This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday petitioned the state Supreme Court to remove Houston Rep. Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, from office, a dramatic and unprecedented move in Republicans’ push to restart legislative activity and approve new congressional maps.
More than 50 House Democrats have fled the state to deny the chamber a quorum, the minimum number of members needed to conduct official business. This action aims to block redistricting legislation that could potentially provide Republicans with up to five additional congressional seats.
The mid-cycle redistricting effort was launched at the urging of former President Donald Trump and his political allies, despite initial hesitation from Abbott and much of Texas’ Republican congressional delegation, the left-leaning Texas Tribune reported.
Democrats departed the state Sunday afternoon, just ahead of a scheduled Monday vote to advance the redistricting bill. Rep. Gene Wu, leading the House Democratic Caucus, declared that “this corrupt special session is over” and pledged to remain out of state until the session’s remaining two weeks expired.
In a legal petition, Abbott argued that Wu’s actions constitute an abandonment of office — a charge he claims is sufficient to justify vacating Wu’s seat.
“What is at stake here? Nothing less than the future of Texas,” Abbott wrote. “If a small fraction of recalcitrant lawmakers choose to run out the clock today, they can do so for any, and every, Regular or Special Session, potentially bankrupting the State in an attempt to get their way.”
Wu argued that denying a quorum “was not an abandonment of my office,” but “a fulfillment of my oath” of office to abide by the Constitution, though there is nothing in Texas law or in the U.S. Constitution that forbids a mid-decade redistricting.
Also, Republicans have pointed out that Democrat-run states have been heavily gerrymandered against them for years.
Attorney General Ken Paxton, who earlier in the day threatened legal action against several House Democrats, responded to Abbott’s emergency petition by submitting his own letter to the Texas Supreme Court just hours later. In it, Paxton argued that Abbott lacked the legal authority to seek the removal of a sitting lawmaker, the outlet reported.
Paxton wrote that while he “appreciates the Governor’s passion” for restoring a quorum, Texas law allows only the attorney general or a local county or district attorney to initiate a quo warranto proceeding — the legal mechanism used to remove an officeholder on the grounds of abandonment, noted the Tribune.
In his letter, Paxton warned he would pursue legal action against the absent lawmakers if the House still lacked a quorum by Friday—the deadline set by House Speaker Dustin Burrows.
Later that night, Abbott defended his petition in a social media post, asserting that he filed the quo warranto request under a provision of the Texas Constitution and a separate section of the state’s government code, which he claimed granted his office the necessary authority. He included a letter to the Texas Supreme Court arguing that “at least 500 years of common law” supported the governor’s right to bring such a case.
Paxton has previously conceded that the process would likely be lengthy and complex, telling conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that it would require filing individual lawsuits in each affected district.
“We’d have to go through a court process, and we’d have to file that maybe in districts that are not friendly to Republicans,” Paxton said on Monday. “So it’s a challenge because every district would be different.”
If a judge determined the seats to be vacant, they would be filled through special elections.
The Texas Supreme Court, composed entirely of Republicans, is led by Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, a former general counsel to Abbott who was appointed to his current position in January.
When he initially appointed Blacklock to the bench in 2018, the Texas governor said he “wanted to make sure that the person I appointed was going to make decisions that I know how they are going to decide.”
