"... according to University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. While Abbott and other Republicans could argue that the Democrats had abandoned their duties, those lawmakers would have a chance to make the case that they were
representing their constituents by denying the majority the quorum it needs to operate, he added.... 'Even if you go to a court, you’re going to have to make a showing that I think it’s going be tough to make.' Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at New York University School of Law who has observed Texas redistricting battles for more than 30 years, said the governor’s authority to order legislators to be arrested or to remove them from office, 'is at best, unclear.'"
From
"Texas House Republicans vote to issue civil arrest warrants for fleeing Democrats/The Texas state House reconvened Monday without dozens of Democrats who left the state to try to stop the GOP from moving ahead with enacting a new congressional map that would give them five more safe seats" (WaPo)(free-access link).
57 of the Texas Democrats have absconded to Chicago, Boston, or Albany. It takes 51 to deny the Republicans a quorum. When is interfering with democracy characterizable as a form of democracy? Whenever the constituents you were elected to represent oppose what they majority elected to the legislature is trying to do?
Posts
73 comments:
The norm is that people who go AWOL are fired. Why should these reps be any different?
The rightness or wrongness of dodging a quorum is directly related to the rightness or wrongness of the thing that the quorum blockers are trying to prevent.
The Democrats are exhibiting a hysterical temper tantrum, again. They should be slapped with a lawsuit in public court to recover their sense and sensibility. #TooLate
Where is it written that X number are required for a quorum? The Rs control all three branches in Texas, just pass a bill - if needed - that revises number required.
Or pass the redistricting bill with a provision that the House or Senate will re-vote on it when a quarum is present.
Do the R's ever want to win? They refuse to fight hard when the D's are in power. And jabber about "reaching accross the aisle" and "Governing". And then when the D's fight back while in the minority, they're always flumoxed and struggling for a response.
Never do they look ahead or anticipate anything the D's will do. And in every negotiation they give away the store on Day 1.
Same thing as Mitch McConnell denying Obama SCOTUS's nominee hearing.
"Being the adult in the room" doesn't accomplish anything. Power must be used.
The D's tactic might work. Calling them "hysterical" or "cowards" just misses the point.
Seems like a variety of fillibuster, delaying the inevitable.
I am sure the right is having a tantrum about it. Perhaps Abbott shouldn't be tacking this onto the prior bills associated with the flood, but I doubt any of the old people yelling at clouds here will care about that.
Democrats engage in gerrymandering. Republicans engage in gerrymandering. This is how democracy now works in America, apparently.
When is interfering with democracy characterizable as a form of democracy?
Never. Quorum rules are there to make sure that a minority doesn't use the unavoidable absence of members of the majority doesn't let the minority screw everyone else over.
They are not there to empower a minority to prevent the majority from being able to legislate.
What the minority party's voters want doesn't matter, just like what the losing voters in an election want doesn't matter. The majority gets to win.
That is democracy.
They'll return or be expelled. That's the long-standing law, Texas Constitution Article III, Section 5.
Abbot's threat was just bluster. He knew he couldn't do squat. Just another Republican talking big and doing nothing but trying to score points with Trump. This is getting very tiresome. He's a custom car, all show and no go.
Same thing as Mitch McConnell denying Obama SCOTUS's nominee hearing.
Really? How does advise and consent = running away?
"When is interfering with democracy characterizable as a form of democracy?"
When it benefits the Democrats.
Everybody knows this.
When Congress goes back to the Democrats [and it will at some point] the Republicans will cry loudly. Neither side learns this! Each side forces though legislative steps that help their majority and never think that the tactic can and will be used by the other side to do the same thing. It's nuts. And ultimately it just divides us further apart rather than actual legislation that helps America.
The congressmen that are present should work on the re-districting bill, get it drafted to completion including the new maps, complete the review and debate period, and then take a vote. With no opposition, it should take shape as a very nice little package indeed. And don't forget to broadcast the daily updates on how things are looking, taking pains to point out that 'if you ain't there, you got no voice in how things turn out'. The voters might have some input to provide on those activities.
TX doesn’t have a lot of laws, but the ones it has, it enforces. Abbott is a lawyer himself (Vanderbilt), so I am guessing he has done his research and has at least enough of a case to make his saber-rattling credible. After all, this is a state that arrested a sitting governor for withholding funds. Time for ganders to get goosed.
RR
JSM
Democrats engage in gerrymandering. Republicans engage in gerrymandering. This is how democracy now works in America, apparently.
OK, Mr. Conservative.
Name for me the last time the Republicans ran to another state to prevent the majority party from obtaining a quorum.
Please, educate us all on how this is a 'both sides' thing.
How is what the Democrats are doing - preventing the orderly functioning of the government to do its constitutional duties - any different from what the J6ers were charged with?
This is obstruction of an official proceeding, which would be a violation of 18 USC 1512, a felony.
The absconders are abandoning their offices in order specifically to PREVENT the legislature from voting on legislation, which is the purpose of the legislature.
He should order new elections and arrest these criminals, just like the J6 people were arrested and prosecuted.
"Abbott orders arrest of AWOL Texas House Dems after warrant issued by House Speaker." Fox News.
Well I guess he showed me! Boy is my face red. :)
It is beyond silly that a legislature requires a 2/3 quorum-50%+1 should always be good enough and is the only value that even makes sense.
Even if Texas could make 5 more Republican seats, Democrats would have a higher percentage of US Congressional representation in Texas than Republicans enjoy in Illinois, California, or Massachusetts.
Democracy is a majority rule. Each Constitution defines the exceptions under a Republican form of government in order to be equitable and inclusive of minority rights.
I think the representatives are perfectly within their rights to avoid the legislature and deny a quorum. If their constituents disagree then they can be voted out. Over the long run, a legislature that simply cashed their paychecks and never showed up would be far preferable to having them busily passing bills, especially "bipartisan" bills.
Texas law does appear to give Abbott the power to issue arrest warrants and I think Illinois will have no real legal choice but to arrest and extradite them. Of course, it will immediately be injuncted by a federal district judge or be ordered by a different federal judge and end up at SCOTUS before the end August
Well the poohbah from Notre Dame Law School has weighed in. It's probable that in liberal Austin, the dean of the University of Texas Law School might agree. But there is a law school over at Baylor (I know a Baylor Law alum) and he might have an opinion that supports Governor Abbot. As in so many things, where you stand depends upon where you sit.
"I think Illinois will have no real legal choice but to arrest and extradite them."
They don't even arrest murderers in Chicago.
FLC, of course Illinois will refuse to arrest them- I know that. Just saying that there is no legal leg to stand on to ignore a valid Texas arrest warrant.
I do have to respond to William 50s comment that Abbot's talk is just bluster and a simple effort to score points with Trump.
For bluster, come on out to California and listen to the Brylcreem Boy who is our governor--when he bothers to stay in the state. Newsom has looked at Texas and said Boy Howdy! If Texas does that, we sure as shootin' will do the same thing in California and we can gain more Democrat seats than Texas gains Republican seats. So there!
I sort of like Governor Abbott, but think that Newsom is mostly a silly tool. But he's good at bluster.
"When is interfering with democracy characterizable as a form of democracy?" Already noted above, but worth repeating: when Dems do it. You can't be cynical enough about them.
hose lawmakers would have a chance to make the case that they were representing their constituents by denying the majority the quorum it needs to operate
It should be hard to show you are representing your constituents by absconding so as not represent anyone by casting a vote. You get to vote "no," nothing more. Those constituents are essentially unrepresented now.
The Wisconsin Fleebaggers started it, at least in recent history. Phil Hands at the Wisconsin State Journal had a cartoon showing a Prius crammed with legislators going as fast as a Prius can go for the Clock Tower in Rockford.
"Those constituents are essentially unrepresented now."
Not if they agree with those representatives that the Republicans must be stopped by any means necessary.
"Those constituents are essentially unrepresented now."
Not if they agree with those representatives that the Republicans must be stopped by any means necessary.
Wrong - there is no one to register the constituents' "no" vote, or to address anything else that the state senate chooses to address in their absence.
Those representatives are attempting to prevent the senate from addressing an issue where they don't have the ability to control the outcome. And plenty of their constituents will be on board with that.
"Democrats engage in gerrymandering. Republicans engage in gerrymandering."
The fact that it's fairly balanced misses the point. It means nobody's vote counts because the maps determine the outcome, not the marginal voter.
It's amazing that partisan gerrymandering is allowed, it came close to being banned a few years ago but fell short by I believe two senate votes.
Banning it, and drawing boundaries fairly to encourage democracy would go a long way towards fixing the divisive politics it has created by forcing politicians to appeal to a broader base.
Jim at said...
Democrats engage in gerrymandering. Republicans engage in gerrymandering. This is how democracy now works in America, apparently.
OK, Mr. Conservative.
Name for me the last time the Republicans ran to another state to prevent the majority party from obtaining a quorum.
Please, educate us all on how this is a 'both sides' thing.
------------------------------------
Almost all gerrymandering in America is done without running to another state. You just do it with the majority you have in the legislature. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. I'm sick and tired of it.
Abbott can declare the seats vacant and appoint replacement legislators. That is in Texas law.
There will be the inevitable lawsuits the minute this is done.
I haven't seen any discussion re which courts will hear those lawsuits. I suspect that the Ds will choose their venues wisely, and like prevail at first, as judges in Texas are elected and it's easy to find blue districts.
They might win on appeal as appellate judges, also elected, are chosen from much larger constituencies. If the Ds are allowed to select filing their case in the El Paso or Austin district appellate court, both are 100% D and I suspect that that will suffice temporarily. The San Antonio district is mixed fairly evenly, the Houston district is mostly R, and the remainder of the 14 districts are 100% R.
A new wrinkle is that there is a recently established (2023) 15th Appeal Court that hears cases in which the state is a party. If this matter falls in that category, the 3 R judges might make quick work of the case.
The Supreme Court of Texas is 9 Republican justices, as God intended.
If the Ds persist in their tantrums, they will ultimately lose, but the process might take a while. IANAL, so if any Texas lawyers out there have any actual factual information to supplant my conjecture, please correct me.
FWIW: The warrants are only enforceable within Texas state lines, as civil warrants lack jurisdiction outside the state.
Almost all gerrymandering in America is done without running to another state. You just do it with the majority you have in the legislature. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. I'm sick and tired of it.
If it was just gerrymandering that's the issue, you'd have a point. It isn't.
The Democrats run off to other states for a variety of reasons when they're not getting their way. Wisconsin's Act 10, for starters.
That's the issue here. Not gerrymandering.
Law professors can be quite creative about what is "Constitutional" when they need to to advance what they want.
A thoughtful law professor might frame the issue as "Is it constitutionally permissible for legislators conspire to take deliberate non-legislative action for the specific purpose of rendering the state ungovernable? Is is constitutionally permissible for the Governor to act to secure the government from such action? Have the conspirators forfeited their rights to claim quorum rules?*
(It is not clear to me why states such as Texas haven't adopted specific legislative rules to prevent this. It's not a new thing).
*(Which is what the law professors would do if the legislators engaged in the conspiracy had R's next to their names).
*(Which is what the law professors would do if the legislators engaged in the conspiracy had R's next to their names).
have any republicans done this?
if so, what was the response from the dems/media?
Abbott was also saying something about the fleeing legislators getting their travel bills paid by outsiders, which makes it TX state felony bribery (receiving a thing of value for refraining from an official act). He can find a state magistrate to issue warrants, announce them on nationwide media, then go to the Trump US Attorney and federal magistrates and get federal warrants sworn out for 18 USC 1073, Interstate Flight to Avoid Prosecution. Then Deputy US Marshals or any other federal agent nationwide can put the habeas grabbas on the legislators.
No one is above the law, after all.
RR
JSM
Or the R's could simply ignore the quorum rules and pass the legislation. The Dems would need to return to protest the allegedly improper legislation. When enough Dems are present, re-enact the same bill with minor revisions.
West TX Intermediate Crude said...
Abbott can declare the seats vacant and appoint replacement legislators. That is in Texas law.
There will be the inevitable lawsuits the minute this is done
wouldn't the dems have to show up in court?
wouldn't the court HAVE TO BE in texas?
"When Congress goes back to the Democrats [and it will at some point] the Republicans will cry loudly. Neither side learns this!"
No this kind of "Bothsideism" is completely wrong. Its competely divorced from reality. The D's use their power to it utmost when they have it. They cry like little girls when the R's do the same thing to them. But they are competely indifferent to "Republican restraint".
The Senate R's saved the filibuster for Judges in 2005 (McCain gang of 7 or whatever). The Senate D's returned the favor by getting rid of it in 2011. The Senate R's refused to get rid of the Filibuster to please Trump. The Senate D's returned the favor by trying to get rid of the Filibuster (it failed by one vote).
The Congressional R's let the D's delay and block Trump nominees. The D's returned the favor by steamrolling over the R's to get Biden nominees fast-tracked.
When the D's have they gerrymander and boast about it. When they lose some seats due to the gerrymander they cry about "Its unfair".
The D's don't give a damn about being called "Hypocrites". They want to win. Period. And they love the weak cuck "We need to be the adults in the room" types because they can roll the gullible rubes every time.
In addition, Washington state has a bi-partisan citizens commission redraw congressional and legislative boundaries after every census. Each of the four legislative caucuses appoint one member and a fifth, non-voting member is selected by those four appointees.
While the results still lean towards the majority party, it's pretty much taken out of the hands of elected officials.
Maybe you should use your clout in Iowa and work for such changes there.
And while they are at it, pass a whole slew of stuff that the Dems oppose.
Prediction - this will end up in Federal Court and the D's will win at the district and Appeals level. As usual, the D judges will vote their politics and not the law.
Right now, we cannot enforce the immigration laws in California because a handful of lawyers in black robes say so. Federal judges can do anything, and the far left ones have no shame in making crap up to get their way.
I am sure the right is having a tantrum about it. Perhaps Abbott shouldn't be tacking this onto the prior bills associated with the flood, but I doubt any of the old people yelling at clouds here will care about that.
The Dems have abandoned the field. Abbott and the Republicans should take full advantage.
Why shouldn't Abbot be tacking it on to flood bills? Who's going to stop him--the Dems hiding in other states?
Gerrymandering is a serious problem in American elections.
Recent figures: For the 2024 election, only 69 out of 435 US House seats were rated as competitive by the Cook Political Report, meaning only 15% of seats were contested. Another source states only 1 in 10 districts were competitive in the 2024 election.
Looking ahead: Projections for the 2026 election indicate that only 9% of House seats will be true toss-ups, highlighting a continuing trend of limited competition.
Gerrymandering, by both Democrats and Republicans, is a corrupt way to create safe seats where one party will always win. We, the voters, lose because of this, because it always favors the incumbents.
Over 90 percent of all Congressional House Districts are gerrymandered. What this means for you, as a voter, is that your vote will hardly ever matter, because the outcome is predetermined.
There are laws which require gerrymandered districts to favor "minority" candidates. https://ballotpedia.org/Majority-minority_districts. Spare us the high dudgeon about gerrymandering.
I'll be back! Welcome back.
Just curious - if the TX government put out a warrant but they're unable to enforce it - couldn't they hire bounty hunters to get them?
Texas districts are mostly drawn along county lines, and most districts are sensible blocks of counties. But around the metropolitan areas, Houston and DFW especially, but also San Antonio and Austin, the gerrymandering is plainly evident, where racial groups start coming into play and districts are drawn to capitalize on those voting blocks. The proposed new map is a little bit of a gamble - Republicans betting that the MAGA Trump wave will wash these into the Republican camp. It's not a plan without risk though. These are newly-hatched voting groups for Republicans, especially down in The Valley, which is Hispanic and formerly, reliably Democrat. Should they flip back for whatever reason, it will be nearly impossible to undo.
PenguinBelly said...
Same thing as Mitch McConnell denying Obama SCOTUS's nominee hearing.
No, shit for brains, it's the same as the Democrats in the Senate minority denying Estrada a confirmation vote, then nuking the filibuster when the GOP returned the favor.
The majority gets to reject a nominee any way they want, including by just not giving him a vote.
it's the minority that has no right to deprive the majority of their democratic powers.
Can you Lefties EVER stop being idiots?
Once again, the issue is NOT gerrymandering. The issue is the Democrats failing to fulfill their duties as legislators by fleeing to another state.
The subject - this time - is gerrymandering. Next time, the subject will be something else.
The fact that they have a rule that demands a quorum for a valid vote is indicative of an intention to make absconding a valid tool for reps to use. If they think that is improper, then the rule should be amended to make this clear.
It is doubtful that non-gerrymandering, however you wish to define it, would actually increase competitive districts. The country isn't what it was even 30 years ago- Democrats are even more concentrated in the cities and the nearest suburbs than they were 30 years ago and the exurban areas and rural areas are a deeper red. You would literally have to gerrymander to even create 100 competitive House seats and you know what that would be- it would be a Democrat gerrymander because it would be spreading urban voters out in a spoke which is exactly what the gerrymanders in Illinois and New Mexico do. What you have right now is the Democrat's response to the Gringrich revolution and the loss of House seats in the South- they have gerrymandered like crazy just to get where they are today.
"The fact that they have a rule that demands a quorum for a valid vote is indicative of an intention to make absconding a valid tool for reps to use."
That's just silly. Just because you can do *something*, that's not an argument for that *something* being the reason for the rule.
You might as well argue that, since people can be run over with a car, that's indicative of an intention of building cars in order for people to be run over.
Not an especially novel tactic. Democratic legislators fled Wisconsin to prevent a quorum in recent years, and during Reconstruction, Democrats apparently did the same in Tennessee, hoping to prevent ratification of the Reconstruction amendments. Two of them were found, arrested, and brought to the Tennessee House chamber, whereupon they refused to vote. The Speaker ruled still no quorum as a result, but he was overruled somehow and Tennessee deemed to have ratified. By whom the Speaker was overruled, I do not know because the earliest freely available source I've found on the Internet Archive is a 1908 dissertation whose author does not say . . .
Yancy, FLC:
Some flex to Chicago? Let's get Major Strasser's take on this:
"Perhaps you have already observed that in Chicago human life is cheap."
Uhhh "flex" == "fled"
In response to Jim at, (comment at 6:10) Republicans in Oregon have run to another state (or didn’t show for a vote) twice in the last few years. I don’t remember the exact issues but I believe it had to do with carbon taxes at least once. As I recall an initiative or a referral from the legislature was passed by popular vote that would penalize the legislators by not allowing them to run for reelection. So the last time the Republicans didn’t show up to vote, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the law and a number of Republicans did not get to run for reelection. As an Oregon resident, I was happy that the proposed laws didn’t pass so I’m something of a hypocrite since I don’t think the Texas legislators should get away with their trips to Illinois and New York.
Agree with Mason G in response to Bobby. Quorum are essential in legislative bodies. Breaking quorum works in this manner because Texas doesn’t have a full time legislature. And while some think we should, that’s a worse idea.
This is just a stunt that will ultimately fail. In the meantime, it will make Democrats feel better and give the media something to report instead of the coming indictments.
It appears that the Texas Democrats are in agreement that they have abandoned the field, and the Republicans should take full advantage.
https://mailchi.mp/texashousedems.com/1-21434614?e=055e6bf9a2
If the rules include a quorum requirement, why is using that requirement inconsistent with democracy?
FAFO
It's an obnoxious tactic. The Republicans will get their gerrymander anyway though, this is just for show.
Gerrymandering is itself a subversion of the democratic process. It is strategically designed to dilute the votes of the party out of power and reinforce that of the party in power. It would be a good constitutional amendment to prescribe clear rules for assigning districts or electing representatives proportionally statewide. But, both parties assume that if they're winning that they will continue to win forever so I doubt anyone will actually propose such an amendment.
Second City Cop last night pointed out that Abbott could even indict the Illinois governor if it can be shown that, e.g., he put up the fugitives in his Hyatt hotels:
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2025/08/aiding-abetting-is-illegal-right.html
RR
JSM
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.