By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a near-even split in the 2024 Minnesota House election, Republicans, despite lacking a majority, unilaterally seized control of the chamber. This involved legally questionable challenges to election results, including a lawsuit to invalidate a Democratic victory and a refusal to seat a Democrat who won a subsequent recount. This action, described as a “coup,” mirrors similar attempts to subvert democratic processes nationwide. The legality of the Republican actions is currently being challenged in court, with the expectation of a return to the 67-67 tie.
Read the original article here
Minnesota voters recently delivered a closely divided state House, resulting in a 67-67 split between Republicans and Democrats. However, the Republicans, despite lacking a clear majority, managed to seize control of the chamber. This outcome has sparked significant debate about the fairness and legitimacy of the process.
The Republicans’ maneuver involved electing a Speaker, Representative Lisa DeMuth, in a session where the chamber wasn’t even fully occupied. This action raises concerns about whether the election was truly legitimate, given the lack of a full quorum and the clear lack of consensus. Some argue the election was merely a pretense, a performance devoid of real democratic weight.
The situation is further complicated by a pre-election lawsuit challenging the residency of a Democratic candidate. A judge’s decision to disqualify this candidate, despite questions surrounding the legality of post-election residency challenges, temporarily granted the Republicans a 67-66 advantage. This action is viewed by some as a strategic move, highlighting the lengths to which one party will go to gain power.
The Republicans’ actions have been described as a “slow burn, hostile takeover,” a blatant disregard for democratic norms. Critics argue this behavior signals a shift away from respecting the rule of law and the will of the people, emphasizing instead a desire for complete domination. They suggest this isn’t an isolated incident, but rather indicative of a broader pattern of power grabs by Republicans across various branches of government.
The contrast between the Republicans’ aggressive tactics and the Democrats’ adherence to established procedures is striking. Some suggest that the Democrats’ emphasis on following rules and decorum has been exploited, leaving them vulnerable to such power plays. It’s argued that a more assertive response, one that directly challenges and undermines such actions, would be more effective in protecting democratic values.
The comparison is drawn to similar events in other states, like Oregon. In previous incidents, Republicans in Oregon boycotted legislative sessions to deny Democrats a quorum, effectively obstructing legislative action. This contrasts sharply with the Minnesota situation where, despite the lack of a majority, Republicans still proceeded with the Speaker’s election. The hypocrisy in these actions has not been lost on many observers.
This disparity in approaches highlights a broader political dynamic. Critics argue that one party, the Republicans, seems to have abandoned any commitment to democratic processes when they do not yield the desired results. The perceived lack of reciprocity and commitment to democratic principles from one side fuels calls for a stronger, more assertive response from the other.
The situation has led to widespread outrage and calls for action. Many feel that the Republicans’ actions represent a clear and present danger to democracy, demanding immediate and effective countermeasures. The lack of significant public protests and the seemingly slow response from democratic institutions have been criticized as a failure to adequately address this crisis.
The core issue revolves around power dynamics and the perceived erosion of democratic norms. The close election results, combined with controversial legal challenges and a disregard for established rules, have exposed fundamental flaws in the current system. This raises profound questions about the future of democratic governance and the necessity for change.
Many observers believe that Democrats need to adopt a more confrontational approach to counter the Republicans’ tactics. Simply following the rules and relying on traditional methods of political engagement are deemed insufficient when facing a party willing to disregard those same rules. The need for a more proactive and decisive response that prioritizes the will of the voters over procedural niceties is emphasized.
The question of appropriate responses remains at the forefront. Some advocate for aggressive legal challenges and direct confrontations, while others urge for exploring alternative political strategies to counter the perceived disregard for democratic norms. Ultimately, the events in Minnesota highlight the fragility of democratic institutions and the ongoing struggle to maintain a fair and representative government. The lack of a clear resolution underscores the urgency of the situation and the need for a sustained commitment to protecting democratic values.