The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of House Democrats on Friday after a power struggle with Republicans left the state House of Representatives in disarray, according to Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. The court agreed with House Democratic leaders that a quorum in the House required 68 members under the state constitution, not the 67 claimed by Republicans. The House GOP currently holds a slim 67-66 majority, pending a special election to fill a vacant seat expected around March 11. House Democrats had been absent from the Capitol all session to prevent Republicans from exploiting their numerical advantage.
Prior to the ruling, House Democratic leaders had hoped that a favorable decision would encourage GOP counterparts to negotiate a power-sharing agreement, similar to one reached after the November election when it appeared the House would be evenly split 67-67 upon the Legislature’s 2025 session commencement on Jan. 14. However, the agreement fell apart after a judge ruled a Democratic winner ineligible, giving Republicans a temporary one-seat majority. An upcoming special election in a heavily Democratic district is anticipated to restore the tie.
In the meantime, Republicans have proceeded with electing their top leader as speaker, introducing legislation, and conducting hearings. House Democrats have insisted they will not return until Republicans commit to seating Democratic Rep. Brad Tabke, whose reelection victory in a competitive district is contested by the GOP. Despite a judge declaring Tabke the rightful winner, Republicans have hesitated to promise his seat, which would maintain their majority until the vacancy is filled.
House Democrats are employing tactics to block a quorum, a strategy utilized in the past by lawmakers nationwide. While uncommon in Minnesota, such actions have historical precedence, such as in 1857 when a Democratic lawmaker prevented a proposed capital relocation. The complexity of the quorum question was underscored during oral arguments, with both sides referencing various legal sources to support their positions.
Chief Justice Hudson emphasized the necessity for the courts to intervene in cases where a branch of government fails to fulfill its duties, as seen in the dysfunction within the House. The Senate, in contrast, is operating more smoothly amid the ongoing challenges in the House.
As of now, District 33-33 is functioning seamlessly thanks to a collaborative power-sharing arrangement in place until the upcoming special election scheduled for January 28. This election is set to determine the successor for the late senator from a predominantly Democratic district who passed away in December. The district’s operations are continuing steadily as this period of transition unfolds, showcasing a commitment to upholding the democratic process and ensuring effective governance in the region.
