The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case raising the question of the constitutional power of the House of Representatives to compel the attendance of members. I have posted the video below. If you have been following events so far, it is at least of theoretical interest. However, that may be its only interest.
In my post on where we were as of early this morning, I speculated that the court would dismiss the case as moot. The parties have now agreed to stipulate to the dismissal of the case as moot once the House is organized with a quorum (as defined last time around by the court) at 3:30 this afternoon. I think the court is highly likely to dismiss the case on this basis. However, the court heard argument and grilled counsel on the merits of the case. Representing Speaker Demuth, Ryan Wilson had the better of the argument. It’s a shame we are unlikely we are unlikely to learn how the court would have ruled in the absence of the agreement reached last night.
Republicans have declared victory in the resolution of the standoff with the striking Democrats. John agrees. I think I slightly disagree. For a view of the resolution from the left, readers may want to check out Patick Coolican’s account at the Minnesota Reformer.
From the left Patrick concedes that “Republicans scored a major victory in that Rep. Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, will be the speaker for the entire term even though her power will be limited once the two parties deadlock at 67-67. Nothing can pass without 68 votes.” He adds a little further down in his story (links in original):
On its face, the final deal looks similar to an offer Democrats extended three weeks ago: Tabke seated; a Demuth speakership; committee gavels until the special election; two-year majority on the fraud committee.
Andrew Wagner, a spokesman for House Republicans, said the previous DFL offer was for Demuth to be speaker in name only, whereas now she’ll have real power: “I could tick off 20+ procedural/logistical advantages that will make a significant difference, especially later in session.”
Republicans have been hammering Democrats ever since Jan. 14 about “not showing up to work,” and sought to force Democrats to return to the House under penalty of loss of pay and per diem.
A recent poll indicated that the public had largely sided with Democrats, though the poll respondents agreed with Republicans about pay.
In my opinion, the issue of pay without work issue was a decisive public relations liability for Democrats. Maybe Republicans got all they could get. Maybe whatever they got is enough. Maybe we need more information on the limitations on the Speaker’s power to which Republicans agreed. But I wonder.
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.