Minnesota Dems Have Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Days

And an end to the DFL’s run of trouble may not yet be in sight

Minnesota Democrats have one-upped Alexander of the classic children’s book. He had to endure only a single terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. The DFL has been living the nightmare for weeks, and there seems to be no end in sight.

Go back to last November. Even with the state’s most popular Democrat, Sen. Amy Klobuchar on the ticket and Gov. Tim Walz surging to national prominence as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, the DFL lost its majority in the House of Representatives.

Even so, they managed to salvage a tie in the House of Representatives. Or so they thought. Seems one of their 67 members didn’t live in the district in which he was elected. Republicans challenged the election outcome in court and won. The court invalidated the DFL win, handing the Republicans a 67-66 majority on opening day, a situation they leveraged by electing Republicans as speaker and committee chairs.

The Democrats acted like it was no big deal because, after all, what’s institutional integrity when rules can be bent and Democratic Gov. Walz could order a hurry-up special election to fill the now-vacated seat in a district that leans heavily blue?

Not so fast, said the state Supreme Court. There are laws governing when a legislative seat is vacated and the timing of a special election. The DFL’s preferred early date for a special election “must be quashed,” according to the court. The special election now will take place in early March, about one-third of the way through the legislative session.

Losing the majority in the November election, having a member’s election invalidated and not being able to fill the seat and regain the tie until well into the session certainly qualifies as a terrible, horrible, no good stretch. But there’s still the lurking potential that the very bad is yet to come.

When the DFL thought the House would be tied, leaders were negotiating a power-sharing agreement with their GOP counterparts. When Republicans won in the courts, the session convened with the GOP holding a 67-66 majority. The GOP took the view that a quorum - the number of legislators required to be present for the House to do its work - is met when a majority of the members sworn in are present. The 67-member Republican caucus showed up in full on opening day. They determined that a quorum was met and proceeded to elect Republicans to lead the House as the majority party.

Democrats have a different opinion. Their argument is that a quorum is a majority of the full body, or 68 members, whether some seats are vacant or not. The DFL cried foul and decided not to show up for work.

Take a step back. Democrats have only themselves to blame for this kerfuffle. The 134th seat in the House is vacant because the DFL failed in one of the most basic functions of a political party - vetting candidates. To endorse a candidate who didn’t meet residency requirements is inexcusable. It also is the product of a party’s arrogance, assuming that any candidate in a heavily partisan district will be elected.

So now it’s back to court. With the Constitution and statutes mostly silent or vague on what defines a quorum, Democrats are asking the judicial branch to determine the operating rules for the legislative branch. That’s a bad precedent. It is one thing - a good thing - for the courts to uphold election laws, as they did in the rulings on the residency of a candidate and the date of a special election. Now, the DFL is asking the judicial branch to go a step farther and rule on what essentially is an organizational matter.

Law professor David Schultz framed the problem well in a recent Minnesota StarTribune opinion article: “While in the short term it might be expedient for the court to resolve the legal issues here, it sets a terrible 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.”

In other words, says Schultz, court intervention “would take the legislators off the hook to be responsible to themselves and the voters for their own behavior.”

There are only three ways the court could decide:

1. Don't bother us. This is your problem, House members; you figure it out.

2. The GOP is right. A quorum is a majority of those members actually seated.

3. The DFL is right. A quorum is a majority of the full authorized membership of the body.

In the first two instances, nothing changes. Republicans rule the roost. Even when - as is likely - a new Dem is elected in the vacated district, that leaves the House with a 67-67 tie. Not enough to change decisions already made, including leadership roles, presuming every GOP member is present and votes the party line.

In the third instance, the House ends up in a power-sharing agreement that has yet to be determined. Even if a working agreement can be reached, the well is poisoned by both parties. Republicans remain sore - rightly so - by the DFL's strong arm tactics at the end of last year’s session. The Democrats locked Republicans out of participating in shaping final legislation. And this year’s opening day power-grab by the GOP won’t soon be forgotten by the DFL, even if Democrats are complicit in their own political failure by endorsing an illegal candidate.

Regardless of the court decision, Republicans will have a larger role in legislation in 2025 than they had last session. Even so, the GOP doesn’t have the political power to reverse the sweeping changes majority Democrats made in 2023-24. Meanwhile, the DFL will not be able to shut Republicans out of having a say in the budget and other legislation ultimately sent to the governor for signature. Seems likely that status quo will define the outcome of the 2025 session.

Longer-term, though, Republicans are setting the stage for victory in the 2026 elections, one that includes the office of governor. The decision by Democrats to stay away from work isn’t likely to be fondly remembered by voters next year. While Walz continues to be popular, Minnesota voters haven’t been favorably disposed to politicians who outstay their welcome. The very popular Rudy Perpich lost his bid for a third consecutive term in 1990, losing to a candidate who was only on the ballot for about a week.

And, there are the ominous signs for Democrats from last year’s election. Most significant, perhaps, are the red flags raised by U.S. Senate election. Yes, Sen. Amy Klobuchar won a comfortable re-election. But her opponent, Republican Royce White, the worst major-party Senate candidate in memory, flipped 29 counties from those Klobuchar won in 2018. White lost the statewide vote by about 16%, but about two-thirds of Klobuchar’s winning vote margin came from a single county, Hennepin. Many other counties were close. For example, White lost two fast-growing metro counties, Carver and Scott, by only 6,200 votes out of more than 151,000 votes cast in the two counties. And it bears repeating: White was a terrible candidate.

Perhaps the GOP again will be the DFL’s election salvation. Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory consistently in the last two decades. Bad candidates, under-financed political operations and ideological extremism have doomed the Republicans. Add to that the difficulty the party of the White House incumbent traditionally has in mid-term elections, and 2026 has its share of challenges for the GOP.

In the children’s book, Alexander wishes he could move to Australia to escape all his misfortune. His mother reminded him that running away doesn’t solve problems or eliminate terrible days.

Minnesota Democrats also can’t escape their misfortune by running away. Minnesotans sent some mixed messages on Election Day 2024, but it’s clear that many voters are worried about the state’s future and the course set last year by Democrats. Minnesotans would be well served if Democrats showed up for work with the goal of making Minnesota better, not just making the DFL more powerful.