Minnesota Supreme Court rules Democrats control quorum in state House
- The Minnesota Supreme Court determined that a quorum in the House requires 68 members necessary for decision-making.
- This decision challenges the actions of Republicans who have operated with only 67 members present since the session began.
- Both parties are urged to cooperate for the effective functioning of the House as the anticipated special election approaches.
In a significant legal decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court intervened in a dispute that has left the state House of Representatives in a state of dysfunction. The court ruled that the quorum necessary for the House to conduct business is 68 members, based on the total number of seats in the chamber. This ruling came on January 24, 2025, and it effectively challenged the actions that House Republicans have undertaken with only 67 members present. Following a judge's ruling about an election challenge, Democrats have been absent, citing a power dispute over how to share control of the House until the impending special election. The ruling has implications for the ongoing power struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. With a special election approaching and the current composition of the House favoring a narrow Republican majority, the court suggested that cooperation is essential to restore functional governance. House Democratic leaders have expressed a desire for an agreement on how to share power, anticipating that the special election could restore an even split. The Republicans, on the other hand, have criticized the Democrats for not participating in the legislative process. Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court highlighted the ongoing impasse and its effect on legislative operations, labeling the situation as 'completely dysfunctional.' The court’s decision did not reverse any actions taken by House Republicans thus far but emphasized that any future operations must align with the constitution’s definition of a quorum. This ruling is poised to reframe the dynamics within the House, aiming towards a collaborative approach amid mutual distrust between both parties. Democrats along with their leaders hope that the ruling may incentivize negotiations with Republicans about a power-sharing agreement. As the special election could potentially change the balance of power, it is crucial for both parties to come to the table and find common ground before legislators can begin to work effectively again. Details surrounding how this agreement might look remain unresolved, and discontent expressed by Republican leaders reflects ongoing tension. The fate of the House's efficiency hangs in the balance until a resolution is achieved.