The Democrats elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives refused to show up for work at the appointed hour on January 14. One of their number got caught lying about his residence and lost the resulting election contest. His seat is vacant pending a special election. With Republicans holding a 67-66 majority, the remaining Democrats are boycotting the current legislative session to deprive Republicans of a quorum. Their position is that a quorum is a majority of all seats in the body — i.e., with a total body of 134 members, a majority would be 68.
Republicans assert that a quorum constitutes a majority of actual members, not a majority of the total number elected. Vacant seats do not count. In this case a quorum is 67. Republicans have accordingly shown up for work and conducted House business.
We have a constitutional crisis of the Democrats making. If only they would show up for work it would be over. They want to keep the House from conducting business until a special election is held to fill the vacant seat next March. In the meantime, the Democrats are inhibited neither by shame nor embarrassment. Their antics demonstrate the deep meaning of “quorum.”
The Democrats brought their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. All seven members of the Minnesota Supreme Court are Democrats appointed either by Governor Mark Dayton or Tim Walz. The court has posted its video of the oral argument online here. Fox 9 has posted video of the argument from a different angle on YouTube. I have embedded it at the bottom.
Based on the oral argument, my guess is that the Democrats are more likely to win the case than the Republicans. Justice Paul Thissen is a former member of the House and leader of House Democrats. He is also a former law clerk to Eighth Circuit Judge Jim Loken. Thissen seems to me the best lawyer on the court. My guess derives mostly from my reading of his questions and comments, but I may be mistaken. The justices posed a few uncomfortable questions to the lawyers appearing for Secretary of State Steve Simon (the unimpressive Solicitor General Liz Kramer) and the House Democrats (David Zoll).
Attorney Nick Nelson represented the House Republicans. He wasted too much time arguing that the court should stand aside and stay out of the fray. He would have been well advised to leave that argument to his brief. As an institutional matter, the court was not likely to abstain and the oral argument suggested that none of the justices is inclined to do so here. Unlike the House Democrats, they are showing up for work in this case.
For what it’s worth, that’s my take. You be the judge.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.