Republicans in the Minnesota House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Steve Simon on Monday which told Simon that he has no legitimate authority to rule on parliamentary matters in the chamber.
This letter comes amidst a public dispute over how many House members are required to be present for the House to conduct business.
At noon today, the 94th session of the Minnesota Legislature is set to begin with Simon presiding over the House. Minnesota law says that the secretary of state, a member of the executive branch of government, shall be the presiding officer of the House on the first day of session until a speaker is elected.
The House is currently divided with 67 Republicans, 66 Democrats, and one vacancy. Given the GOP’s one-seat advantage, Republicans could elect a GOP speaker and organize the chamber to their liking on the first day.
To prevent this, House Democrats are threatening to stay away from the legislature when the session begins in order to deny the GOP a quorum and keep the House from operating.
According to the Minnesota Constitution, a majority must be present in order for the House to conduct business. Republicans say their 67 members constitute a majority because there will only be 133 members when the new legislative session begins. Conversely, Democrats say the presence of 68 members is required because the chamber has 134 seats.
Democrats say they will only show up on the first day if the GOP agrees to a power-sharing agreement which was anticipated when the House appeared to be tied at 67-67.
Secretary Simon says 68 members constitute a quorum
In advance of the legislative session, Simon issued a statement that discussed his role as presiding officer. In part, that statement said: “Under the law, one of my limited responsibilities is to determine if there is a quorum present.”
“After extensive research and consultation with nonpartisan experts, I conclude that the Constitution and state statute define the majority needed for a quorum in the House of Representatives as 68 members,” added the secretary of state.
Simon wrote a letter to both the House GOP and the House DFL discussing his rationale for his conclusion. In that letter, Simon wrote that his reasoning was based on the Minnesota Constitution, state laws, and legal precedent. Among his statements, Simon said the state constitution says a majority of the House is required for a quorum, state law prescribes that the House be a 134-member body, and 68 is a majority of 134.

Additionally, Simon wrote that the section requiring a quorum uses plain language to refer to the House while other parts of the constitution use intentionally different language for other functions. In short, the secretary of state argued that the use of plain language was done to ensure that the quorum requirement refers to the whole 134-member body.
Simon also discussed Minnesota Supreme Court precedents in his letter and said Mason’s Legislative Manual agreed with his interpretation of the quorum question.
On two separate occasions, the secretary of state has said he is open to alternative legal analysis on what constitutes a quorum.
Republicans make a counterargument
Yesterday, House Republicans published a response to Simon. In their letter, the GOP told Simon that the secretary of state is a member of the executive branch of government, and therefore has no authority to make determinations about House business.
“As you are aware, the Secretary of State is not a member of the legislative branch, and has no constitutional authority over the House of Representatives,” wrote the House GOP in their letter. “Indeed, as a member of another branch, you may not ‘exercise any of the powers properly belonging to’ the legislative branch. Minn. Const. Art. III.”
Describing the secretary of state’s temporary presiding officer position as “a limited ceremonial role,” the GOP said the constitutional authority to conduct House business “rests solely with the House, not with you.”
The House GOP also noted that the Minnesota Constitutional Convention specifically rejected Simon’s interpretation back in 1857. At that time, an amendment that mirrored Simon’s view of the quorum rule was brought by a delegate and subsequently rejected. Furthermore, the House GOP explained that quorum thresholds are not intended to be ironclad and can change under certain circumstances.
In closing, the House GOP urged Simon to “reconsider the irresponsible and unconstitutional path suggested in your January 10 letter.”
Alpha News reached out to the Office of the Secretary of State (OSS) to ask if Simon had any response to the GOP letter. However, the OSS did not reply to a media inquiry.