a co-equal branch of government that is completely dysfunctional … if not the judicial branch, who?”
Associate Justice Gordon L. Moore shared Hudson's concern.
“If we decide this case, we're essentially opening up a can of worms, a can of worms that might not be able to be closed again,” Moore said. “In other words, this court could be viewed by parties as a place to resolve political disputes.”
A quorum refers to the minimum number of members who must be present in a meeting to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. House Democrats argue that 68 members are a quorum because 68 is a majority of 134, the number of seats in the Minnesota House. Republicans argue that 67 members are a quorum because 67 is a majority of 133, the number of currently filled seats in the Minnesota House after a Roseville seat became vacant, giving Republicans a 67-66 edge.
On the first day of the 2025 session, Jan. 14, Secretary of State Steve Simon, who presides over the House until a speaker is elected, gaveled out and because there were only 67 members present. Simon found that no quorum was present with only 67 Republicans attending and 66 Democrats boycotting.
Republicans gaveled back in and continued with business, saying Simon only had ceremonial jurisdiction over the House. House Republicans have since elected a speaker, introduced bills and taken control of committees.
Democrats and Simon everything that happened after Simon gaveled out on Jan. 14
ADVERTISEMENT
'Neither political nor partisan'
Attorney David Zoll, appearing on behalf of House Democrats, said the issue in front of the court is not a political one, but rather an interpretation of the Minnesota constitution.
“The issue today is neither political nor partisan,” Zoll said. “It is a question of constitutional law: What constitutes a quorum for the Minnesota House to transact business? The House of Representatives, that constitutionally created body of state government, is composed of 134 members. We know that a majority of that number, 68 members, constitutes the quorum of the Minnesota House, by law and without exception.”
Attorney Liz Kramer, arguing on behalf of the Secretary of State Steve Simon, said in court Thursday that the case comes down to five words in the Minnesota Constitution: ‘A majority of each house.’”
“The question is whether a vacancy in either House reduces the number necessary for a quorum, or whether the quorum number is static,” Kramer said. “Quorum does not change with vacancies in Minnesota.”
Nicholas Nelson, the attorney for House Republicans, primarily argued on Thursday that the court should not preside over House business.
“Petitioners cannot and should not be able to invoke this court's extraordinary, rich jurisdiction to address an alleged quorum problem that is of their own making,” Nelson said.
Nelson also reiterated that the question in front of the court is whether a quorum is a majority of members currently sitting or a majority of members total.
ADVERTISEMENT
Hudson continued to express concern about giving weight to political disputes and said that if the court issues an opinion, it won't be aimed at forcing the House into any kind of power-sharing agreement.
“We're not asking this court to enact the power-sharing agreement that was negotiated between the Democrats or the Republicans,” Kramer said in response. “What we are asking this court to do is to determine whether the purported action of organizing the House in the absence of a quorum was legally valid.”
Justice Hudson asked Zoll what would happen if the court favored the opinion of the Democrats and said that 67 members didn't constitute a quorum.
“If we grant you the remedy that you're seeking? Tell me … What happens tomorrow? What happens the next day?” Hudson asked.
Zoll said that Simon would serve as the presiding officer of the House and would convene the House if a quorum was present or adjourn until a quorum existed.
Hudson asked: “So that could go on day after day after day?”
The court closed arguments on the matter as of 2:15 p.m. on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Potential outcomes
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Democrats, everything House Republicans have done thus far — introducing bills and electing a speaker — would be scrapped. Republicans would also be pressured to return to negotiating a power-sharing agreement with Democrats if they want to get any work done. While 68 votes are needed to pass a bill, Republicans would not be able to even introduce bills if the court determines that 68 members constitute a quorum.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Republicans, the Democrats would likely feel more pressure to end the boycott. Democrats could still hold out, given 68 votes are needed to pass a bill.
House Leader Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, has stated two main reasons for the Democrat boycott, the first being because Republicans are DFL-Shakopee. Hortman said Democrats also believe a power-sharing agreement is necessary due to a currently vacant Roseville seat that will be filled by special election later this year, likely returning the House to a 67-67 tie.
Without these assurances, Democrats likely won’t return until the special election in early March.
Tabke was the tipping point for Democrats deciding to boycott, Hortman said. A 20 missing ballots, evidence shows Tabke won House seat 54A in Shakopee, but Republicans continue to threaten to throw out Tabke.
Republicans only need their 67 votes to unseat Tabke, since Tabke would not be allowed to vote on his own seat’s fate, meaning 67 votes would constitute a majority. If Republicans successfully unseated Tabke, and can win either the special election in Roseville or a newly triggered special election in Minneapolis, they would have a 68-66 majority.
The Supreme Court could also decide to not weigh in at all. Both House Republicans and House Democrats have stated on the record that they will respect the decision of the Supreme Court.
ADVERTISEMENT
This story was updated at 4:33 p.m. on Jan. 23.
The Trust Project
