flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Where did I say it wasn't? Section 2 of the VRA was supposed to make sure the maps are fair, but we all know that isn't happening on either side of the aisle.
You've been getting exponentially worse about putting words in peoples' mouths.

---

"gerrymandering for all will be the new law of the land..."

You are sometimes inconsistent but most off consistently wrong.

And who decides the maps are "fair"? As I have repeatedly pointed out going by pure math is an option but leftist will claim math is racist and we have to overrule the math in order to protect the "under represented".

If you have a problem with how others interpret what you are saying, try being clearer in your arguments.

---

What I mean is that court challenges under Section 2 of the VRA will go away, so legislators and redistricting commissions will be able to draw the districts how they please. As it stands now, a gerrymandered district still has to survive a court challenge. That won't happen if SCOTUS decides what I think they will decide. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that, but that's not my problem.

Math would be a great way to draw districts. But it's a shame that neither side is willing to do that. Because they don't care. It's all about the house reps choosing who the voters are, not the voters choosing the house reps.

Charpie said:

---

torrid said:

---

Why arrest them if he is removing them from office?

---

Because he's not doing either.

Some of y'all need to get a grip or at least look up some history. Nothing is going to happen to these reps.

---

Exactly

Charpie said:

---

torrid said:

---

Why arrest them if he is removing them from office?

---

Because he's not doing either.

Some of y'all need to get a grip or at least look up some history. Nothing is going to happen to these reps.

---

The point being this is absurd theater being played out by both sides.

torrid said:

---

Charpie said:

---

torrid said:

---

Why arrest them if he is removing them from office?

---

Because he's not doing either.

Some of y'all need to get a grip or at least look up some history. Nothing is going to happen to these reps.

---

The point being this is absurd theater being played out by both sides.

---

Agreed. People eat this crap up thinking something big is going to happen. Both sides are just greasing a turd.

Greg Abbott will never let anything happen to these Democrats.

He loves having them there. That is why he supports Burrows who gave them power in the House.

It is convenient cover for him so he can blame the Democrats when he never gets anything done that Texans who vote for him actually want. Property tax, help with deportations, expanding government, etc.

Hey, at least he gets to talk tough on the national stage and claim to be a warrior for Trump's agenda or whatever else he thinks voters will eat up.

gbaby23 said:

---

Greg Abbott will never let anything happen to these Democrats.

He loves having them there. That is why he supports Burrows who gave them power in the House.

It is convenient cover for him so he can blame the Democrats when he never gets anything done that Texans who vote for him actually want. Property tax, help with deportations, expanding government, etc.

Hey, at least he gets to talk tough on the national stage and claim to be a warrior for Trump's agenda or whatever else he thinks voters will eat up.

---

Wow. I'm not an Abbott defender, but you have no idea how any of this works.

Go read up on how many times this has happened under multiple governors here in Texas.

Charpie said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Greg Abbott will never let anything happen to these Democrats.

He loves having them there. That is why he supports Burrows who gave them power in the House.

It is convenient cover for him so he can blame the Democrats when he never gets anything done that Texans who vote for him actually want. Property tax, help with deportations, expanding government, etc.

Hey, at least he gets to talk tough on the national stage and claim to be a warrior for Trump's agenda or whatever else he thinks voters will eat up.

---

Wow. I'm not an Abbott defender, but you have no idea how any of this works.

Go read up on how many times this has happened under multiple governors here in Texas.

---

Because they have all been the same. It is no excuse. They let this happen.

The Fall Guy said:

---

torrid said:

---

Charpie said:

---

torrid said:

---

Why arrest them if he is removing them from office?

---

Because he's not doing either.

Some of y'all need to get a grip or at least look up some history. Nothing is going to happen to these reps.

---

The point being this is absurd theater being played out by both sides.

---

Agreed. People eat this crap up thinking something big is going to happen. Both sides are just greasing a turd.

---

The greasing turd specialists are the concerned moderates.

bobbranco said:

---

The Fall Guy said:

---

torrid said:

---

Charpie said:

---

torrid said:

---

Why arrest them if he is removing them from office?

---

Because he's not doing either.

Some of y'all need to get a grip or at least look up some history. Nothing is going to happen to these reps.

---

The point being this is absurd theater being played out by both sides.

---

Agreed. People eat this crap up thinking something big is going to happen. Both sides are just greasing a turd.

---

The greasing turd specialists are the concerned moderates.

---

Lol because I am not a die hard supporter of any party. Let me reiterate. Its all political theater.

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Where did I say it wasn't? Section 2 of the VRA was supposed to make sure the maps are fair, but we all know that isn't happening on either side of the aisle.
You've been getting exponentially worse about putting words in peoples' mouths.

---

"gerrymandering for all will be the new law of the land..."

You are sometimes inconsistent but most off consistently wrong.

And who decides the maps are "fair"? As I have repeatedly pointed out going by pure math is an option but leftist will claim math is racist and we have to overrule the math in order to protect the "under represented".

If you have a problem with how others interpret what you are saying, try being clearer in your arguments.

---

What I mean is that court challenges under Section 2 of the VRA will go away, so legislators and redistricting commissions will be able to draw the districts how they please. As it stands now, a gerrymandered district still has to survive a court challenge. That won't happen if SCOTUS decides what I think they will decide. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that, but that's not my problem.

Math would be a great way to draw districts. But it's a shame that neither side is willing to do that. Because they don't care. It's all about the house reps choosing who the voters are, not the voters choosing the house reps.

---

Section 2 of the VRA needs to go away as it is essentially affirmative action for congress. BTW - It was not there to make sure maps are "fair", just that minorities by basis of skin color be represented in correlation with the makeup of the population.

Where the Dems *******ized this is their plantation approach to blacks to enslave them in perpetuity to the DNC through handouts and carveouts, for the purpose of getting elected in racially gerrymandered districts.

There could still be challenges under the 14th Amendment it just becomes less "convenient" for the engagement of lawfare over redistricting, but it does not prohibit it.

The Constitution and SCOTUS as well have long held that gerrymandering is the allowed process - and if folks do not like it then they need to elect congress folk who will change the law, constitutionally, to restrict or end gerrymandering.

The issue is way more complex than "SCOTUS may kill section 2 of the VRA and in turn take gerrymandering to a whole new level".

In fact, I think it could do the opposite.

Democrats are going to lose the redistricting battle. They're just going to cost us more money with extra special sessions until they are wiped out. They seem to think public opinion will sway their way. It won't. And every day they stay away, more hispanic voters will see them for what they are.

Bucketrunner said:

---

Democrats are going to lose the redistricting battle. They're just going to cost us more money with extra special sessions until they are wiped out. They seem to think public opinion will sway their way. It won't. And every day they stay away, more hispanic voters will see them for what they are.

---

Oh they know they aren't going to win this battle. Again, this is nothing new. What it is doing is playing big outside of Texas.

Quote:

---

These new 5 potential GOP controlled districts are all majority Hispanic.

---

So, libs are racists. Protesting Hispanics getting their districts.

Shocking I tell you.

"If texans come up here they're gonna find out real quick they don't want none of Chicago. We carry guns too"

This is conversation I was eavesdropping on. I've been in Chicago for a week now working with Lollapalooza so I'm completely out of the loop on everything in the world.

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/texas-legislature/texas-quorum-break-1979-killer-bees/269-4dd8f24b-aab6-4be0-9a5d-189d18ef2714?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KVUE&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwL_CYpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHmsUp2KI7wYHsxILZ3AeRbMscmrXJXjfp-Q8Su28xSpGIB9vWhU4bWm87AlX_aem_JhYCARrEIlNkEXs1ABVLTA


1979 a young Loyd Dogget

So, getting back to the practicality of declaring a seat vacant, my understanding is that requires quo warranto civil suit in district court. Presumably, this would have to be filed in the county (or one of the counties) where the district is situated. Although the statute on quo warranto talks about the AG having the ability to file this, along with the district attorney, I'm not sure that will hold up as the Court of Criminal Appeals fairly recently held that the AG doesn't have any prosecutorial power under the constitution, any statutes notwithstanding. So, let's assume that, in order to make this threat stick, you've got to have a Republican DA and Republican district judges.

A quorum of the House is 100 members.

The Democrats have 62 seats. That means, they need 51 Democrats not to show up in order to deprive the House of a quorum. On Monday, 55 Democrats were absent. Those present were:

Richard Pena Raymon D42 Webb
Joe Moody D48 El Paso
Terry Canales D40 Hidalgo
Oscar Longoria D35 Hidalgo
Armando Martinez D39 Hidalgo
Sergio Muñoz D36 Hidalgo

Among the absentees, I think the following are the only ones who might remotely be in danger of a quo warranto action:

John Bucy D136 Williamson (partial)
Ramon Romero D90 Tarrant
Nicole Collier D95 Tarrant
Chris Turner D101 Tarrant
Mihaela Plesa D70 Collin
Salman Bhojani D92 Tarrrant

Bhojani claims to be out of the country dealing with family issues, rather than absent to block a quorum. But, it would seem to me that he and the other Tarrant County reps might be vulnerable. You would have to get all five of them, and Bucy (who has part of his district in Williamson County) to show up, and have the South Texas Dems who haven't left stick around in order to obtain a quorum (at which point the other Dems would come running back).

Other than political pandering by Cornyn, where is the federal issue here? Not seeing it. What am I missing?

📢 I have asked @FBIDirectorKash to work with @GregAbbott_TX & Texas law enforcement to investigate potential CRIMINAL acts, including bribery, and to hold legislators accountable who have fled the state in a shameful attempt to stall the legislative process in the Texas House.…

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) August 5, 2025

Can we just put the Texas dems in mental asylums instead? I would be pretty onboard with right winged fascism at the state level. These people are not like us. They are evil twisted vengeful freaks.

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

These new 5 potential GOP controlled districts are all majority Hispanic.

---

So, libs are racists. Protesting Hispanics getting their districts.

Shocking I tell you.

---

They're not the right shade of color now...

Correct, if the vote Republican, they have to check "white hispanic". If they voted for Trump, their Uncle Tom arse must be deported.

It could be federal if you're sending money across state lines. But, I thought I read something where there are so many available loopholes to get them money that it makes a bribery charge almost impossible to stick.

aggiehawg said:

---

Other than political pandering by Cornyn, where is the federal issue here? Not seeing it. What am I missing?

📢 I have asked @FBIDirectorKash to work with @GregAbbott_TX & Texas law enforcement to investigate potential CRIMINAL acts, including bribery, and to hold legislators accountable who have fled the state in a shameful attempt to stall the legislative process in the Texas House.…

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) August 5, 2025

---

18 U.S.C. 201

If officials outside of Texas bribed Democrats to leave the state, it's a federal offense.

HTownAg98 said:

---

It could be federal if you're sending money across state lines. But, I thought I read something where there are so many available loopholes to get them money that it makes a bribery charge almost impossible to stick.

---

Tend to agree. Bribery of a US Congresscritter? Yeah sure, that would be federal. But a state Rep inside a state? State jurisdiction, if provable. Obstruction of Congressional duties or hearings (think Jan 6th) yes federal.

So still a bit confused.

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It could be federal if you're sending money across state lines. But, I thought I read something where there are so many available loopholes to get them money that it makes a bribery charge almost impossible to stick.

---

Tend to agree. Bribery of a US Congresscritter? Yeah sure, that would be federal. But a state Rep inside a state? State jurisdiction, if provable. Obstruction of Congressional duties or hearings (think Jan 6th) yes federal.

So still a bit confused.

---

If the DNC is "paying" these guys to come to Chicago, would that not be a "bribe"?

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It could be federal if you're sending money across state lines. But, I thought I read something where there are so many available loopholes to get them money that it makes a bribery charge almost impossible to stick.

---

Tend to agree. Bribery of a US Congresscritter? Yeah sure, that would be federal. But a state Rep inside a state? State jurisdiction, if provable. Obstruction of Congressional duties or hearings (think Jan 6th) yes federal.

So still a bit confused.

---

State officials have been charged under 18 U.S.C. 201 for accepting bribes in the commision of their position - Rod Blagojevich being one of the most famous.

Quote:

---

If the DNC is "paying" these guys to come to Chicago, would that not be a "bribe"?

---

Probably not. Campaign finance violation maybe?

twk said:

---

So, getting back to the practicality of declaring a seat vacant, my understanding is that requires quo warranto civil suit in district court. Presumably, this would have to be filed in the county (or one of the counties) where the district is situated. Although the statute on quo warranto talks about the AG having the ability to file this, along with the district attorney, I'm not sure that will hold up as the Court of Criminal Appeals fairly recently held that the AG doesn't have any prosecutorial power under the constitution, any statutes notwithstanding. So, let's assume that, in order to make this threat stick, you've got to have a Republican DA and Republican district judges.

---

Whether the AG has prosecutorial power, according to the CCA, or not, there is clear statutory authority for the AG to file for a Quo Warranto action.

Quote:

---

Sec. 66.002. INITIATION OF SUIT. (a) If grounds for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the county or district attorney of the proper county may petition the district court of the proper county or a district judge if the court is in vacation for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto.
(b) The petition must state that the information is sought in the name of the State of Texas.
(c) The attorney general or county or district attorney may file the petition on his own motion or at the request of an individual relator.
(d) If there is probable ground for the proceeding, the judge SHALL grant leave to file the information, order the information to be filed, and order process to be issued.

---

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 66

Notice the "shall" language in "D."

Now there's a writ I knew existed had not seen utilized recently. Quo warranto, eh? That's a deep dive into dusty legal books.

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It could be federal if you're sending money across state lines. But, I thought I read something where there are so many available loopholes to get them money that it makes a bribery charge almost impossible to stick.

---

Tend to agree. Bribery of a US Congresscritter? Yeah sure, that would be federal. But a state Rep inside a state? State jurisdiction, if provable. Obstruction of Congressional duties or hearings (think Jan 6th) yes federal.

So still a bit confused.

---

If the DNC is "paying" these guys to come to Chicago, would that not be a "bribe"?

---

It's not really any different that Joe Schmoe off the street starting a Gofundme to pay his bills. Worst case scenario is probably they have to report it as gift income to the IRS

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It could be federal if you're sending money across state lines. But, I thought I read something where there are so many available loopholes to get them money that it makes a bribery charge almost impossible to stick.

---

Tend to agree. Bribery of a US Congresscritter? Yeah sure, that would be federal. But a state Rep inside a state? State jurisdiction, if provable. Obstruction of Congressional duties or hearings (think Jan 6th) yes federal.

So still a bit confused.

---

If the DNC is "paying" these guys to come to Chicago, would that not be a "bribe"?

---

It's not really any different that Joe Schmoe off the street starting a Gofundme to pay his bills. Worst case scenario is probably they have to report it as gift income to the IRS

---

Seems like Joe Schmo is not accepting money to perform an illegal act, and if a politician does it, well, seems like a bribe to me.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If the DNC is "paying" these guys to come to Chicago, would that not be a "bribe"?

---

Probably not. Campaign finance violation maybe?

---

Maybe. But, then what is a bribe? Taking money to perform an illegal act seems different than just lobbying for a cause.

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If the DNC is "paying" these guys to come to Chicago, would that not be a "bribe"?

---

Probably not. Campaign finance violation maybe?

---

Maybe. But, then what is a bribe? Taking money to perform an illegal act seems different than just lobbying for a cause.

---

Is it really illegal though? As in felony illegal? Because if just a misdemeanor, the feds do not normally get involved (well, with the exception of taking a child across state lines in violation of a court order. US Marshals can get involved then, or they used to be.)

fc2112 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It could be federal if you're sending money across state lines. But, I thought I read something where there are so many available loopholes to get them money that it makes a bribery charge almost impossible to stick.

---

Tend to agree. Bribery of a US Congresscritter? Yeah sure, that would be federal. But a state Rep inside a state? State jurisdiction, if provable. Obstruction of Congressional duties or hearings (think Jan 6th) yes federal.

So still a bit confused.

---

State officials have been charged under 18 U.S.C. 201 for accepting bribes in the commision of their position - Rod Blagojevich being one of the most famous.

---

fun times, Blaggo, fun times!

Until the left commits to changing THEIR districts, the right should fight as hard as possible to mirror their results.

To level the playing field.

aggiehawg said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If the DNC is "paying" these guys to come to Chicago, would that not be a "bribe"?

---

Probably not. Campaign finance violation maybe?

---

Maybe. But, then what is a bribe? Taking money to perform an illegal act seems different than just lobbying for a cause.

---

Is it really illegal though? As in felony illegal? Because if just a misdemeanor, the feds do not normally get involved (well, with the exception of taking a child across state lines in violation of a court order. US Marshals can get involved then, or they used to be.)

---

There is also a very strong argument to make that breaking quorum is a legitimate exercise of the First Amendment. Depriving a governing body of quorum has been a legitimate act of dissent ever since representative government was invented.