Quick Update: Minnesota Stalemate Returns to MN Supreme Court
Okay fine I'll write about this thing one more time.
This morning, I published a piece suggesting that the Minnesota GOP should:
Firstly, retake the power to make appropriate motions within the (unorganized) state House, which Sec. State Steve Simon has plainly usurped for plainly partisan reasons. This includes, at minimum, the right to adjourn itself—or to refuse to adjourn itself.
Secondly, after retaking the power to make motions, move to exercise the House’s (somewhat murky) constitutional power to compel the presence of absent members.
Here is that piece:
The Minnesota Legitimacy Crisis Is Over!
This is Part III of my unexpected series on the Minnesota Legitimacy Crisis. Part I described the crisis and Part II reviewed the court case.
(I concluded the piece by saying that it was likely to be my last writing on the crisis! Ha! Fool! Barely lasted twelve hours!)
However, a few minutes ago, Speaker-Designate Lisa Demuth (R) and Rep. Harry Niska (R) sued Sec. Simon on a writ of quo warranto demanding:
The right to make appropriate motions within the (unorganized) House…
…including the right to compel the attendance of absent members.
This tracks so closely with what I wrote this morning that it warrants an update. (I swear I haven’t been in contact with anyone in the House GOP throughout this story!)
The case is in C-Track at docket #A25-0157. Already posted are:
Demuth and Niska’s petition for quo warranto, prepared by the same legal team as last time (Samuel Diel, Nicholas Nelson, Ryan Wilson).
A memorandum of law supporting the petition.
A declaration by Niska swearing to certain procedural facts (which, as far as I know, are undisputed).
I do not plan to comment on every development in this case, but you can expect the following to pop up on the docket over the coming week:
A scheduling order from the Minnesota Supreme Court setting a date for oral arguments and deadlines for briefs from both parties.
A reply from Sec. Simon defending his actions. (Good luck, chief.)
A rebuttal from Demuth and Niska.
I’ll bet we get at least one amicus brief, maybe once again from Prof. Wurman.
My guess is an oral argument within ten days and another order within fourteen. (The opinion will once again take months.)
The adorable Nathan Hartshorn???? (he’d be arguing for the wrong side, alas)
All documents will be posted in C-Track, and oral arguments will presumably be on the court’s website, just like last time. Local news will cover it, but probably not very well, and without links to the documents.
As I previewed this morning, my position going into the briefing stage is that the Republicans should absolutely hands-down win on the first question (right to make motions in the unorganized House). As always, I am open to having my mind changed by good arguments in the briefs, but, as I noted this morning, Sec. Simon himself admitted the authority of the unorganized House to make motions to adjourn in his letter of January 10, and then usurped the power only once it became clear that allowing the unorganized House to exercise its own prerogatives could be politically uncomfortable. Git ‘im. Git ‘im git ‘im git ‘im.
The second question is a closer one, since our constitution’s quorum clause can be read both narrowly and broadly, and (as my article this morning noted) I have changed my mind about it once already in the past twenty-four hours. However, reserving the possibility that a well-argued brief could change my mind, I think the Republicans ought to win on this point, too.
EDITORIAL NOTE:
I am really uncomfortable about sending you email. I personally unsubscribe from mailing lists when I start getting too many emails, and I never want any reader to see De Civ like that.
For that reason, when there are significant developments in a story, I usually update the original article rather than writing a new article (like this one) which gets sent to your inbox.
However, in a recent comment thread, I heard from some readers that they actually want updates posted as a new article, because the whole reason they’re subscribing to De Civ is to see everything De Civ publishes, and if I put the updates in the original article instead of a new one, they don’t get to see it! So I’m trying this out.
Big fan of the new article for updates like this model. On really-live items I’ll often naturally still have the comments thread up and refresh for a few days anyway so I’ll see longer edits but there’s not much that rivals the dopamine hit of a fresh De Civ email!
This whole thing is an utter embarrassment to watch. It’s like watching two five year olds playing a taxpayer-subsidized game of chicken when they’re supposed to be cleaning their rooms, except there are no parents around to punish both of them. I don‘t care which caucus is more at fault, this all needs to end, now!
This is the kind of stuff that absolutely sickens me about politics, and one of the main reasons why I’ll never run for public office, even though I find the law and public policy stuff fascinating.
But, then again, I’m not on either side of this mess, so that probably shapes my perspective. I’ve Laetae sentiae excommunicated myself from both Team Red and Team Blue 😛