What do they say about a house divided? Every Republican is present every day on their half of the House chamber. The Democrats? They’re all absent every day as their boycott was about to enter a third week.
Justices taking their time whether to intervene
ST. PAUL, Minn. – The justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court ended the ay uncomfortable about whether to step into the super-partisan House battle over defining a quorum. Associate Justice Gordon. Moore said the Court’s intervention could become problematic. “If we decide this case, we’re essentially opening up a can of worms that might not be able to be closed again,” Moore said. “In other words, this court could be viewed by parties as a place to resolve political disputes.” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson also said the courts are not the place to settle political spats and stunts.
Court pauses on a ruling
The Court’s consensus at the one-hour hearing seemed to be that te courts, as a co-equal branch of government, should not meddle in internal affairs of the legislative branch. The hearing, however, was inconclusive and ended with the Court saying, in effect: “We’ll sleep on it.” Without a resolution, the clock keeps ticking on the legislative calendar, whose 2025 session is mandated to end at 120 days.
Constitutional issue? Or political?
About the apparent hesitancy of the Court to intervene, an attorney for House Democrats, David Zoll, said balderdash – although the more restrained in his choice of words. “The issue today is neither political nor partisan,” Zoll said. “It is a question of constitutional law: What constitutes a quorum for the Minnesota House to transact business.”
The back story
The issue at its root is a power-sharing agreement that Democrats and Republicans together negotiated. That was after the November election when it appeared the 134-member House was destined to a 67-67 gridlock. The deal fell apart with a couple of the November elections ended up being contested.