Support the Timberjay by making a donation.
REGIONAL- It’s become clear that the Minnesota court system has and will continue to play a key role in shaping the power structure of the state’s new legislative session. The state …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, below, or purchase a new subscription.
Please log in to continue |
REGIONAL- It’s become clear that the Minnesota court system has and will continue to play a key role in shaping the power structure of the state’s new legislative session. The state Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments on Thursday this week in a DFL lawsuit contesting Republican actions to control the House of Representatives.
The current power struggle was precipitated by a previous court ruling in the contested election of the DFL’s Curtis Johnson, who was elected to the House 40B seat in November. His Republican challenger, Paul Wickstrom, filed suit, claiming that Johnson was not eligible for the legislative office because he did not live in the Roseville apartment he rented in the district, but rather maintained his residence in Little Canada. A Ramsey County District judge ruled in favor of Wickstrom, saying Johnson did not meet the necessary residency requirement and nullifying his election.
A 67-67 tie between the parties in the House election suddenly became a temporary 67-66 Republican majority, and the party acted quickly to abandon a power-sharing agreement that would have had Republican Lisa Demuth and DFL leader Melissa Hortman share Speaker of the House duties and have members of each party act as committee co-chairs.
Flexing their muscle on the first day of the session, Republicans ignored a ruling by presiding officer Secretary of State Steve Simon that the chamber did not have a quorum to operate, and with DFL representatives boycotting the session they proceeded to elect Demuth as speaker and conduct additional business. The DFL boycott has continued as Republicans have continued to operate under the presumption of having a legal quorum, holding floor sessions and committee meetings without their DFL counterparts.
The DFL and Simon both filed suits last week asking the Supreme Court to intervene on the question of what constitutes a legal quorum under the state constitution and state law. The DFL and Simon contend that it should be 68, one more than half of the number of House seats. On the other hand, Republicans have proceeded under an interpretation that a quorum is 67, one more than half of the representatives elected and eligible to serve.
Justices will have to consider sections of the state constitution that each side has drawn upon, sections that don’t specify either 68 or 67. One states that “A majority of each house constitutes a quorum to transact business,” while two others refer to “a majority of the members elected to each house of the legislature.” Additional sections and state statutes will come into play as well.
The DFL has asked the court to provide the following relief:
• Issue an order preventing Republicans from transacting any legislative business, including making nominations and electing leaders, until a quorum of 68 is present.
• Declare that Republicans acted unlawfully when they took action following Simon’s adjournment.
• Declare that all actions taken by the House in the absence of a 68-member quorum are null and void.
• Award the DFL all costs associated with the lawsuit.
Republicans fired back on Tuesday with their 39-page response. They argued that the DFL willfully created the quorum controversy with their boycott and lacks standing to sue, having created any alleged harm themselves. Furthermore, they contend that Simon’s role in opening the session is only ceremonial, and that separation of powers dictates that his call to adjourn was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch over the legislative branch. They extended the separation of powers argument to the court itself, arguing that organizational matters of the House are internal ones, and that the court cannot intrude on a separate branch of government to choose, for example, a Speaker of the House.
“Petitioners are seeking a fleeting political advantage—they hope to deprive the opposing party of the ability to organize the House of Representatives for a few weeks,” the response concludes. “But to achieve this, they ask the Court to reverse constitutional principles that Minnesota has consistently articulated and applied since before it became a state. That is backwards. The petitions should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or alternatively denied on the merits.”
Special election reversal
The Supreme Court has already weighed in on another Republican lawsuit that challenged the legitimacy of a Jan. 28 special election called in December by Gov. Tim Walz to fill the vacant District 40B seat. Ruling in favor of the Republicans, the court canceled the election, stating that Walz violated a state law that he cannot establish a special election to fill the seat until 22 days after the first day of the session. Walz set the date in December on the same day Johnson said he would not appeal the decision nullifying his election.
The decision raises the possibility that the DFL could extend its House boycott by another month, as they had vowed not to return until after the special election that is expected to re-establish the 67-67 tie. Walz is expected to set the new date for early in March. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the quorum question could affect a decision on the boycott.
Tabke controversy
Meanwhile, the DFL has sought to leverage another court case involving a disputed election to forge a revised power-sharing agreement that would lead to the end of their boycott. Rep. Brad Tabke, DFL-Shakopee, won re-election to his seat by 14 votes over Republican challenger Aaron Paul, but Scott County election officials discovered that 20 absentee ballots were missing and were not included in the total, enough ballots to potentially flip the outcome. Paul sued and requested a special election, but Scott County District Court Judge Tracy Perzel, presented with testimony from six of the absentee voters who said they cast their ballots for Tabke, ruled that the election was valid.
However, the court’s ruling did not automatically give Tabke the seat, because the Minnesota Constitution says that the House has the final say in determining who is a member.
Demuth said that the Republicans would evaluate the ruling and consider their options, and did not commit to seating Tabke. She previously indicated on a conservative podcast that “until there is a new election … we should not be seating that representative.”
That seat has become a sticking point in trying to negotiate a new power-sharing arrangement. Hortman offered a revised agreement that would provide Republicans with temporary control of the speakership and committees, but the DFL continues to insist that Tabke be seated, using the court ruling as additional justification.
“Brad Tabke won on election night, he won in a recount, and he won in court,” Hortman said on Tuesday. “But Republicans want to kick him out and disenfranchise 22,000 Minnesotans who voted in the November election. Democrats are asking Republicans for something very simple: to honor the will of the voters.”
If a special election was held, a Republican victory would give the GOP a majority.
In the Senate
Yet another court ruling has helped the DFL in its quest to preserve a one-vote majority in the Senate, which is currently operating under a power-sharing agreement after the death of DFL Sen. Kari Dziedzic, which left the chamber deadlocked at 33-33.
But the status of Sen. Nicole Mitchell, DFL-Woodbury, for the entirety of the session was in doubt due to a criminal case for alleged first-degree burglary filed against her flast spring for allegedly breaking into her stepmother’s Detroit Lakes home. At the time, Republicans attempted to have her voting privileges revoked, and after she refused to testify at an ethics committee hearing, action was deferred.
Michell’s trial was scheduled to begin next week in Becker County District Court, but a judge ruled in favor of Mitchell’s motion to delay the proceedings until after the legislative session has concluded. Mitchell’s continued presence in the chamber will likely allow the DFL to continue its majority after next Tuesday’s special election, in which DFL candidate Doron Clark is expected to win.