♪♪ >> Mary: LAST WEEK WE HEARD FROM A FORMER MINORITY LEADER FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

TONIGHT WE HAVE A FORMER LEADER FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, RYAN WINKLER.

WHO'S ALSO AN TTORNEY.

WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT, TOMORROW'S THE SUPREME COURT.

DO DEMOCRATS 'HAVE THE UPSIDE, REPUBLICANS?

TAKE OFF A PARTISAN HAT HERE, THE LAWYER IN YOU.

WHAT DOES TOMORROW LOOK LIKE?

>> WELL, SO, THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN LITIGATED N WHAT IT TAKES TO ORGANIZE THE HOUSE.

>> Mary: AND THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST LAW IN THIS.

>> THAT IS THE HIGHEST LAW, THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

MOST STATES THAT HAVE HAD THIS CASE -- THIS KIND OF CASE LITIGATED WOULD SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE 68 VOTES FOR A QUORUM AND 68 VOTES TO PASS A BILL.

BUT, AGAIN, THAT AS NEVER BEEN LITIGATED IN MINNESOTA SO THERE'S NO PRECEDENT.

BECAUSE IT'S THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS THE STATE SUPREME COURT THAT HAS THE FINAL WORD ON HOW MANY VOTES IT TAKES O CONSTITUTE A QUORUM IN THE STATEHOUSE.

>> Mary: LAST WEEK, MARTY SEIFERT OPENED THE CONSTITUTION AND SHOWED A PROVISION THAT SAID THERE WAS AN ABILITY TO CONVENE WITH FEWER THAN THE 134 AND HE WAS SAYING THAT LANGUAGE THERE MAKES THIS POSSIBLE.

>> I THINK MARTY KNOWS, I THINK EVERY FORMER HOUSE LEADER KNOWS, EVERY CURRENT HOUSE LEADER KNOWS THAT THE RULE IN THE MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS THAT IT TAKES 68 VOTES TO FORM A QUORUM AND 68 VOTES TO PASS A BILL, REGARDLESS OF WHO IS IN THE CHAMBER OR EVEN WHO IS SERVING IN OFFICE AT THE TIME.

>> Mary: SO IT CAN'T BE A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR QUORUM VERSUS BILLS?

BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS PEOPLE AGREEING, YEAH, 68 TO PASS A BILL, BUT IT REALLY SEEMS TO BE QUESTIONED AND UNDER DEBATE WHAT A QUORUM IS.

AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE IS SIMILAR IN HE CONSTITUTION.

IT'S NEVER BEEN LITIGATED.

THE MAJORITY OF STATES WOULD SAY 68 AND THE LONGSTANDING DECADES-LONG PRACTICE IN THE MINNESOTA HOUSE HAS BEEN 68.

>> Mary: WHAT IF THE COURT SAYS, SEPARATION OF POWERS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL THE LEGISLATURE WHAT TO DO, FIGURE IT OUT?

>> WELL, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THE COURT COULD DO.

ALTHOUGH THEN THE COURT -- INSTEAD OF STEPPING AWAY FROM THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS STEPPING AWAY FROM INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION.

AND I THINK THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THE COURT SHOULD DO.

>> Mary: SO DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE IT'S THE CONSTITUTION?

>> THEY DO.

IN MOST STATES WHERE THIS LITIGATION HAS COME UP, THEIR FINAL COURT HAS WEIGHED IN.

>> Mary: MUCH WAS MADE YOU HAVE OF THE ALL-DFL APPOINTED STATE SUPREME COURT, AND THEN LAST WEEK THEY RULED AGAINST DFL GOVERNOR TIM WALZ.

DOES THIS PROVE WE REALLY DO HAVE MAYBE ONE OF THE AST NONPARTISAN HIGH COURTS IN THE COUNTRY?

>> I THINK THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT IS VERY CAREFUL TO APPEAR NOT POLITICAL.

THEY DO NOT WANT TO WEIGH IN ON POLITICAL QUESTIONS, IF THEY CAN AVOID IT.

THEY DON'T WANT TO LOOK LIKE THEY'RE FAVORING ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.

AND, SO, IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THEY WILL SPLIT THEIR DECISIONS, WITH REPUBLICANS ON ONE, DEMOCRATS ON THE OTHER.

>> Mary: IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE HOPING AND EXPECTING?

>> I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK IT SHOULD BE 68 FOR A QUORUM.

>> Mary: RIGHT.

>> AND THEY CAN'T CONDUCT BUSINESS AT 67.

I THINK THAT IS THE STANDARD.

BUT I THINK THE COURT CAN WEIGH IN AND, I THINK EITHER WAY, WHATEVER DECISION THE COURT MAKES, THEY ARE STILL KICKING THE DECISION BACK TO HOUSE REPUBLICANS AND HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO NEGOTIATE A WAY FORWARD THIS SESSION.

BECAUSE IN THE END, YOU STILL HAVE TO GET TO 68 VOTES TO PASS A BUDGET, AND THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS SITUATION IS TO GET THROUGH IT AND THIS IS JUST DELAYING, I THINK, THE TIME IT TAKES TO GET THIS JOB DONE.

>> Mary: ONE MORE COURT QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S INTERESTING TO POINT OUT, THERE IS A FORMER DFL HOUSE SPEAKER ON THE COURT.

DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF OR DOES HE BRING SPECIAL EXPERTISE?

>> WELL, HE HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED, HE'S BEEN FAR ENOUGH REMOVED FROM THE LEGISLATURE THAT I DON'T THINK HE WOULD KNEES O RECUSE HIMSELF.

NEED TO REDUCE HIMSELF.

I'M SURE HIS VOICE ON THE PRACTICES OF THE HOUSE WILL BE INFLUENTIAL ON THE COURT.

BUT WHETHER THE COURT THINKS THE HOUSE'S OWN PRACTICE IS DETERMINATIVE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, THAT'S, I THINK, A DIFFERENT MATTER.

>> Mary: YOU SOUND PRETTY UP TO SPEED ON ALL OF THIS.

ARE YOU TALKING TO LEADERS?

ARE YOU ADVISING AT ALL?

>> IT'S BEEN OME TIME SINCE I'VE TALKED TO ANYBODY ABOUT ANY OF THIS, YEAH.

>> Mary: LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING NOW?

>> WELL, I'M PRACTICING LAW.

>> Mary: YES.

>> AND I TARTED A THC BEVERAGE COMPANY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

AND I'LL BE HEADING OUT TO NEW JERSEY NEXT WEEK TO LAUNCH SALES OF OUR PRODUCT OUT THERE.

AND, SO, THIS KIND OF MARKET THAT KICKED OFF IN MINNESOTA IS NOW SPREADING ACROSS A LOT OF STATES.

>> Mary: DO YOU WANT TO SEE LEGISLATION, DOES CANNABIS, DOES THC, DOES THERE NEED TO BE SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE COMING FROM THIS LEGISLATURE?

>> THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.

EVERY YEAR THEY'LL PASS SOME KIND OF CLARIFYING BILL.

IT'S THE SAME WITH THE LIQUOR INDUSTRY OR ANY REGULATED INDUSTRY, THERE'S ALWAYS UPDATES THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

>> Mary: ARE YOU SURPRISED HOW LONG IT'S TAKEN TO FIND A NEW HEAD FOR THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT?

KIND OF THE STUMBLES AND THE TIME FRAME ON THIS.

>> I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, DESPITE WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT THINK, STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN MINNESOTA ARE NOT PAID VERY MUCH COMPARED TO THEIR PEERS IN OTHER STATES.

SO IT MIGHT BE HARD TO BRING SOMEBODY IN.

AND I ALSO THINK CANNABIS IS KIND OF COMMONPLACE NOW.

IT'S NOT THE EXCITING PLACE TO GO MAKE YOUR CAREER, LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FIVE, TEN