Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SouthBayDem

(31,962 posts)
Tue Aug 17, 2021, 09:29 PM Aug 2021

Texas Supreme Court rules quorum-breaking Democrats can be arrested, returned to House chamber

Source: Dallas Morning News

The Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that House Democrats boycotting a special legislative session can be arrested and forced back to chambers.

“The legal question before this Court concerns only whether the Texas Constitution gives the House of Representatives the authority to physically compel the attendance of absent members,” according to a written opinion signed by Justice James D. Blacklock, who wrote the opinion for the all-Republican court. “We conclude that it does, and we therefore direct the district court to withdraw the TRO [temporary restraining order].”

House Democrats broke quorum during a July special session to stall a GOP-driven elections bill that they contend is designed to suppress the votes of Black and Hispanic residents. More than 50 of the Democrats camped out in the nation’s capital, a move that served to elude arrest and bring national attention to what they described as the need for stronger federal voting rights legislation.

Read more: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/08/17/texas-supreme-court-rules-quorum-breaking-democrats-can-be-arrested-returned-to-house-chamber/

54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Texas Supreme Court rules quorum-breaking Democrats can be arrested, returned to House chamber (Original Post) SouthBayDem Aug 2021 OP
fuck the Texas SC Skittles Aug 2021 #1
A liberal Justice would have had to vote the same way Polybius Aug 2021 #35
THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT EXCUSE Skittles Aug 2021 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Aug 2021 #2
Damn! elleng Aug 2021 #3
Well then, if that's a precedent, grumpyduck Aug 2021 #4
But...bipartisanship! Reaching across the aisle! Looking forward, not back! /sarc NullTuples Aug 2021 #16
It might be a precedent, but....... joshdawg Aug 2021 #19
Texas is NOT a Red State! Smackdown2019 Aug 2021 #24
Well, when we have two republican Senators, joshdawg Aug 2021 #25
Texas had a Democratic Governor who was a woman in 90s Smackdown2019 Aug 2021 #45
Electing a Democrat thirty years ago does not make a state "blue" FBaggins Aug 2021 #47
I get that! But I am saying roadblocks do thwart a Democrat from getting in. Smackdown2019 Aug 2021 #48
And I'm saying that that's not even close to being true FBaggins Aug 2021 #50
Um... no. FBaggins Aug 2021 #31
zero surprise DetroitLegalBeagle Aug 2021 #5
As each House provides but I do not see where it gives the power to them to issue a warrant cstanleytech Aug 2021 #20
That would be an argument for the police to make. Not the Democrats FBaggins Aug 2021 #23
Priorities in that State right now! Traildogbob Aug 2021 #6
Good thing TSC jurisdiction ends at the state line bluevoter4life Aug 2021 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Aug 2021 #8
i absolutely DID hear you like you're tom bodell! lol nt orleans Aug 2021 #9
If you love authoritarianism, just go to Texas. sinkingfeeling Aug 2021 #10
Oh the hypocrisy ripcord Aug 2021 #27
Unable to see the relevant differences, eh? LanternWaste Aug 2021 #53
what's the penalty AlexSFCA Aug 2021 #11
No penalty (apart from losing a vote) FBaggins Aug 2021 #36
The Court ruling is justified... brooklynite Aug 2021 #12
Would they be safe in an embassy in DC? ArizonaLib Aug 2021 #13
Texas rso Aug 2021 #26
All? FBaggins Aug 2021 #32
Texas rso Aug 2021 #38
Thanks! ArizonaLib Aug 2021 #54
Back in the late 70s the first time Jerry Brown was Governor Mr.Bill Aug 2021 #14
You think its time on the federal side of this small d democratic country should turbinetree Aug 2021 #15
Texas LEO's have no authority in DC- can't lay a hand on them. Nt Fiendish Thingy Aug 2021 #17
Question: what would the legal basis be for ignoring an extradition request? brooklynite Aug 2021 #39
DOJ could order US Marshals to stand down pending court appeals Fiendish Thingy Aug 2021 #41
The key to this question is understanding what "extradition" and "arrest" mean FBaggins Aug 2021 #46
Which is exactly what I presumed- Texas cant touch them in DC. Nt Fiendish Thingy Aug 2021 #49
The nine GOP assholes on the Texas Supreme court need to be voted out LetMyPeopleVote Aug 2021 #18
That may be true... but not because of this decision FBaggins Aug 2021 #22
This should now be appealed before the federal courts as its an issue where one of the Houses cstanleytech Aug 2021 #21
Like when Oregon Democrats ordered the same actions? ripcord Aug 2021 #28
I never said I claimed to support that action and in fact I did not even though cstanleytech Aug 2021 #30
Yes, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court... stat! machoneman Aug 2021 #29
On what grounds? FBaggins Aug 2021 #34
What a quaint idea, forced to participate in "democracy." n/t malthaussen Aug 2021 #33
The same rules apply in the US House... brooklynite Aug 2021 #37
Why make it personal? malthaussen Aug 2021 #43
To paraphrase that genocidal madman Andrew Jackson: "The Texas SC made its decision AZLD4Candidate Aug 2021 #40
Doesn't quite fit here FBaggins Aug 2021 #44
Round 'em up and send 'em home. twodogsbarking Aug 2021 #42
Arrest yourselves assholes. Nt BootinUp Aug 2021 #51

Polybius

(15,239 posts)
35. A liberal Justice would have had to vote the same way
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:29 AM
Aug 2021

From the Texas Constitution:

Section 8. Securing a Quorum — When a call of the house is moved for one of the above purposes and seconded by 15 members (of whom the speaker may be one) and ordered by a majority vote, the main entrance to the hall and all other doors leading out of the hall shall be locked and no member permitted to leave the house without the written permission of the speaker. The names of members present shall be recorded. All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained.

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

joshdawg

(2,638 posts)
19. It might be a precedent, but.......
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:33 AM
Aug 2021

if it were the repubs out, the Texas SC would look the other way, because in Red State Texas, IOKIYAR!

republicans are pus-oozing sores in politics!

Smackdown2019

(1,169 posts)
24. Texas is NOT a Red State!
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 07:29 AM
Aug 2021

Texas is a blue state, it's just the Republicans district it to their favor and block Democrats from voting.

joshdawg

(2,638 posts)
25. Well, when we have two republican Senators,
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:14 AM
Aug 2021

a republican governor, a republican lieutenant governor, a republican attorney general, and a supreme court made up of nothing but republicans, then I would state that Texas is a blood red state.
I should know, I have lived here all my life. 76years.

Smackdown2019

(1,169 posts)
45. Texas had a Democratic Governor who was a woman in 90s
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:08 PM
Aug 2021

Since then, Republican have been putting up roadblocks across the US in voting...

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
47. Electing a Democrat thirty years ago does not make a state "blue"
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:24 PM
Aug 2021

Texas used to be solidly blue. That started to change with Reagan and over the next decade or so the state turned reliably red. That Richards election was about the end of the cycle. By '93, both senate seats were red and the state had gone red in four straight presidential elections.



Smackdown2019

(1,169 posts)
48. I get that! But I am saying roadblocks do thwart a Democrat from getting in.
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:32 PM
Aug 2021

If we had a true election where everyone was allowed to vote without long lines, issues with their credentials due to their skin OR WHERE THEY LIVE; then it would be a blue state....

It is just a bunch of wannabe cowboys from the "Dallas" episode, that never used a shovel in their life, but knows all on how to dig out a slick trench and fall in it!

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
50. And I'm saying that that's not even close to being true
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 02:16 PM
Aug 2021

First - Ignore the "WHERE THEY LIVE" point. Gerrymandering has exactly zero impact on statewide elections. And if you're talking about long lines in heavily blue areas... those races are run by blue counties.

Second - Beto was the closest that we've come to winning statewide in recent TX elections and he lost by almost a quarter of a million votes. There is zero chance that a quarter of a million Democrats were denied the right to vote in TX (let alone the 640k that we lost the state by in last November's presidential election or 1.1 million in the senate race)

This claim is roughly on par with MAGAs thinking that fake ballots were flown in from China to swing the PA elections. If we lost a race by 500 votes, it might be reasonable to wonder about how many people were unable to vote... but a thousand times that many?

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
31. Um... no.
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:20 AM
Aug 2021

Texas has shown signs in recent years of moving closer to the center. But it's definitely still a red state.

DetroitLegalBeagle

(1,904 posts)
5. zero surprise
Tue Aug 17, 2021, 09:54 PM
Aug 2021

Last edited Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Ignoring the partisan makeup of the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Constitution uses basically the same language as the US Constitution for compelling absent members.

US Constitution Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.


Texas State Constitution Article 3, Section 10
Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.


Congress has used this power in the past as have other states(Oregon is the most recent one I can think of besides Texas).

That being said, just stay out of the state. Texas police have no jurisdiction outside of Texas.

cstanleytech

(26,082 posts)
20. As each House provides but I do not see where it gives the power to them to issue a warrant
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 02:30 AM
Aug 2021

that the police are compelled to obey as neither House has jurisdiction over them.
Just like for example no one in the House or Senate has jurisdiction to give anyone in the military an order.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
23. That would be an argument for the police to make. Not the Democrats
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 06:56 AM
Aug 2021

The House sergeant at arms can deputize anyone to arrest them (within the state of course).

An individual police officer could try to make a case that “Hey! You’re not the bossa me!”. He would lose because the governor is… but he could at least make the case. But the target of the arrest order doesn’t have a claim that “only the House Sargent at arms can get me”

So if the governor were a Democrat, he could decide to tell the police not to exercise the warrant. But the House could use anyone it wanted. They could deputize the local high school football team to do the job.

Traildogbob

(8,584 posts)
6. Priorities in that State right now!
Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:00 PM
Aug 2021

Fuck you Texans, is the message sent from those you vote for to its citizens. At least they’ve ordered some morgue trucks for you. The bed you made, and intend to remain in. What a shit hole country Texas and Florida are.

Response to bluevoter4life (Reply #7)

ripcord

(5,084 posts)
27. Oh the hypocrisy
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 09:00 AM
Aug 2021

Everyone here was cheering in 2019 when Oregon State police were chasing Republicans who chose to deny a quorum. No one was calling Oregon authoritarian for trying to arrest them, people here wanted them dragged into the state Capitol in handcuffs.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
53. Unable to see the relevant differences, eh?
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:07 PM
Aug 2021

I get it... the narratives we set for ourselves, and done at the expense of others, are hard habits to break. Cool allegations, bruh.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
36. No penalty (apart from losing a vote)
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:29 AM
Aug 2021

This isn't a criminal arrest that would be followed by charges and (if guilty) some sort of punishment.

It's physically restraining someone and dragging them to the legislature... and holding them there until dismissed.

brooklynite

(93,873 posts)
12. The Court ruling is justified...
Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:32 PM
Aug 2021

…based on Texas and Federal law.

I’m not disputing what the Texas House Democrats are doing. But legally speaking, a legislature can compel the attendance of its members. People need to atop reacting emotionally to “arrested” and understand that it doesn’t mean sending them to jail, it means returning them to the legislative chamber to vote on the policy issues before the chamber.

Nb - I suspect you’d find that rule existed long before the Republicans took control of the Texas legislature.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
32. All?
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:25 AM
Aug 2021

Texas House members only make a few thousand dollars per year. It's a part-time job and almost all of them have other things that they need to be doing (and that's before we even count being away from their families and communities).

If it were just a week or two - or even a month, that would be one thing. But the governor has the power to call one session after another for as long as he wants to. So "all" they have to do is stay away from their homes/families/careers for... six months? A year?

rso

(2,262 posts)
38. Texas
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:50 AM
Aug 2021

Of course, but my reply was to the previous comment about possibly seeking refuge in a foreign Embassy in Wash DC.. Certainly, in relative terms, simply staying out of Texas is a far easier alternative than seeking diplomatic asylum in a foreign Embassy.

Mr.Bill

(24,104 posts)
14. Back in the late 70s the first time Jerry Brown was Governor
Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:47 PM
Aug 2021

of California he threatened to do the same thing to republicans that were denying a quorum by staying away. They had not left the state, though, and when Brown gave the command to state police to round them up they voluntarily returned.

turbinetree

(24,632 posts)
15. You think its time on the federal side of this small d democratic country should
Tue Aug 17, 2021, 11:05 PM
Aug 2021

vote on voting rights legislation today and not tomorrow.....

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
41. DOJ could order US Marshals to stand down pending court appeals
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:12 PM
Aug 2021

I’m assuming it would be US Marshals who would be the ones to transport any TX reps back to Tx?

Not sure how extradition works between DC and the states, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that Abbott can forcibly bring them back.

Here’s some info:

https://koehlerlaw.net/other-offenses/extradition/

If the fugitive contests extradition, the court will schedule a hearing within 30 days. At the hearing, the court will order the fugitive’s return to the demanding state provided that the prosecution can show three things: (1) the fugitive is in fact the person sought by the demanding state, (2) the fugitive is charged with a crime in that state, and (3) the fugitive was in the demanding state at the time the offense was committed.


Since the Reps weren’t in TX at the time the arrest warrants were issued, they might be able to contest extradition successfully. In any case, they can delay for 30 days, if and when they are apprehended.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
46. The key to this question is understanding what "extradition" and "arrest" mean
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:11 PM
Aug 2021

Extradition is a formal process by which someone charged with a crime is delivered from one state to another. This occurs even for petty offenses and even if the crime is not a crime in the state where the fugitive is found.

But there is no crime involved here - so extradition simply doesn't apply.

"Arrest" means simply seizing someone by action of legal authority. That usually happens in the case of a crime and is usually performed by law enforceent, so people naturally associate the two as being related. But really (as above), there's no crime involved here - and it doesn't have to be done by the police. The legislature has the power to seize (or have them seized) a quorum buster and drag the to the floor. So that's an "arrest"... but it isn't at all the same thing as a situation where other states (or the feds) could be asked to help out... and any authority coming from the Texas constitution ends at the Texas border.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
22. That may be true... but not because of this decision
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 06:42 AM
Aug 2021

The state constitution couldn’t be clearer. To rule any other way would have been nearly impossible. Nine progressive justices would have ruled in just the same way (though perhaps they would have waited for the lower court to rule first)

cstanleytech

(26,082 posts)
21. This should now be appealed before the federal courts as its an issue where one of the Houses
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 02:34 AM
Aug 2021

of a state are trying to order the police to do something and its no different imo than someone say like Cancun Cruz trying to order someone in the military to shoot someone just because he is a Senator.
Now if the State constitution grants the House the power to order the police to arrest someone then that is one thing but unless it does its a broad overstepping of their powers.

cstanleytech

(26,082 posts)
30. I never said I claimed to support that action and in fact I did not even though
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 09:29 AM
Aug 2021

I thought that the reasons the Republicans were doing it for was shitty.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
34. On what grounds?
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:23 AM
Aug 2021

The Texas constitution couldn't be clearer:

Sec. 10. QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE. Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.


And what are the constitutionally sanctioned manners that the state house has provided?

Section 8. Securing a Quorum — When a call of the house is moved for one of the above purposes and seconded by 15 members (of whom the speaker may be one) and ordered by a majority vote, the main entrance to the hall and all other doors leading out of the hall shall be locked and no member permitted to leave the house without the written permission of the speaker. The names of members present shall be recorded. All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained.


Every single Democrat voted for the rule.

So what would they be asking the US Supreme Court to do?

They don't have a legal leg to stand on. They may have a moral leg to remain outside the jurisdiction of anyone within the state who might try to arrest them... but they have no legal appeal.

brooklynite

(93,873 posts)
37. The same rules apply in the US House...
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:45 AM
Aug 2021

are you suggesting that Speaker Pelosi is being oppressive by keeping them?

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
43. Why make it personal?
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:38 PM
Aug 2021

I'm suggesting that the idea of forced attendance to a democratic assembly is contradictory. So is fining people for not voting, yet Australia does that. I find the idea paradoxical.

-- Mal

AZLD4Candidate

(5,568 posts)
40. To paraphrase that genocidal madman Andrew Jackson: "The Texas SC made its decision
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:03 PM
Aug 2021

let's see them enforce it."

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
44. Doesn't quite fit here
Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:59 PM
Aug 2021

Jackson was pointing out that the SC has no army. The other two branches have to enforce their decisions.

In this case, all three branches agree that the quorum-busting members are subject to being compelled to return. So they absolutely can "enforce it" if the missing members are within Texas.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Texas Supreme Court rules...