Minnesota Supreme Court jumps in as Dems boycott House in effort to deny GOP control
The Minnesota House is in disarray, and it’s gumming up the entire legislative session. All 66 House Democrats are in the middle of their third week of boycotting the Capitol in an effort to deny the 67 Republicans quorum and control of the chamber.
Democrats fear that if they return and give Republicans a quorum, the GOP will unseat Rep. Brad Tabke, DFL-Shakopee, who won in a close but disputed election.
Late last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled — in the first case before them regarding this dispute — that the House needs 68 members for a quorum. This means the 67 House Republicans are unable to conduct business without their Democratic-Farmer-Labor colleagues.
Ever since, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon has been presiding over the chamber in the absence of a speaker. The House floor sessions last about five minutes, with Simon declaring there’s no quorum present and adjourning the session.
Now, House Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to step in again. Here’s what you need to know about the second case legislators have filed to the Supreme Court in the fight for power in the Minnesota House.
What do Republicans want?
The simple answer: For Democrats to return to the Capitol.
If the Democrats give Republicans a quorum, the GOP can elect Rep. Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, to be the speaker of the House, a position she’d hold even when the House returns to a 67-67 tie following a special election next month in a DFL-leaning district in the north metro, as expected.
Democrats also fear Republicans would use their temporary, one-seat advantage to unseat Tabke. That would prompt another special election, this one in Tabke’s south metro district, which Republicans have a shot at winning and thus capturing a true, 68-seat majority.
To compel Democrats back to the Capitol, Republicans need to pass a motion. Simon, however, has refused to “recognize” the House Republicans attempting to make the motion — a procedural move in which a member stands up on the House floor and the presiding officer calls on them to make their motion.
Simon’s refusal to recognize members is beyond his authority as a presiding officer, House Republicans say, so they’re appealing the Supreme Court to force Simon to recognize their motion.
House Republicans want to pass a motion that would fine House Democrats an amount equal to their salary during the days that they are absent from the Capitol and revoke their per diem privileges — the $86 per day they receive during the legislative session for food and other daily expenses — for the entire 2025-2026 session.
“There is no end in sight to Simon’s usurpation of authority,” attorneys for the House Republicans wrote in the petition to the high court. “Without intervention from this Court, Minnesota’s legislators will be left with no ability to bring any motion — or even to speak and be recognized — in the very House to which the people elected them. And this will continue indefinitely.”
Why is Simon not allowing Republicans to make a motion?
Simon argues that because the House lacks a quorum and is not duly organized, he cannot accept motions.
Minnesota Solicitor General Liz Kramer, on behalf of Simon, wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court that House rules don’t allow present members to compel the attendance of other House members or implement fines against them.
“The legislative chamber in question is, until organized, an inchoate entity that cannot compel the attendance of its members, any more than it could propose or pass legislation,” Kramer wrote.
House Republicans, however, argue that the ability to compel absent members is written in the Minnesota Constitution. The clause at issue is the same one disputed in the last Supreme Court case: “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.”
Republicans argue that the second clause allows a group of lawmakers — smaller than a quorum — to compel absent members.
Kramer in her brief states that the “it” in the clause refers to the chamber as a whole and presumes there’s a quorum.
“The reference to providing the manner of compelling or otherwise imposing penalties is rooted in the institution — ‘it’ — not the smaller number of members seeking to invoke these procedures or penalties,” Kramer wrote.
House Republicans previously wanted the court to stay out of it. Now they don’t.
House Democrats last month sued House Republicans arguing that the 67 GOP members were conducting business illegitimately because they didn’t have a quorum.
The Supreme Court agreed with Democrats and said the House needs 68 members to legally operate.
In their arguments to the high court at that time, Republicans argued that the Supreme Court had no business butting into the dispute because doing so would violate the principle of the separation of powers and “do incalculable damage to our state’s Democracy.”
Never mind. Now Republicans have done an about-face. They’re asking the court to step in and rule that Simon has no authority to ignore their motions.
And Democrats are now the ones arguing the Supreme Court shouldn’t issue a ruling; Republicans are asking the Supreme Court “to referee parliamentary procedure,” Kramer argues. The high court typically rules on cases regarding interpretations of the Minnesota Constitution.
Republicans say that it is a constitutional interpretation, as the clause at issue deals with compelling absent members.
How will the Supreme Court rule?
We don’t know. The justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, are expected to issue another expedited opinion given how quickly it scheduled oral arguments.
Does any of this matter?
The standoff may seem almost childish, but it matters a great deal. As previously noted, a Republican win in court would mean a Republican speaker of the House for two years, which would give the GOP some big procedural advantages, even if we wind up with a 67-67 House.
Moreover, all this time fighting for control of the chamber means no work is being done on the House’s big task this year: Passing a two-year, $60+ billion budget to fund schools, roads, health care, social services, parks and many of the other priorities that Minnesotans expect. Without a budget by June 30, the government shuts down.