Past Is Prorogue
By Mitch Berg
This week appears likely to bring a decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court on the issue of the quorum in the Minnesota House.
There’ve been two interesting points of view on the subject.
U of M Law Professor Ilan Wurman wrote an op-ed in the Strib. Here’s the conclusion
Walz and the Democrats have, in short, effectively prorogued the Legislature, invoking one of the royal prerogative powers of King George III against which the American revolutionaries rebelled. For four years, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of attempting to thwart democracy. But who is the real threat?”
…but the whole thing is worth a read, and I urge you to do so.
And Professor Dave Schultz of Hamline University – who has replaced Larry Jacobs as the most. ubiquitously quoted person in Twin Cities media – points out that separation of powers means, y’know, separating powers:
In the disputes now between the Democrats and Republicans fighting over control of the House, the Minnesota Supreme Court should decide not to decide. While in the short term it might be expedient for the court to resolve the legal issues here, it sets a horrible precedent. It sets precedent for the court to intervene in future disputes in the Legislature. If today it is about quorum, tomorrow about committee structures or the selection of officers.
Additionally, were the court to intervene it would take the legislators off the hook to be responsible to themselves and the voters for their own behavior. Instead of working it out themselves, they would go to court to resolve their disputes. Letting the court resolve the disputes now only weakens the Legislature, while giving the court undue influence over the legislative process.
Left to their own, the House Democrats and Republicans will be forced to find a solution. Failure to do so could mean a government shutdown and punishment at the next election for their bad behavior. We elected them to do their job, not the Minnesota Supreme Court. This is what our state constitutional framers intended.
One thing has become obvious – the DFL’s position has nothing to do with the election litigation in House District 54A, or even 40B. Its about stonewalling a GOP Speaker and committee chairs under any circumstances. I’m presuming it’s to continue concealing the skeletons in the DFL’s closet.
January 21st, 2025 at 5:16 pm
Exciting! Alas, I am still skeptical MSC will not do the exact opposite of what Schultz says and intervenes. I will gladly take your money since past performance in this case guarantees future results, but hope Schultz is right.
January 22nd, 2025 at 12:03 pm
I’m not sure I grok the whole “don’t get involved” position re the Supreme Court.
Isn’t the whole point of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution with respect to legal precedent and laws that are passed?
If anything is violating separation of powers, it’s not the Supreme Court doing its job, it’s the Executive Branch trying to intervene in the business of the legislature. I’d think the Judicial branch should probably have something to say about that.
I’d think they should also have something to say about the proper interpretation of the Constitution and precedent vis a vis what constitutes a quorum in the legislature.
They can do those things without compromising separation of powers…in fact, resolving disputes like this is, in my opinion, the very purpose of the Supreme Court.
They should firstly tell the executive branch to butt out of legislative branch business and secondly rule on the lawful definition of a quorum. After that’s been definitively determined, they can then wash their hands of the matter and let the legislature figure it out.
But, then again, I’m just a lowly layman, not some high falutin’ lawyer or constitutional scholar so what do I know?