What you need to know about dispute over who will run the Minnesota House

Minnesota’s highest court will hear arguments Thursday in a showdown over who gets to run the state House of Representatives for at least the next two years.

At its core, the question is whether 68 members constitute a quorum, the minimum number of representatives who must be present for the 134-member body to take action. The DFL has boycotted the Capitol since opening day Jan. 14 in an attempt to deny the GOP a quorum.

While the DFL has been away, the 67 House Republican members have gone to work, selecting Rep. Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, as their speaker and setting up committees to begin working on bills and the state budget.

Here’s what you need to know about the dispute.

The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from lawyers for the House DFL, the House GOP and Secretary of State Steve Simon. The DFL and Simon filed petitions a week ago that forced the quorum issue on the court.

There are 67 Republicans and 66 DFLers, with one open seat set for a special election in March.

A Ramsey County judge voided the election of Curtis Johnson in late December because he didn’t live in the Roseville-area district he sought to represent.

Whether a quorum is determined by the number of seats in the House or the number of members, according to Mitchell Hamline School of Law Associate Professor Jason Marisam.

“The text isn’t crystal clear. It doesn’t say what the denominator is — whether it’s all the seats or all members,” Marisam said.

They’re asking the court to find that the House cannot take official actions unless 68 members are present. The DFL’s aim is to return to power-sharing negotiations for a bipartisan leadership arrangement on running the House for the next two years.

They want the court to agree that a quorum is a majority of the members present, although they agree they need 68 votes to make new laws.

As part of his official duties, he’s required to call the House into session on opening day. With DFLers absent on Jan. 14, Simon determined the House lacked a quorum and he adjourned the session. His position is that 68 members must be present for a quorum.

“We have a big political question with both parties playing games to some extent but there is a real legal question that’s important,” Marisam said.

Yes, but, Marisam said, “As enticing as it might be for the Supreme Court to duck, I think they need to decide.”

The court has no deadline, but expect a decision within days if not hours. The justices are aware the House of Representatives is at a standstill.

Justice Karl Procaccini has recused himself from the case and, as is customary, did not indicate why. That leaves Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and five associate justices, all of whom were appointed by DFL governors, including former House Speaker Paul Thissen, who has been on the bench since 2018.

No.

Yes, and the GOP has argued that the court should dismiss on a separation of powers argument, that ruling on the quorum issue would violate the right of the Legislature to act without interference from another branch of government.

“They tend to have a history that has earned them a reputation of being on the impartial side,” Marisam said.

He cited examples. Last week, this court found that DFL Gov. Tim Walz acted too quickly when he called a special election for the open Roseville-area House seat, pushing the date of the election for the safe DFL seat out from late January until early March.

Last year, the court declined to push Republican President Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot.

In 2009, a majority of the justices were appointed by GOP governors, but ruled in favor of Democratic then-candidate Al Franken in his U.S. Senate election dispute with Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

Both sides have said they will.

You can watch a livestream of the hearing on the mncourts.gov website under the Supreme Court section.

Not much more than an hour.

“It could affect the next few years in how the Minnesota House is governed,” Marisam said. “But it’s a small deal in that it’s a really rare legal question.”

None, but Marisam said the DFL has an “uphill climb” and the court “will also be cognizant of the political games going on.”

Not likely. “My guess is the court will stay away from political arguments and give you those dry arguments,” Marisam said.