I haven't followed this closely at all, but I've read headlines that CA is basically doing the same thing as TX. Redistricting and turning more blue. On the surface, it seems the same as TX, but like I said, I haven't followed or really looked past headlines. Can anyone say what the differences are outside of red vs blue?

Texas officials can only execute arrests within the Texas borders. That's why they flee out of state.

Any elected official who simply does not show up to a scheduled event to prevent a quorum should be removed from office. This is purely a political stunt and any elected official who does this should have the procedure started to remove them from office - I don't care what political party they are a member of.

(As a reminder, I'm not talking about an actual emergency that comes up where procedures are in place for those situations. This situation is a planned stunt and is a clear dereliction of duty.)

Ag CPA said:

---

This is just grandstanding and tossing out red meat, he does not have the power to remove elected legislative officials.

---

You're right. He doesn't. But he does have the power to replace them when they quit. Which they did.

Quote:

---

Pros: If it works, it would ensure nothing like this ever happens again because the majority in office will add all kinds of stuff to the agenda & pass literally everything their little hearts desire.

---

This is a great point. If 50+ Dems get removed then Repubs would be free to ram through anything and everything they want.

The Dems/Libs would never make the mistake of fleeing the state again.

Troy91 said:

---

Texas officials can only execute arrests within the Texas borders. That's why they flee out of state.

---

Arrest family members for aiding them.

If Texas wants to permanently stop this tactic in a way that will absolutely pass judicial muster at the Federal level, change the constitution of Texas to define a quorum at 50% + 1 like over 40 other states and the Federal government. Then the majority power can always transact the business of the state.

Touchless said:

---

I haven't followed this closely at all, but I've read headlines that CA is basically doing the same thing as TX. Redistricting and turning more blue. On the surface, it seems the same as TX, but like I said, I haven't followed or really looked past headlines. Can anyone say what the differences are outside of red vs blue?

---

Yes the Dems/Libs in Cali are threatening to do this. But, supposedly the Cali districts are so gerrymandered already that the Dems/Libs really can't do much more gerrymandering.

I also believe that SCOTUS would take a real hard look at the new Cali Maps if even more safe Dem/Lib districts were created.

Most of the blue states that are threatening to redistrict cannot. Those states use bipartisan boards to redistrict and not legislative votes.

Blue states are stuck in their bureaucracy and that is why they are crying over Texas doing anything that they did not plan on happening.

Does this give new meaning to blue flew?

Kansas Kid said:

---

If Texas wants to permanently stop this tactic in a way that will absolutely pass judicial muster at the Federal level, change the constitution of Texas to define a quorum at 50% + 1 like over 40 other states and the Federal government. Then the majority power can always transact the business of the state.

---

That just enables the majority to subjugate the minority even more. Which is what our founding fathers were trying to prevent.

The best way is to keep the quorum quota high, but to limit the scope of government the higher you go. If the minority still does not like how their government is trending due to the actions of the majority, then the discussion of whether they should share the same government at that level starts to gain momentum or reevaluating whether their minority opinions need to relocate to a different area, which will benefit both sides if neither side is parasitic.

PCC_80 said:

---

Touchless said:

---

I haven't followed this closely at all, but I've read headlines that CA is basically doing the same thing as TX. Redistricting and turning more blue. On the surface, it seems the same as TX, but like I said, I haven't followed or really looked past headlines. Can anyone say what the differences are outside of red vs blue?

---

Yes the Dems/Libs in Cali or threatening to do this. But, supposedly the Cali districts are so gerrymandered already that the Dems/Libs really can't do much more gerrymandering.

I also believe that SCOTUS would take a real hard look at the new Cali Maps if even more safe Dem/Lib districts were created.

---

Harder for them to do with a DOJ that is no longer friendly to them that will contest their absurdly gerrymandered districts.

JUST DO IT!

Yes. If an employee walks off the job, they are done. Same situation here as far as I am concerned.

Didn't someone once say, "elections have consequences"?

Everywhere I've worked if you are absent 3 days you get terminated.

txags92 said:

---

PCC_80 said:

---

Touchless said:

---

I haven't followed this closely at all, but I've read headlines that CA is basically doing the same thing as TX. Redistricting and turning more blue. On the surface, it seems the same as TX, but like I said, I haven't followed or really looked past headlines. Can anyone say what the differences are outside of red vs blue?

---

Yes the Dems/Libs in Cali or threatening to do this. But, supposedly the Cali districts are so gerrymandered already that the Dems/Libs really can't do much more gerrymandering.

I also believe that SCOTUS would take a real hard look at the new Cali Maps if even more safe Dem/Lib districts were created.

---

Harder for them to do with a DOJ that is no longer friendly to them that will contest their absurdly gerrymandered districts.

---

No they will have a harder time because their legislature ceded that responsibility to an independent council of some kind. They can't just call a session and do it.

and don't kid yourself, this is ALL absurd. I mean I hope it works, but it is totally absurd.

Troy91 said:

---

Most of the blue states that are threatening to redistrict cannot. Those states use bipartisan boards to redistrict and not legislative votes.

Blue states are stuck in their bureaucracy and that is why they are crying over Texas doing anything that they did not plan on happening.

---

Those blue states have a well-intentioned desire to ensure representation that reflects the voters. What Texas is doing is a blatant gerrymandering power grab, and blue states should remove their redistricting boards to follow suit.

Quote:

---

Those blue states have a well-intentioned desire to ensure representation that reflects the voters.

---

You think California, NY, and Illinois' current maps reflect the makeup of the voters in those state TODAY as they stand now?

Ag CPA said:

---

This is just grandstanding and tossing out red meat, he does not have the power to remove elected legislative officials.

---

He literally quoted the laws that he does.

texink said:

---

Troy91 said:

---

Most of the blue states that are threatening to redistrict cannot. Those states use bipartisan boards to redistrict and not legislative votes.

Blue states are stuck in their bureaucracy and that is why they are crying over Texas doing anything that they did not plan on happening.

---

Those blue states have a well-intentioned desire to ensure representation that reflects the voters. What Texas is doing is a blatant gerrymandering power grab, and blue states should remove their redistricting boards to follow suit.

---

Please don't tell me you actually believe this.

Cromagnum said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

This is just grandstanding and tossing out red meat, he does not have the power to remove elected legislative officials.

---

He literally quoted the laws that he does.

---

And what law is that? He is saying he will remove them under an opinion from the Texas AG as he interprets the law. As we all know, you can find a lawyer to give you almost any opinion you want to take. If there was a specific law, he would quote that law.

Why I doubt this will hold is it sounds like the law calls for a $500 fine for not showing up but that is the only penalty. No where does it say the offender can be jailed or removed from office.

Burdizzo said:

---

Seems like last time this happened there was a threat of send the Sargeant at Arms to go round up these weasels and bring them back. But I assume that has to come from the Speaker, not the Governor.

Current SAA is a woman named Kara Coffee. "First woman to be SAA, blah, blah, blah.". I doubt we see this avenue taken.

---

I believe the Sergeant-at-Arms is allowed to utilize state law enforcement, namely DPS, to detain any absent legislators and deliver them to the debating chamber. Hence why everyone runs out of state.

I m told that im 1979 I-10 turned into the Autobahn with state troopers otherwise occupied. The missing legislators were hiding out in Austin garage apartments and surviving on delivery pizza.

When it happened twenty years ago, one Democrat was legitimately at home sick. She spoke to the speaker (or lt. gov) and was told it was OK for her to stay home. Troopers still showed up at her door to take her the capitol building.

The speaker actually apologized for the miscommunication and sent her back home. Different time.

Article III Section 13 of the Texas Constitution.

texink said:

---

Troy91 said:

---

Most of the blue states that are threatening to redistrict cannot. Those states use bipartisan boards to redistrict and not legislative votes.

Blue states are stuck in their bureaucracy and that is why they are crying over Texas doing anything that they did not plan on happening.

---

Those blue states have a well-intentioned desire to ensure representation that reflects the voters. What Texas is doing is a blatant gerrymandering power grab, and blue states should remove their redistricting boards to follow suit.

---

What do you mean, "reflects the voters"...

Sec. 13. VACANCY IN LEGISLATURE. (a) When vacancies occur in either House, the Governor, or the person exercising the power of the Governor, shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; and should the Governor fail to issue a writ of election to fill any such vacancy within twenty days after it occurs, the returning officer of the district in which such vacancy may have happened, shall be authorized to order an election for that purpose.
(b) The legislature may provide by general law for the filling of a vacancy in the legislature without an election if only one person qualifies and declares a candidacy in an election to fill the vacancy.

Sounds like calling a special election to fill the vacancy ... not appointment.

texink said:

---

Troy91 said:

---

Most of the blue states that are threatening to redistrict cannot. Those states use bipartisan boards to redistrict and not legislative votes.

Blue states are stuck in their bureaucracy and that is why they are crying over Texas doing anything that they did not plan on happening.

---

Those blue states have a well-intentioned desire to ensure representation that reflects the voters. What Texas is doing is a blatant gerrymandering power grab, and blue states should remove their redistricting boards to follow suit.

---

And facts clearly calls you out for being FOS

Quote:

---

Just some facts:
TX
56% voted Republican in 2024
66% of Congressman are Republicans


CA
58.5% voted Democrat in 2024
82.6% of Congressman are Democrats

NY
56% voted Democrat in 2024
73% of Congressman are Democrats

---

Blue states are actually more blatant in their gerrymandering power grab.

Interesting time in Texas politics.

That witch can drink a gallon of Drain-O.

There are 472 district courts in Texas. My guess is that the judges in the awol democrats' districts are also likely to be democrats. Someone explain to me how that's going to work.

Reading the fine print, it looks like a DISTRICT COURT can "remove an officer, thereby creating a vacancy."

If so, "a vacancy occurs on the date the judgment becomes final."

KP-0382???

It's sketchy

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2021/kp-0382.pdf

🚨 BREAKING: TX Gov. Greg Abbott confirms Democrats are facing 2ND DEGREE FELONIES if they refuse to return to the Capitol and vote on the new U.S. House Map

Cutesy time is over! pic.twitter.com/GpZLzktWYo

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 4, 2025

NM, answered my own question.

akm91 said:

---

texink said:

---

Troy91 said:

---

Most of the blue states that are threatening to redistrict cannot. Those states use bipartisan boards to redistrict and not legislative votes.

Blue states are stuck in their bureaucracy and that is why they are crying over Texas doing anything that they did not plan on happening.

---

Those blue states have a well-intentioned desire to ensure representation that reflects the voters. What Texas is doing is a blatant gerrymandering power grab, and blue states should remove their redistricting boards to follow suit.

---

And facts clearly calls you out for being FOS

Quote:

---

Just some facts:
TX
56% voted Republican in 2024
66% of Congressman are Republicans


CA
58.5% voted Democrat in 2024
82.6% of Congressman are Democrats

NY
56% voted Democrat in 2024
73% of Congressman are Democrats

---

Blue states are actually more blatant in their gerrymandering power grab.

---

Now try Massachusetts.
63% voted Democrat in 2024
100% of Congressmen are Democrats

Or New Jersey
51.97% voted Democrat in 2024
75% of Congressmen are Democrats

Or Oregon
55.27% voted Democrat in 2024
83.3% of Congressmen are Democrats

Or Washington (state)
57.23% voted Democrat in 2024
80% of Congressmen are Democrats

So really, no one believes that bull**** anymore. Democrats are upset Republicans are playing by their rules (for radicals). And they can't live up to their own standards.

We all know come 3:00 Abbott won't do a thing

A lib i work with says leaving the state is perfectly fine for a vote you would lose otherwise. I told him hes the problem.