Both sides accusing the other of not following the rules
So the Democrats refuse to show up to be sworn in after holding "secret" swearing in ceremony with a retired Democratic Judge in a historical center. The GOP shows up to be sworn in and then the Democratic Secretary of State offers that there is no quorum (not a majority of the members) and tries to send everyone home. The GOP disagrees, states they have a quorum, and goes on to elect leadership, and starts working on legislation.
At issue is that the election ended with a 68-68 house tie between the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats insist that you need 69 to have a majority of the members in order to have a quorum. But one of the Democrats was ruled ineligible because he lied about living in the district and a special election is to be held in a couple of weeks. So as of this moment, the GOP has a 68-67 advantage and claim that 68 is a majority of the current members. From what most legal analysts suggest, the GOP is correct. There is nothing in the state constitution that suggests a quorum is a majority of districts or potential members, but rather a quorum is the majority of actual members. But Democrats are planning to take them to court because they are continuing to hold sessions without them.
On the flip side, the Minnesota state law appears to require every elected member to be sworn in at the capital at the first day of the session. There is no precedent in place that suggests you can just be sworn in randomly at your convenience by a retired Judge. The GOP wants to litigate this as well. Looks like Democrats want to say they are sworn in so that they can collect their paycheck for not working.
Either way, the Minnesota legislature continues with the GOP functioning as the only active members and will likely remain that way until the special election is held and the 68th Democrat is sworn in. This is a clusterflunk.
Nonprofit founded by Stacey Abrams agrees to historic fine over illegal election spending on her failed bid for governor
The reasoning behind what the democrats are doing was that when it was 68-68 they had been working on a power sharing agreement, with co-chairs, etc. Now that the GOP has a one seat advantage, they want to take an opportunity to put themselves in a better position.
Keeping in mind that the GOP was basically shut out of everything over the past two years due to a one seat advantage for the Democrats in the Senate and a razor thin margin in the House. Democrats ruled by force, pushing through bill after bill without any GOP input or GOP support.
So now that things are somewhat reversed, the Democrats suddenly want power sharing and for everyone to get along…