Capitol Watch: Call it a government shutdown
Minnesota House Democrats, with fresh permission from the Supreme Court, have put the state into a government shutdown. Government shutdowns usually happen at the end of session when the two sides can’t agree on the budget. This year, the government shutdown is at the beginning of session, caused by the refusal of House Democrats to show up for work.
Late Friday the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled:
“A quorum requires a majority of the total number of seats of each house. Vacancies do not reduce the number required for a majority of each house to constitute a quorum.”
This means a quorum in the House is 68 of the 134 seats allotted by law. The quorum question has been settled. But what does it mean?
It means the House Democrats have the Court’s blessing to continue their blatant political move to boycott the House floor, preventing Republican Leader Lisa Demuth from being elected Speaker of the House. It means they can continue to stay away from the House floor until a new member is elected in March, to replace the guy they put up in November who didn’t even live in his district.
It means while they’re pulling this stunt, state government is shutdown, and the Republicans can’t move forward and govern. The shutdown also affects the Senate and Gov. Walz, who must wait until March for this stunt to end. It means no progress will be made on the state budget that must be completed by the end of session in May to avoid the more familiar kind of government shutdown.
The Court ruling does not mean the Democrats won. They only won the chance to continue their childish boycott with impunity. Minnesotans should punish them for boycotting the House in a desperate attempt to hold on to a shred of power after voters rejected their message and defeated their candidates in the last election.
All eyes will be on Rep. Melissa Hortman and her caucus on Monday. When Secretary Simon returns to gavel in the House, will they show up? Will they continue to blame their absence on a threat that Republicans will unseat Brad Tabke, who won by a dubious 14 votes? Can they even explain that to average Minnesotans?
House Republicans could take away that last talking point by announcing there is no imminent plan to unseat Rep. Tabke. With that threat removed, House Democrats will have to explain the real reason they are boycotting: power.
Court ruling raises new questions
Because the ruling nullified all actions of the House since January 14, 2025, three new questions have arisen.
First, when does the clock start on the 22 days needed for Gov. Walz to issue a new writ of special election in the District 40B seat? Although Walz has been mostly silent on the timing of a new writ, it appears he is using the January 14 date to trigger the 22-day time frame. Both he and DFL Leader Melissa Hortman have made public statements about a special election in early March. But with the Court nullifying all House business, can the Governor use January 14 as his starting date? That would put him and his DFL friends in a Catch-22: He can’t issue the writ unless there is a quorum in the House, but if the DFL gives him the quorum, Rep. Demuth will be elected Speaker for the next two years.
Since we are now making it up as we go along, Walz will probably claim “the first day of the legislative session” (204D.19) was January 14 because the Senate successfully convened with a quorum. So expect a writ of special election around February 5 with an election to follow within 35 days.
The second new question is, how does the Senate continue meeting? Article 4, Section 12 of the Minnesota Constitution states:
Neither house during a session of the legislature shall adjourn for more than three days (Sundays excepted) nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be assembled without the consent of the other house.
The “consent” of the other house normally involves passing a resolution allowing the House or Senate to adjourn for more than three days. So far, the Senate has avoided passing such a resolution for fear they would legitimize the House Republican’s actions. The new question is whether Secretary of State Steve Simon’s daily attempts to find a quorum will count as official meetings of the House. If the House can’t conduct business without a quorum, will these meetings allow the Senate to keep meeting?
It certainly doesn’t meet the spirit of the constitutional provision that prevents one body of the legislature from conducting business without the other. What can the Senate get done if the House isn’t meeting? This provision is usually invoked at the end of session, when one body adjourns to force the session to end, whether the other body likes it or not.
A third new question involves the concept of legislative days. Every time either body meets, it uses up one of the 120 legislative days allotted for the two-year biennium. Do the House sessions from January 14 to today count? What about this week when Simon declares “no quorum” and adjourns? Who decides? The legislature rarely runs out of legislative days but this is another example of how messed up things can get when one side sabotages the session. If you haven’t sent an email to your House member, now is the time. We make it easy.
Three random observations from the Supreme Court hearing
The Supreme Court ruled this week it takes 68 votes to achieve a quorum in the House. We’ll leave the legal analysis to others but offer three random observations from the hour-long hearing. As much as they try to deny it, our Supreme Court justices are very political beings. When you listen to their questions, it’s clear they pay attention to the local media and seem to have all the talking points at their fingertips.
For example, Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson made a politically charged statement that should have been challenged by the House lawyer. She said:
“What we have is a coequal branch of government that is completely dysfunctional. It is not doing the will and the work of the people of Minnesota.”
That’s actually not true. The House convened session on January 14, elected a Speaker, adopted rules, appointed committees and began the process of legislating. The Senate also convened and began normal operations, including formally recognizing the formation of the House. The extent to which Justice Hudson’s comment is true is completely caused by the petitioners in this case, House Democrats. If they simply show up and do their duty, the “will and the work of the people of Minnesota” could be accomplished.
Next, Associate Justice Gordon L. Moore, III relied on Secretary Simon’s brief when he asked about the use of Mason’s Manual of Parliamentary Procedure:
“The manuals confirm more than that. Section 501 [of Mason’s] indicates that the rule currently, that the House has been following according to the Chief Clerk of the House is the majority rule in the country. That the total membership of a legislative body is to be taken as the measurement for computing quorum. Why isn’t that information that we could rely on especially considering the Chief Clerk of the House is apparently indicating that that’s been standard practice in this state apparently as long as he’s been in that position.”
This is a lazy reading of Mason’s, as John Phelan pointed out in a post last week. The quote he cites from Mason’s is actually from a different rulebook and it is taken out of context. Is it too much to ask of Justice Moore that he challenge what he reads in a brief before taking it as fact? Do these guys have law clerks?
The third observation is admittedly weaker, but we offer it anyway. Associate Justice Anne K. McKeig was referencing House District 40B and said this:
“What about those who are from the district that’s unrepresented. I think it’s 40B? Jamie Becker Finn’s old seat.”
The way she said “Jamie Becker Finn’s old seat” made us think she knows Jamie Becker Finn. Like they are friends. It was way too familiar for comfort. Or justice for that matter.
Ultimately, our courts are only as good as our judges, and we have some below-average judges in Minnesota right now.