Austin (Nexstar) – Texas’s legislative process hit a standstill on Monday as over 50 Democrats left the state, effectively blocking 100 members from attending. Their objective? Stopping the redistricting of Congressional seats in Texas, a move that could potentially shift five seats from Democratic to Republican control, as President Trump aims to influence this redirection.
Leading up to this, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas issued threats to lawmakers, suggesting he might use legal actions against them for allegedly accepting funds to support their trip. Following the vote, he directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to forcefully bring back absent House members and requested an investigation into the bribery claims.
“Come and take it”: Democrats respond
In reaction, Jean Woo, the Chair of the Texas House Democrats, snapped back with, “Come and take it.” State Representative Jolanda Jones echoed this sentiment during a press conference with New York Governor Kathy Hochul, saying, “With all due respect, he’s just stirring the pot. There’s no legal basis for what he’s claiming.”
Abbott has authorized DPS officers to track down absent members, but their jurisdiction is limited to Texas. “Once they’re out of state, it becomes quite complicated,” said Professor Seth Barrett Tillman from Maynooth Law. He noted that while Abbott likely isn’t acting with malice, his legal standing is shaky. “Sending non-government officials or private bailiffs to fetch lawmakers is a whole different ballgame.” He referred to it as potential lawlessness.
States like New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts—locations where many of the lawmakers are staying—are unlikely to be on Abbott’s side. Or, perhaps they would. It’s a bit uncertain.
“We are exploring all options to address this critical issue,” remarked Texas House Chairman Dustin Burrows when asked about potential federal assistance. “We will collaborate with everyone involved.”
But Tillman seemed skeptical of federal involvement, asserting, “I doubt they would step into this mess. I’m not clear on how federal agencies would assist Texas in this scenario.”
The reluctance of courts
On Sunday night, Abbott referenced a non-binding opinion from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton regarding the missing lawmakers. This opinion suggests the governor’s authority to replace absent members is dubious, indicating that merely not showing up doesn’t equate to resignation, despite Abbott’s claims to the contrary.
There is significant legal precedent that underscores the necessity for lawmakers to formally resign. “Resignation implies a clear, intentional decision,” the Texas Supreme Court stated in a previous case.
Even Paxton seemed skeptical during a recent interview, acknowledging that the path forward is anything but straightforward. “It’s not a quick fix,” he stated. “We’d have to navigate through district variances, which complicates things.”
If there’s any litigation regarding vacant seats, it will likely be a challenging journey.
“Abbott definitely has the right to pursue this,” Tillman remarked, referencing a legal brief supporting Trump when a Colorado official claimed he shouldn’t run for president. “The courts are extremely reluctant to encroach on electoral decisions made by voters.”
A delicate accusation
Later on Monday, Abbott announced an inquiry by the Texas Rangers into alleged bribery involving Texas House members.
“Reports indicate that multiple absent Democrats may have received funds to avoid fulfilling their legislative duties,” Abbott said. “Under Texas law, this behavior could amount to a violation, and those involved could face consequences.”
Tillman criticized these bribery allegations, suggesting they mischaracterize the political situation. “Bribery typically involves hidden dealings for personal gain, not lawmakers transparently seeking support for their absence,” he explained. “If they’re open about it, it doesn’t fit the mold of traditional bribery.”
Furthermore, he voiced concerns over the potential misuse of political spending accusations, recalling how such claims have been weaponized in past political discourse, particularly against Trump. “Labeling political actions as bribery can spiral out of control and ultimately undermine fair political practices,” he cautioned.
