The Minnesota Supreme Court expressed skepticism on Thursday regarding House Republicans’ assertion that the judiciary should remain uninvolved in the internal affairs of the Minnesota House. The six justices presiding over the high-stakes case, which could determine control of the House, appeared poised to rule on the crucial question of quorum: how many House members must be physically present at the Capitol for legally valid legislative proceedings.
The lawsuit, filed by Minnesota House Democrats and Secretary of State Steve Simon against House Republicans, contends that Republicans cannot elect a Speaker or conduct business without the presence of 68 members. On the first day of the legislative session, January 14th, all 66 House Democrats boycotted the proceedings—a boycott that continues—to prevent Republicans from assuming control. Secretary Simon, acting as the legally designated presiding officer, declared a lack of quorum and adjourned the session.
Republicans argue that a quorum exists with 67 members, accounting for a vacant seat. With a total of 133 House members, they maintain that 67 constitutes a majority. However, their attorney, Nicolas Nelson, focused his arguments on the principle of separation of powers, urging the court to refrain from intervention. He stated that while judicial review of statutes is within the court’s purview, reviewing the legislature’s internal organization or leadership decisions falls exclusively under legislative authority.
This argument met with repeated interruptions and rebuttals from the justices, all appointed by Democratic governors. Chief Justice Natalie Hudson questioned the basis for non-intervention, highlighting the court’s history of addressing urgent legislative matters. She emphasized the current situation as a “completely dysfunctional” co-equal branch of government failing to serve the people of Minnesota, prompting her to ask, “If not the judicial branch, who steps in to resolve that?”
The justices’ questioning extended to Minnesota Solicitor General Liz Kramer, representing Secretary Simon, concerning the applicability of precedent, specifically the 1935 case *Peterson v. Hoppe*. This case established that a majority should be calculated based on the existing membership after a vacancy, a point potentially undermining the Democrats’ and Simon’s position given the vacancy in House District 40B. Kramer countered that *Peterson v. Hoppe* pertained to the Minneapolis City Charter and was thus inapplicable to the Minnesota Constitution.
Attorney David Zoll, representing House Democrats, faced questioning regarding the Democrats’ role in creating the current impasse. Associate Justice Sarah Hennesy questioned whether their actions constituted “unclean hands.” Zoll argued that denying a quorum was not unlawful or unjust, but a strategic decision to ensure that the House, when duly organized, reflected the will of Minnesota voters.
The justices further explored whether a court ruling would effectively resolve the issue. Associate Justice Theodora Gaïtas noted the potential for the quorum issue to persist if Democrats remained absent. Zoll affirmed that if the court ruled in their favor, Secretary Simon would declare a lack of quorum until the Democrats’ return, a scenario Chief Justice Hudson described as a potentially unending cycle. Zoll responded that this is, in fact, how the Minnesota Constitution is structured.
Finally, in a hypothetical posed by Associate Justice Anne McKeig to Nelson, a scenario of severely limited member attendance due to a snowstorm was presented. Nelson confirmed that a reduced number of members (67) within a geographically limited area could still conduct business.
Given the urgency and the swift progression from filings to oral arguments, an expedited ruling from the court is anticipated.