Texas Democrats Flee State to Block Trump‑Backed Redistricting Vote
“This is wrong, this is un-American, and this is undemocratic. … Republicans are stealing our democracy right before our very eyes.”
More than 50 Texas House Democrats fled the state on Sunday to stop a redistricting vote that could hand Republicans five new Congressional seats in the upcoming midterms.
The Texas Constitution mandates that two-thirds of the House be present to constitute a quorum for conducting legislative business. With 150 members in the Texas House of Representatives, this means at least 100 lawmakers must be present. According to Josh Rush Nisenson, spokesperson for the House Democratic Caucus, “at least 51 Democratic members have left the state—effectively denying the chamber the quorum required to proceed.”
In a Sunday statement, Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said, “We’re leaving Texas to fight for Texans. We’re not walking out on our responsibilities; we’re walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent.”
According to The Hill, “Breaking quorum … means that each lawmaker incurs a daily penalty of $500 and the possibility of being arrested.”
The lawmakers flew to Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. Flanked by those who bolted to his state, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker vowed during a Sunday night press conference to protect the Texas Democrats from arrest. He told reporters:
They’re here in Illinois. We’re going to do everything we can to protect every single one of them and make sure that — ’cause we know they’re doing the right thing, we know that they’re following the law.
It’s Ken Paxton who doesn’t follow the law. It’s the leaders of Texas who are attempting not to follow the law. They’re the ones that need to be held accountable.
Governor @JBPritzker stands with Texas Democrats: When you show people that you have the will to fight, they can muster the will to fight, too. Courage is contagious. pic.twitter.com/gV0HE9rtb6
— Democrats (@TheDemocrats) August 4, 2025
Pritzker was referring to threats from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, who wrote in a post on X that the Texas Democrats “should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately. We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law.”
Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.
We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law.
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) August 3, 2025
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is scheduled to meet with Texas lawmakers who arrived in her state on Monday morning.
Texas State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D) told the Hill, “This is wrong, this is un-American, and this is undemocratic. And America, we need to wake up. Republicans are stealing our democracy right before our very eyes.”
Yes, it is a politically motivated power play, but it’s not as though Democrats haven’t engaged in similar — if not worse — tactics when given the chance. And it is legal.
Hold on, 5 minutes ago weren’t ‘mainstream libs’ trying to add two new states, pack the courts, get rid of the filibuster, and dismantle the EC? https://t.co/X8aZHBcqjN
— Coddled Affluent Professional (@feelsdesperate) August 4, 2025
On Sunday night, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott issued a statement which said in part:
This truancy ends now. The derelict Democrat House members must return to Texas and be in attendance when the House reconvenes at 3:00 PM on Monday, August 4, 2025. For any member who fails to do so, I will invoke Texas Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0382 to remove the missing Democrats from membership in the Texas House.
🚨BREAKING NEWS from TX Governor Greg Abbott:
“This truancy ends now. The derelict Democrat House members must return to Texas and be in attendance when the House reconvenes at 3:00 PM on Monday, August 4, 2025. For any member who fails to do so, I will invoke Texas Attorney… pic.twitter.com/lCg1LXSyum
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) August 4, 2025
The Texas House Democratic Caucus responded in a statement, “Come and take it.”
It’s unclear if Abbott has the power to remove the lawmakers from office as a CNN political analyst points out below.
NOTABLY the Paxton opinion that Abbott cites doesn’t actually say lawmakers who break quorum are removable — in fact it says this is a fact-specific question only resolvable by a court.
The opinion also does not say it’s unconstitutional to break quorum. https://t.co/Ll00N1YmqX pic.twitter.com/3RfMsNYOxE
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 4, 2025
In a rather amusing development, Fox News reported that the Republicans’ new map would move obnoxious Texas Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s home out of her district. According to Fox, “Crockett said she was asked to verify her address before Republicans unveiled the congressional redistricting proposal.”
That would be awesome! ~ ~ Texas GOP's new map would move Rep. Crockett’s home out of her district, slash Dem seats https://t.co/GhGOyU1Ucw pic.twitter.com/KeoDY9kJbe
— Mary (@matjendav4) August 3, 2025
State lawmakers throughout the country have tried this tactic before, and, in most cases, it didn’t work out particularly well. Typically, it only appears to delay the inevitable.
The Associated Press reported that Texas Democrats fled to Washington, D.C. in 2021 over legislation to enact voting restrictions.
While initially successful in killing the measure, they couldn’t block the plan again during a special session when Republicans had law enforcement issue civil arrest warrants to bring Democrats back. The stalemate lasted more than a month. The bill prohibited 24-hour polling sites, banned drive-through voting and gave more access to partisan poll watchers.
Democrats in the state used the same tactic in 2003, when House members went to Oklahoma and senators traveled to New Mexico. They failed to thwart a Republican congressional redistricting plan.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
People that refuse to do a job are removed from the position. These Dems have a job: to vote. If the vote doesn’t go their way, that’s the will of the people.
I like Governor Abbott: He fights.
Let’s bring on the fight. Remove them from office, appoint replacements, vote, and then let the courts sort it out. By the time the courst case is resolved, at least two elections may have occurred. Unless of course it goes to SCOTUS. If that occurs, plaster it all.over campaign commercials how the D’s went AWOL because they couldn’t win at playing the game.
The game metaphor is apt. A team that refuses to play forfeits the contest. This is universally considered “fair.” Won’t stop the Dems from screaming bloody murder, though.
Let’s bring on the fight. Remove them from office, appoint replacements, vote, and then let the courts sort it out. No. You can’t remove them from office. You can go to court and ask the court to do so, and the court decides whether it has the authority, and if so whether it should exercise it. Then, if the court decides to remove them, they appeal the decision and it goes up the chain. Until there is a final decision to remove them they remain in office.
And no, it can’t go to SCOTUS because there’s no federal issue involved. It’s entirely a matter of interpreting the state constitution so it can’t go higher than the state supreme court.
Oops, that didn’t work. The first sentence is meant to be a blockquote. LI admins, could we please have an edit button? There are several reliable WP plugins that do it. Just try one of those.
I’m sure some sharp witted attorney will turn this into a gerrymandering case, and just like Louisiana v. Callais, Rucho v Common Cause, and League of Women Voters v Pennsylvania; the the most recent that have been to Scotus among many others.
So yes; there is a chance this could go before SCOTUS.
Removing them from office can’t go to SCOTUS. There’s no federal nexus. It’s simply a question of whether the Texas constitution, hidden in some penumbra or mousehole, allows its courts to remove legislators for absenting themselves from the legislature. Nothing in the text allows such a thing, but the TX AG says the state courts have said they have such a power, in specific cases that would have to be litigated. So this would be sorted out entirely within the state judicial system.
You missed my point entirely
Yes, but – did he?
He made a threat, the fleebaggers ignored it, and then what? He didn’t follow through on his threat. His deadline came and went with no action to remove these legislators from office.
That makes him look weak. Worse, he set himself up for his own failure – D’s ignoring the threat was entirely predictable.
What threat? What exactly could he have done by now, that he has not done? He raised the possibility that if they stay away from the legislature for a long time, the state courts might eventually entertain a motion to remove them. Nothing in the state constitution allows this; all he has is an opinion from the AG that given the right set of facts a court might decide to remove them. So that’s all he was able to threaten.
There is no way that he could bring such a motion now. No court would entertain it. Any court would say, “What are you talking about? They’ve been gone for about five minutes. How can you possibly imagine that’s sufficient to claim they’ve abandoned their seats?” Now if they stay away for a month or two, such a case becomes more plausible, and they might try it out on a court and see how it goes.
But the only real threat is that the fines will accumulate, and if they stay away until the special session ends he’ll immediately call another one, and another, until they have no choice but to come back, and as soon as they set foot in the state they can be arrested and brought forcibly to the legislature. Plus they’ll have to pay all those fines.
You missed the point of.my post entirely.
hey look jasmine
ol hot wheels is gonna beat your home state agenda
Dog The Bounty Hunter has entered the chat.
One riot, one Ranger….
‘one scoff law/truant legislator, one extraterritorial rendition team’ doesn’t roll off tongue the same way.
Anyone who tries executing a Texas arrest warrant in Illinois will be arrested and charged with kidnapping.
Really? Even when TX presents a warrant and requests cooperation from Illinois to find, ID and arrest the subject of the warrant? Does Illinois ot NY choose not to cooperate with out of State arrest warrants and, as a matter of policy, routinely deny obligations under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause? I’d suggest that cooperation would be a far wiser policy lest TX and/or other States begin a campaign to refuse cooperation with Illinois and NY for all sorts of public acts, records and judicial proceedings.
Obviously a TX LEO doesn’t have arrest powers outside the State of TX and you are correct that any TX LEO attempting an ‘arrest’ outside of TX to bring in a fugitive needs cooperation from the second State.
IL, like every state, cooperates with criminal warrants. No state cooperates with political warrants like these ones. But even if they usually did they certainly wouldn’t this time, because Pritzker would have ordered them not to.
And no, Texas can’t retaliate, because IL doesn’t issue political warrants. And TX can’t refuse extradition, any more than IL can. Interstate extradition is mandatory, and the governor gets no say in the matter. But these legislators are not accused of any crime, so they can’t be extradited.
Now if TX were to find evidence of bribery and bring charges against them, and request extradition based on those charges, then IL would have to hand them over.
You keep using using ‘can not’ for ‘should not’ interchangeably. TX or any other State can find all sorts of innovative ways to express displeasure for lack of cooperation …’retaliation’ is a loaded and ugly word. Use 287(g) authority to set up TCP and conduct a thorough inspection of each IL plated vehicle. Give particular attention to IL registered commercial vehicles at weigh stations. Pulling any State investment funds from Illinois owned Investment firms. Declining to contract with Illinois owned firms for any State projects. DPS Troopers could ‘independently and unexpectedly’ ensure that after 00:01 Friday AM that drivers with Illinois plates or DL are refused a traffic citation and detained until Monday AM before a magistrate. Air travel might be impacted with landing fees for flights originating from Illinois which could be waived with cooperation. Delaying any all requests from IL with a bunch of goofy paperwork drama. Lots of ways to do it. Some fair, some unfair but if they wanted to they could pursue the same tactic as NY State does in violation of the 2A..keep fighting in CT, spin out the timeframe, then when/if they lose adjust the program to create another 3-5 years of legal wrangling.
Texas can’t retaliate tit for tat. It can’t do the same to IL that IL would be doing to it. It could refuse to enforce political warrants from IL, but IL doesn’t have those. It can’t refuse extradition of criminals — no state can do that. All the things you suggest would not be retaliation in kind, they’d just be “being a dick”. The basic fact is that these TX warrants are only enforceable in TX, and no one ever expected otherwise. Not just IL but no other state would enforce them. I’m not even sure if another state could enforce them, even if it wanted to. Suppose one of these TX Dems went to FL, and De Santis told his law enforcement to arrest them, they’d go to court for habeas, and the judge would ask why were they arrested? What crime are they alleged to have committed? And on hearing that they’re not accused of any crime, but have been arrested as a courtesy to TX, the judge would order them released, because no FL or federal law justifies their being held.
Milhouse,
Glad to see you reject describing my proposals as ‘retaliation’ and agree that TX can ‘be a dick’ in response if they so choose. Not sure what you are getting at about warrants. Federal warrants are most often authorized by Federal Magistrates who have not been nominated by POTUS or approved by Senate. Their existence and limited powers are set by simple statute authorizing them. Why should their ‘non Judicial’ (they ain’t a Federal Judge) warrants be any different than what TX is doing by issuing one from the TX Legislature and Sgt at Arms? Either an actual Judge is necessary to issue warrants or they ain’t.
Federal magistrates do not exercise powers given them by statute; they exercise the power of the judges who hired them and delegated these powers to them. All the statute does is authorize the judges to do that.
I don’t understand your question about warrants. These warrants are valid only in Texas. The members are not alleged to have committed any crime, so they can’t be extradited. And there are no grounds for any federal judge, or a judge in another state, to approve their arrest.
Whether full judge or magistrate, their question would be the same: on what grounds are you holding this person? What offense have they committed? Which federal law, or law of this state, authorizes you to do that? Habeas corpus; produce their bodies and release them.
same pattern as always
when lefty does it
( black mob beaten downs) its to respect ourrrr race
( obstruct voters/voting) we must preserve the democracy
and b/c they run the p-k-16 schools they have the kids backing up the agenda
Gerrymandering is almost as old as the country. A few years ago the Dems in NY tried to gerrymander Republicans almost out of any representation. The Dems were not complaining then.
The last time our General Assembly held the majority in NC and Dems got the chance to gerrymander, they did and we on the right complained of course but that was all we did. I got caught up in a ‘new’ district just for a new Dem who needed one. It made national news with some others for how weird the lines looked. We joked that the orange road construction barrels down I-85 was the true boundary especially if a bunch of them got knocked over and scattered.
There are multiple states run by majority (D)s where the (D)s have gerrymandered districts to ensure the numbers of elected (R)s are alway disproportionately less than the actual number of (R) votes every election.
Tit for tat.
Goose, gander.
It’s always legal when (D)s do it –
and always a “threat to Democracy” when (R)s do it.
In 2021, the democrats in NM gerrymandered the state to eliminate the sole republican representative to congress. It was allowed to stand because democrat judges ruled it was severe but not egregious.
Democrats in other states have fled their jobs too over the last decade or so. They flee to other Blue states in or der to protect “their democracy”. How about you Tx Dems flee south to Mexico where a lot of your new constituents have come from and will come from. In the days of the old west, criminals from el Norte would flee the law by going there. If Dems ain’t lying or marching or rioting, they run away. How about round up Chuck Shumer and some of his gang and take them with you.
Creating a Republic was brutally hard work and it looks like keeping ours will be equally so.
If you can’t win on the facts
Argue the emotions
If you can’t win with the emotions
Tip over the game board
If tipping over the board doesn’t work
Leave the room
If you leave the room
Don’t come back
As much as I would love to see those wayward dems who fled Texas in order to break quorum
tarred, feathered, and fed to the hogsarrested, fined and imprisoned, I doubt Texas LE has any authority in other states which refuse to cooperate in those apprehensions.As for Ms. Crockett, I recommend she return to the land of her ancestors, and put her unique talents to work improving the lives of the fine, but destitute, people living on that continent. All those black hearts and minds united, working together for the greater good of black people for a black utopia. Make it so, Ms. Crockett.
No, Texas LE have no arrest powers in Illinois. And extradition is not available unless they’ve committed a crime, which they haven’t. (If they accept money to stay away, then they can be charged with bribery, and then they can be extradited. Pritzker would have no choice but to send them home.)
Walker Texas Ranger (aka Chuck Norris) would get it done.
Apparently some have already sent out “gimme money” emails to pay the $500 fines so it will be interesting to see if Texas follows through and issues arrest warrants.
As for removal for not showing up, I read Paxton’s opinion and it appears to me that if the State can find a judge say in North Texas to go along and I bet they can those lawmakers can be removed.
All this talk about Trump and Republicans being anti democracy or something when the Democrats flee the state because they lost control should not be lost on anyone and won’t be I think
If they raise the money from small donors through a fundraising letter then I don’t see how Paxton could possibly make that out to be bribery. Ditto if the Democrat Party pays the fines.
The only way it could be made out to be bribery is if some large donor just gives them the money, and can therefore said to be paying them to stay away, rather than merely enabling them to do so of their own free will. Even then it would be a stretch, but at least it could be argued.
If they can eventually find such a judge, the Dems will appeal it all the way up to the state supreme court. This may drag it out until so close to the next election that it becomes moot.
But right now no judge would entertain such a case. They’d have to be absent for a long time before it even becomes arguable. Considering that there’s nothing in the actual constitution allowing it at all.
Milhouse can find a reason that the Democrats are absolutely right for any scenario you can come up with.
And understand, he’ll just make it up in as authoritative a voice as his masters can provide him. He’ll make it sound real and inevitable.
Because that’s why he’s here. To make us think we’ve already lost.
As his party suffers the price of it’s own insanity he and they will try to demoralize us into immobility.
Because they can only win if we don’t fight back.
BTW, that is not true. If a law enforcement officer has an arrest warrant he or she can arrest that person anywhere in the US they find them. Texas Rangers for instance can get an arrest warrant, fly to Illinois and arrest those lawmakers. Alternately, a local, county or State law enforcement officer can be federalized and go into any jurisdiction to arrest someone.
US Marshalls can go anywhere including federal property and Indian Reservations to do it.
That is not true. A warrant is only valid within the jurisdiction of whoever issued it, and an officer can only execute it within the jurisdiction where he is an officer. Once a Texas Ranger steps outside his state he has no more authority than you or I do, and if he tries to arrest someone he will be arrested for kidnapping.
And no, federalizing the ranger won’t change anything, because there is no federal warrant for them, and there can’t be one because they’ve committed no federal offense. They haven’t even committed a state offense! If the Texas speaker goes to federal court to ask for a warrant, the first thing the judge will ask is what offense do you allege they’ve committed, and when he hears that they’ve committed no offense at all, but the state constitution authorizes their arrest anyway, he’ll throw the speaker out of court and sanction him for wasting his time.
No, they can remain free from arrest for as long as they like, so long as they stay out of Texas, or the governor gives up on calling special session after special session.
But the reality is that he has no reason to give up and they do, so they will break first. It costs him nothing to keep calling special sessions. It costs them a lot, not just financially but emotionally and politically, to stay away from their state. Eventually they will have to come home, and can be arrested and brought to the legislature, and held there until they’ve caught enough of them to form a quorum.
Milhouse is largely correct. A LEO from another State with a warrant still needs cooperation from the State where the subject of the warrant is located. LEO derive their authority from a particular State and outside of that State don’t have arrest powers absent some agreement with the second State.
Wakanda Awaits!
They don’t have to care about ‘apprehending’ them in other states.
In Texas they can simply remove them from their seats for refusing to do their elected duty and be present, and that’s exactly what Abbott has threatened to do. Whether he follows through will be interesting to see, but that’s the threat.
No, they can’t “simply remove” them. Did you even bother reading this post?! Or Abbot’s declaration? He says clearly that he is relying on an opinion from the state Attorney General, which says that maybe a court can remove them. He says the state courts have claimed such a power, but it’s entirely up to them whether it applies in any specific case, and if so whether to exercise it in that case. So all he is threatening is that he will go to court and nicely ask it to remove them, and there is a chance that it will do so. If it does, the Dems will obviously appeal, and it will go all the way up to the state supreme court. Eventually they may be removed, but it won’t be instant.
I’ll buy Crocket a 1 way ticket to Wakanda whenever she wants to go.
Fleebaggers need to be thrown out of office!
Whether they’re doing the right thing is inherently a matter of opinion, and Pritzker is entitled to believe that they are. But whether they’re following the law is a matter of objective fact, and the fact is that they are not, and that Paxton is.
Texas officers have no arrest power in Illinois, and extradition is only available for those who have committed “treason, felony or other crime”; absenting themselves from the legislature is not a crime, so Texas can’t file for extradition, and thus force Illinois to hand them over. So they can stay away for as long as they like without being arrested, but Abbott can keep calling special session after special session, and eventually they have to return to Texas, if only to recontest their seats in 2026. When they do they can be arrested and forcibly brought to the legislature and made to remain until the vote is held.
And there is the possibility of removal, if a court agrees.
“Republicans are stealing our democracy right before our very eyes.”
They are accurate that what Texas is doing threatens “THEIR democracy.”
Fortunately, what Texas is doing buttresses OUR republic.
Great minds… I had the same thought.
You don’t have a great mind. Great beard, maybe but the mind thing is dicey at best. 😉
Alternatively one can make a decent case (enough to get a grand jury indictment which is admittedly a low bar) that refusal to attend means no quorum which means no legislative business which denies debate or passage of legislative actions. This willful absence is not only intended to prevent actions of the TX legislature and nullify the power of the Gov to convene a legislative session but it in doing so prevents the legislative majority from carrying out the will of the people as expressed in the ‘infinite wisdom’ of their elected representatives in the legislature. If effectively nullifies the votes of the election and that is impermissible. Set loose the DoJ on deprivation of rights claims. Use RICO to lasso in all those who conspired to assist and facilitate this action. Now you have Federal warrants and no place to hide.
Who says it’s impermissible? Which federal law forbids it?
When Texas adopted its constitution, with its peculiarly quorum requirement, it knew what it was doing. It knowingly invited this kind of action. Amending the constitution would require the votes of the same Dems who are now engaged in this action, so obviously they won’t vote for it.
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
(“No!”)
Bravely ran away away.
(“I didn’t!”)
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
(“I never!”)
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
(“You’re lying!”)
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!
Go away or I shall taunt you a second time
“The lawmakers flew to Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. ”
They should feel right at home.
And their arms are probably tired.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
Call the president and ask to send the US Marshall to retrieve the legislators so that the citizens of Texas can get their government back. Then arrest those legislature for conspiracy to interfere with the administration of government so they can be removed and replaced.
Probably not doable, but I like the thinking outside the box. (And the reference to Article IV, Section 4.)
It’s worth a try.
Well, that’s an interesting idea. What if lawmakers in a state refuse to provide it’s citizens a government by fleeing the state? The Federal government steps in and threatens to either arrest and remove the lawmakers or assumes temporary control of the state and orders new elections.
Bold move for sure
No, none of that is possible.
First of all, Texas has a republican form of government. How it functions is irrelevant. All that matters is that it has an elected governor, an elected legislature, and a judicial branch. That makes it a republican form of government.
Second, the republican guarantee clause doesn’t give the president extra powers. It doesn’t create a federal offense that he can charge people with. These people haven’t committed any federal offense, and they haven’t even committed any state offense. If they return to Texas and are arrested, they can’t be brought before any court and charged with anything, because they haven’t done anything wrong. The warrants simply order the arresting authority to bring them to the House, and detain them there until a quorum is present. Then they’re free to go and will face no other consequences (other than the fines they will have accumulated).
Since they are illegally crossing the border, ICE should arrest and deport them.
Huh?! They’ve remained within the USA at all times. If they do visit another country they will obviously do so legally, and will return legally. Crossing state borders is a constitutional right.
Arrest them when they return and put liens on their assets if they don’t return, All pay while they are gone should be charged as theft.
If they’d been at the Alamo, this would still be Mexico.
If a minority legislative party has the right to deny a quorum in this way, what’s to stop them from never showing up at all? They could permanently shut down the legislature.
Yes, that is their right. They have to be negotiated with, or else waited out. Sooner or later they will break; Abbott has no reason to break first. There’s no limit to the number of special sessions he can call, so he can just keep calling them until they return. They have to return eventually.
The abandonment of office theory seems pretty solid for removing legislators who defiantly refuse to perform the most basic duties of their office…showing up to the legislative session. If the Gov has the power to call a session then the members have a duty to attend (absent unique extenuating circumstances), otherwise it would grant a backdoor nullification power to the legislature. Since there’s no legislative branch input required for the Gov to exercise this power passed by the legislature and granted to the Gov, IMO, any arguments from absent legislators seem like bunk.
No, it’s not solid at all. There’s no provision in the state constitution for such a theory. Paxton’s letter simply says that given the right facts a court could assume such a power on its own authority. If one did, it would be appealed up to the state supreme court, which might or might not uphold it.
So yes, it’s a possibility, but it’s far from assured, even according to Paxton. Worth trying, but don’t bet on it working.
1.Candidates compete to hold office and perform the duties of the office.
2.Voters express their will.
3.Member is elected.
4. Member refuses to show up and perform duties of office.
5. A number sufficient to create lack of quorum do so in a coordinated effort. (57?)
6. No quorum = no ability to conduct legislative process.
The end state is TX voters being disenfranchised b/c their chosen elected officials can’t conduct a session and the Gov power to call a special session effectively overturned via nullification.
I’d say that refusal to attend a legislative session for the publicly expressed purpose of preventing a session from occurring is very clearly abandonment. I’d go further and invite the DoJ to convene a grand jury to indict on deprivation of civil rights charges b/c the end state of the scheme is exactly that to nullify the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in a legislative session. Frankly I’d use RICO and haul in the financial supporters and anyone, including elected officials of Illinois or NY who facilitated or sought to harbor them as part of the conspiracy. Bring their ass to so some deep Red district in TX and have the Judge set zero bond …these folks have already thumbed their nose at meeting duty to appear so they can sit in pre trial confinement in TX. If it was OK for J6 folks its fine for d/prog elected officials and their financial bag men. Not nice at all but neither is not showing up to Austin and making the case not to redistrict and accepting the majority will when the vote occurs.
Sorry, Chief, your reasoning doesn’t work.
Bear in mind that the constitution does not recognize any such thing as “abandoning” a seat. This is a concept that has apparently been invented by Texas courts, which have not given a rule for when it applies but instead apply it according to how they understand the facts of each specific case.
So nothing is “very clearly abandonment”. Certainly a short absence where the members expressly declare they are not abandoning their office, and that on the contrary this is what they were elected to do, so they are performing their duties as they see them.
Even a long absence under those circumstances is a stretch. The whole theory of abandonment is that the member has effectively resigned, without bothering to do so officially. Here the whole point of their absence is that they are not resigning.
But it’s a stretch Paxton says a court might make, so it’s worth trying. But he didn’t say he expects it to succeed. The only way to know is to try it. The worst that can happen is the court says no (or it says yes and the appeals courts say no).
There’s certainly no case for “deprivation of civil rights”, because there is no civil right involved. The “people” have no right as such to have their “will” expressed, other than according to the rules as set by the constitution and the house. The constitution requires a 2/3 quorum, and thus knowingly gives the minority a weapon that it can use in extremis. Only five states do that, but Texas is one of them.
People who assist them are certainly not committing any crime; they’re exercising their first amendment rights.
By the way, do you apply the same reasoning to the Republicans in Oregon who regularly do the same thing? Do you think they too are committing a federal felony rather than engaging in a legitimate political tactic?
No other criminal enterprise would be left intact. MAGA and “Republicans” GROW A SET
Democrats conspired with hostile foreign regimes to not only import as many CRIMINAL MIGRANTS AS POSSIBLE during the Kenyan’s 3rd term, they conspired to EMPTY PRISONS AND MENTAL INSTITUTIONS and FLY THOSE PEOPLE HERE in midnight flight sponsored by our traitors in the deep state. Destinations included HPN (Westchester NY)
This is the type of thing that DIRECTLY led to the rape/murder of Jocelyn Nungary, a 12 year old Texas girl, and countless others. It’s unlikely the Democrat crime cabal could have disappeared the mountains of evidence associated with this facet of the Democrat crime cabal
RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) can apply to immigration crimes if they’re part of a pattern of racketeering activity conducted by an organized enterprise. RICO targets ongoing criminal enterprises engaging in specific predicate offenses, like fraud, extortion, or trafficking. Some immigration-related crimes, such as visa fraud, human smuggling, or document trafficking, could qualify as predicate offenses if they meet RICO’s criteria: a structured group, repeated illegal acts over time, and an impact on interstate or foreign commerce.
For example, a criminal organization systematically smuggling migrants or forging immigration documents for profit could face RICO charges. However, standalone immigration violations, like illegal entry without an organized scheme, typically wouldn’t trigger RICO. Prosecutors must prove the enterprise’s structure and a pattern (at least two predicate acts within 10 years). Penalties include up to 20 years per racketeering count, fines, and asset forfeiture.
“…we’re walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent.”
He’s discounting the people who are represented by Republicans who want redistricting. This is anti-democratic. The democratic process respects the results of (fair) elections. If the Rs have the votes to redistrict, this is Wu’s “muh democracy” working exactly as it is meant to work. Democratically-elected representatives “fight” for their constituents when they’re present in the legislature and able to convince others of the correctness of their opinion, not when they’re running away to prevent such discourse.
Just another example that to Dems, “democracy” means getting things to go their way.
I would like to know who is paying for their little retreat. Who is paying for their airfare, room, and boards?? Any funds they receive must be counted as income and assessed state and federal taxes. They should also be audited to make sure they don’t attempt to deduct said funds as a business expense.
Pritzker, for certain. But he’ll lie about it.
The Democrat Party probably paid for their airfare, since they flew on party business. And it’s probably putting them up too, again because they’re there on party business. That’s not income.
Further, as far as the IRS is concerned anything they spend on this is probably a legitimate expense of doing their job, which is to represent their constituents who elected them precisely to do this.
As for state taxes, Texas has no income tax so there’s nothing to declare.
The interesting question is whether any money they receive to defray their fines counts as bribery. Probably not, but it would be an interesting avenue to try to pursue, because if they are charged with bribery in Texas, then Texas can file with Illinois for extradition and there’s nothing Pritzker can do about it. States have no discretion about extradition requests from other states. They have to comply.
See?
Milhouse has just let you stupid Republicans know that everything the leftist Democrats did was right and proper. That they won’t even be punished for what they did because Democrats can accept bribes to pay for their fines so long as there are people like Milhouse out there screeching about how the bribes they accepted aren’t actually bribes.
So there.
Azathoth the liar strikes again. You make me physically ill, and are the major reason I seriously consider abandoning this forum, but that would just be giving evil a victory.
There are no bribes involved. Assisting a legislator in carrying out their policy is not a bribe, and only a deeply dishonest person, such as you, would dare to call it one. If it is the Democrat Party’s policy that these legislators should absent themselves from Texas, then it is completely legitimate for that party to defray the expenses of them doing so, just as any entity pays the costs of travel undertaken on its behalf.
Next you’ll be claiming that when a legislator travels for his day job, and his employer pays him, that’s a bribe!
State Legislatures set their own rules for how quorums work.
Given that the rules are regularly being abused, they should change them.
The purpose is to ensure the majority doesn’t spring a surprise session on the minority to ram through legislation while the minority isn’t present in the chamber. NOT to allow the minority to shut down the chamber indefinitely by deliberately denying a quorum during a regularly scheduled session.
Solution seems simple: Keep the current quorum rules for special sessions that aren’t on the schedule at the start of the year, but make the quorum for regularly scheduled sessions a simple majority. That way, the minority can’t deny a quorum during a scheduled session, but the majority still can’t spring any surprises with special sessions.
They should also pass laws that increase the penalties. Some other States have made it a felony rather than a misdemeanor for any legislator not present when a quorum call fails. R’s have been prosecuted and sent to prison for breaking such laws (which I support, if it were evenly applied to both Parties). Oregon has a law that prohibits any legislator from ever running for a State elected office if they’ve denied a quorum (they can’t prevent them running in federal elections though). Just last year, the State Supreme Court upheld this punishment having been applied to some R Senators. Which, again, I support – if it were applied evenly to both Parties.
Interesting that D run States have strong laws on this, even though R’s seldom engage in such activity, while R run States have exceptionally weak laws on it even though D’s use this tactic quite frequently.
Oh, and talk about a “threat to Democracy” – denying a quorum essentially voids the will of the electorate for the entire duration it lasts. The minority is able to shut down must activity in the legislature for as long as they please, the majority – elected by the people – are quite powerless. They can issue arrest warrants, for a mere misdemeanor, and the State the fleebaggers are hiding in simply ignores extradition requests. Its so pathetic.
Here’s another: They ought to be able to empower bounty hunters to make the arrests, in the event of the other State refusing to extradite.
Changing the quorum would require changing the state constitution, which in turn would require a two-thirds vote in both houses, plus a referendum.
If the Reps had two thirds of each house they wouldn’t be in this situation, because they’d have their own quorum. And it would be hard to justify holding the referendum before the 2026 election.
I call bullshit. Name those states and when this supposedly happened. As far as I know in no state is it an offense at all, let alone a felony.
Also as far as I know the only state where Republicans have staged walkouts is Oregon, and there it is certainly not a crime; the only penalty any Republican has suffered there is a fine equal to their per diem (i.e. they didn’t get paid to show up since they didn’t actually show up), and not being allowed to be on the ballot in the next election. That’s all.
Texas is imposing fines, but can’t keep them off the ballot. Even if 2/3 of the house expels a member they can’t stop him being reelected, and if he is they can’t throw him out again.
Being elected is one thing but being seated is another.
No, it isn’t. Someone duly elected is entitled to be seated, whether a majority of his colleagues like it or not. (In the case of the US congress the Supreme Court explicitly said so. Texas is surely no different.
Especially since the Texas constitution explicitly says a member can’t be expelled twice for the same offense; if he can’t even be expelled, which requires a two-thirds vote, then surely he can’t be refused seating, which requires a mere majority.