Minnesota Supreme Court hears arguments on House conflict despite GOP, DFL agreement
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday morning in a case involving a standoff in the Minnesota House that has dragged on for more than three weeks, though GOP and DFL leaders had reached an agreement Wednesday night to resolve the conflict.
At issue is whether lawmakers can compel Democratic members to return to St. Paul and end their boycott over control of the chamber. Power-sharing talks have been ongoing this week and a deal was struck late Wednesday.
The deal struck Wednesday should result in the House convening with both parties present and enough members to conduct official business. Party leaders were expected to hold press conferences — one for each party — to discuss the deal, a setup that illustrates there is still some institutional repair to be done.
Yet on Thursday morning, parties did not agree to postpone the hearing over DFL Secretary of State Steve Simon’s action to adjourn the House proceedings without a quorum in the legislative body.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
House Republicans argued that even without a quorum, the Minnesota Constitution gives them an option to compel the attendance of absent members. They say that the court should order DFL Secretary of State Steve Simon to allow such a motion.
“The plain text of our Constitution authorizes those House members who show up for work at the Capitol to bring motions, and to hold votes, on adjournment and on compelling the attendance of absent members,” attorneys representing House GOP leaders said in their request to the court.
“Simon is extending our constitutional crisis by ensuring that there is no way for House members to exercise their constitutional authority to compel the attendance of absent legislators,” they continued.
Simon, meanwhile, says he wasn’t properly presented with such a motion as he’s presided over the chamber. He has kept tight control: gaveling members in and then soon adjourning because the Democratic holdout has blocked a quorum. Without 68 votes, he says he’s required to end proceedings for the day.
“While the Minnesota Constitution includes a provision about compelling the return of absent members, it presumes a duly organized House and procedures to implement any directive to compel members,” Simon’s attorneys said in a court filing. “Because the Minnesota House of Representatives has not yet organized and otherwise has no procedures for compelling members, the petitioners have no basis for invoking the constitutional provision.”
The hearing comes as the Legislature closes out on another week with the closely-divided House stuck and unable to hold votes or any hearings.
The court hasn’t indicated when it might rule in the case. But the justices set a quick filing schedule ahead of the hearing and turned around an order in a little more than a day in a previous case questioning what constitutes a quorum. Oral arguments should be done by lunchtime.