Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

All indications are that Minnesota is headed for a 67-67 state House of Representatives in 2025. But that road to a tied chamber has plenty of possible detours.

If the tie remains intact when the House gavels in on Jan. 14, it would be only the second time in state history that’s happened. While there are some clues in the prior instance as to how things might go, today’s Democratic and Republican leaders are charting their own course.

There might be some surprises yet to come. Here’s how some of those outcomes could shape what gets done next year in St. Paul.

If the tie holds

Republicans and Democrats are poised to enter the 2025 legislative session with a 67-67 split in the House. Meanwhile, DFLers hold a one-seat advantage in the Senate.

While there are legal challenges that could alter the outcome, legislative leaders are preparing for shared custody of the chamber. So far, that means seating two co-chairs to each legislative committee —  one Democrat and one Republican — and evenly seating members from the two parties on each.

House Leaders Lisa Demuth, a Cold Spring Republican, and Melissa Hortman, a Brooklyn Park Democrat, said they’re still working on a broader leadership agreement that spells out how they might share control of the House speaker’s gavel.

Under the Minnesota Constitution, only one person can hold the position at a time. Both have said they have a strong working relationship and feel confident that they can come together to deliver for Minnesotans, despite the split.

“This is going to force the ability to work together from the very start of session so I don’t anticipate us having a bumpy end of session,” GOP House Leader Lisa Demuth told TPT’s “Almanac” show in late November. “I think the bumps are going to be felt early on and we’ll work through those as we go.”

Demuth and Hortman said they learned from the 1979 legislative session, the only other time this even division has happened before. At that time, Republicans held the position of speaker while Democrats chaired key committees. But the two current legislators say there were drawbacks of that arrangement so they’re opting for a different leadership model.

Lawmakers were able to pass a budget in the divided chamber back then, but there were heated disagreements as the parties sought to capitalize on days when a member of the other party was ill or absent for other reasons.

Ultimately the session ended in a rancorous close after DFLers removed a Republican lawmaker without allowing him to cast a vote in the decision. (That case could resurface in this legislative session as we’ll get into below.)

Flash forward to today, Hortman and Demuth said they want to avoid a similar situation. And they say that will require trust between the two of them.

A defection undoes the knot

While leaders have advocated for bipartisan cooperation, they also acknowledged that efforts to poach a member or two from the other side have already started.

That could take many forms: An alliance on particular issues or specific bills or a full-on party switch.

It would only take one member crossing over from either side to help eke a bill through the chamber. And that means every representative becomes the difference maker.

“You have to ask, right?” Hortman, of Brooklyn Park, said on “Almanac.” “I know that a few of our members have been approached; I know a few Republican members have been approached. It would be legislative malpractice to not ask.”

A tragic occurrence leaves a seat vacant

A health problem, family issue or other unforeseen unfortunate event like the death of a lawmaker could also affect the numbers in the House and reset the power dynamic.

Without an even balance in a committee or in the House chamber, one party could gain an advantage while the other is down by a vote. Hortman has said she hopes to avoid situations where leaders would seek to gain from instances where a member is absent. She said that eroded trust in the 1979 legislative session.

“What makes it work is if people respect each other and have a fundamental decency of, like, places they won’t go, if people keep their word,” Hortman said the day after the election. “The responsibility of the Minnesota Legislature is to set a two-year budget, and I think that we should be able to set a bipartisan two year budget without having those kind of histrionics.”

Should a lawmaker step down from office or pass away while serving, state law says the governor would have to call for a special election within five days of a vacancy. And that special election would need to be held within 35 days of that notice.

There are only 125 calendar days between the start of the session and the constitutionally mandated end in May. So even under a compressed replacement window, that kind of temporary vacancy could loom large.

An election lawsuit succeeds

There appear to be a couple paths for lawsuits challenging the election results to advance and adjust party control in the chamber.

Republicans will go ahead with a court challenge in a Shakopee area race where DFL Rep. Brad Tabke edged out Republican Aaron Paul by 14 votes. They argue that the results could be affected by 20 absentee ballots that county election officials say can’t be accounted for.

Scott County officials on Wednesday said 20 absentee ballots from Shakopee were accepted in October but not counted. The ballots and their secrecy envelopes were likely thrown away accidentally between the time they were submitted and Election Day, a preliminary investigation found. And the ballots are unlikely to be recovered in a way that could prove they’d not been tampered with, according to the Scott County attorney’s office.

Scott County held a recount in the race and certified the result that had Tabke with his slim lead. Depending on the course of the lawsuit, including appeals, that could take weeks or longer to resolve.

Republicans have also challenged a Roseville area DFLer alleging that he didn’t live in the district he could represent as required by state election law. Republican Paul Wikstrom filed in Ramsey County District Court last month alleging that the Democratic winner, Curtis Johnson, does not live in the studio apartment listed on his paperwork.

Johnson has disputed the characterization and his party expressed confidence that the lawsuit will be fruitless. In a filing last week, his lawyers said the timing of the lawsuit is also a problem

“It is a cardinal rule of election law that parties must be diligent in raising issues in order not to disrupt the canvassed and certified results of the election,” attorney Charles Nauen wrote in a filing last week. “There is no case law showing that a court ever entertained a residency challenge under the election contest statute after an election has been held.”

Last week, Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson offered up a list of Ramsey County District Court judges who could preside. They settled on Judge Leonardo Castro, who scheduled a hearing for Tuesday.

The election contest process in both cases could eventually lead to trial-like proceedings and the judges ultimately might issue written findings of fact. Those would be forwarded to the Legislature for consideration and a potential vote.

It’s worth noting that an election certificate can be issued to the declared legislative winner while the election contest plays out.

But here is a key line in the law that might matter when the House convenes: “No party to the contest may vote upon any question relating thereto.”

And don’t assume that only one party would try to force out a member of the other. The possibility of a tit-for-tat exchange is out there.

Despite the possibilities, Demuth said legislative leaders are moving forward as though they will work under tied control.

“My expectation, with the exception of this (Scott County) recount in the situation there, is that we would be ready to go with all the framework in place in order to start that session on time and appropriately,” she told WCCO Radio in late November. “(Voters) have chosen balance. They’ve sent us back equally, not one party above the other or below in the House. And so they’ve sent us back equally. I believe we can work together and get that done.”

A seating roadblock

Even if the lawsuits fail, legislators could throw up roadblocks preventing lawmakers from fulfilling some of their duties in office.

The Minnesota Constitution spells out eligibility requirements for state lawmakers, including that they have lived in Minnesota at least one year and in the district that they’re aiming to represent for six months ahead of Election Day. But it also spells out that members of the House and Senate also have a say over election returns and eligibility of the members of their bodies.

That means that things could get dicey if members of one party call into question the validity of the election of a member of the other party. The Constitution says lawmakers “shall prescribe by law the manner for taking evidence in cases of contested seats in either house.”

It happened before — during that one other instance of split House control in 1979. In the last week of session, Democrats voted to declare that Independent Republican Rep. Robert Pavlak wasn’t legally elected. This action came on the House floor after the Minnesota Supreme Court left intact a ruling that Pavlak violated campaign law over a dubious newspaper ad he had run just ahead of a close election for the St. Paul seat.

Justices on Minnesota’s highest court were clearly uncomfortable being called on to help referee the dispute. And in a ruling that included a pair of dissents, the court kicked it back to the House to render an ultimate decision.

“In short, we have no jurisdiction to issue a final and binding decision in this matter, and our opinion by statute will be and by the Minnesota Constitution must only be advisory to the House of Representatives,” Chief Justice Robert Sheran wrote in the majority opinion.

Amid it all, Pavlak collapsed and was hospitalized.

DFLers took the court’s findings to deem his election illegal, and essentially removed him while he was gone. Republicans fought the action, calling it unconstitutional. But they were unable to block it.

The whole episode led to days of tension, shouting and fist-pounding on desks during the close of the session.

It didn’t happen then, but the Constitution spells out a path to quash such chaotic behavior, at least among spectators. The chamber may “punish by imprisonment for not more than 24 hours any person not a member who is guilty of any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence.”