Texas Democrats set plan to end nearly 2-week walkout over Republicans' redraw of US House maps
Texas House Democrats said in a statement that under the advice of legal counsel, they needed to return to the state to 'build a strong public legislative record' for an upcoming legal battle against a new map.
Advertisement
'Now, as Democrats across the nation join our fight to cause these maps to fail their political purpose, we're prepared to bring this battle back to Texas under the right conditions and to take this fight to the courts,' said state Rep. Gene Wu, the House Democratic leader.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
3 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up
Get ready to hear a lot more about banning congressional stock trading. A top Trump administration official says he's going to start pushing for a ban. Two House Republicans are, in different ways, gearing up to force a vote on the issue. And all the while, lawmakers keep failing to report millions of dollars' worth of stock trades on time. "We've got to move," Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said on Fox Business earlier this month, saying that while he had given House GOP leadership "grace" as they worked to get the "Big Beautiful Bill" through Congress, that time is now over. "I'm going to demand that we vote on this, this fall." It all comes after an explosive Senate hearing on a stock trading bill last month, where Republicans went after one another over whether President Donald Trump himself should be banned from trading stocks. That led to Trump branding Sen. Josh Hawley as "second-tier," though the Missouri Republican later told BI that he was able to smooth things over with Trump later. "He told me he wants a stock trading ban," Hawley said in July. "He remains committed to getting a stock trading ban, so we'll work with him to do that." Potential House drama over a 'discharge petition' Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican known for challenging her own party's leadership, has said she'll start the process of forcing a vote on a stock trading ban when lawmakers return from the August recess. "I won't sit idly by while members of Congress trade stocks, especially those on committees with direct influence over relevant industries," Luna wrote on X last month. "That's corruption at its core, and it needs to stop." Luna has said she'll try to use what's known as a "discharge petition" to bring up a stock trading ban bill authored by Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee. Under that process, the bill would have to be brought to the House floor for a vote — with or without the support of House leaders — if Luna is able to collect signatures from 218 members, a majority of the 435 seats in the House. Not everyone who supports a stock trading ban is on board with Luna's approach. Roy, the co-sponsor of a different stock trading ban bill that has bipartisan support and has been around for years, told Fox Business that a discharge petition is "not the best way" to get it done. "I want the speaker, and Republicans, to control this," said Roy. "Republicans need to control the floor, do our job, bring this to a vote." Roy has been working with a bipartisan group that includes Democratic Reps. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to put forward a consensus stock trading ban bill. But after months of discussions, they have yet to release legislative text. That's led Luna to largely dismiss their effort. "Allegedly, there were 'talks' happening? With who?" Luna wrote on X on Thursday. "They were never going to bring a VOTE to the floor. I don't care if this upsets people." The Florida congresswoman's effort is worth taking seriously: she has used this legislative tool before to bring up a bill on proxy voting over the objections of Speaker Mike Johnson, bringing the House to a halt for a full week in April. Lawmakers keep reporting trades late Johnson has said he's supportive of a stock trading ban — though he has "sympathy" for arguments against it. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries began forcefully supporting it this year in the wake of well-timed tariff trades by some lawmakers. Even Trump has backed it, though some Republicans are wary of applying the bill's restrictions to him. This week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent got in on the action, saying he himself would begin pushing for a ban on lawmakers trading individual stocks. "I don't think we have the perfect bill yet," Bessent told Bloomberg this week. "But I am going to start pushing for a single-stock trading ban." Meanwhile, several lawmakers in have been found in violation of the STOCK Act in recent weeks, disclosing millions of dollars worth of trades long after the 30-45 day deadline for doing so. Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan, the fourth-highest ranking House Republican, was late to disclose over 500 trades made by her husband from March 2024 through June 2025, totalling at least $1.5 million. Republican Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania failed to disclose that his wife sold between $750,000 and $1.5 million in NVIDIA stock last year. And Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma was late in disclosing millions of dollars made by him and his wife since 2023. Lawmakers are only required to disclose asset ranges on their reports, so we don't know the exact value of the trades. Those lawmakers and their spokespeople blamed errors made by third-party financial managers and lack of awareness of the trades for the late disclosures. A spokesperson for McClain told BI that the congresswoman "promptly filed the necessary paperwork immediately after being made aware of the transactions made in managed accounts and remains committed to transparency and adherence to all House financial disclosure rules and regulations." "I take compliance with all House rules seriously and expect the same from those managing my accounts," Meuser told BI through a spokesperson. "This was a simple, automatic filing that should have occurred without error. The mistake was made solely by my brokerage and benefited me in no way." Mullin's office did not respond to BI's request for comment, but a spokesperson told NOTUS that the senator doesn't trade himself, but relies on a third-party broker.
USA Today
32 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering
This case is not likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. A former county clerk in Kentucky has officially filed a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that founda constitutional right to same-sex marriage. People should temper their reactions to this petition. There is no guarantee that this case will be heard, and there is no indication that the nation's highest court is likely to overturn the previous ruling. The general public has a poor understanding of how the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, actually works. The court is not a partisan machine that takes cases based on the whims of the Republican Party, but rather a process-oriented institution that is very restrained. While I understand the fears that members of the LGBTQ+ community hold at the prospect of losing their right to marry, particularly in the context of the hostile cultural swing within the GOP against it, fearmongering coverage only stokes overreactions. This case is not likely to be heard by the court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. Petitions for review are many, but Supreme Court decides few cases The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases it takes, so a petition for review does not necessarily mean that the panel will consider the issue. It takes the votes of four justices to eventually grant review in a case, which advances it to the court's docket. All of this is to say that just because a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean it will eventually be heard. The vast majority are never heard. Of the more than 7,000 cases filed each year, the Supreme Court grants review in only 100-150 of them. In 2024, for example, the court ultimately ruled on just 59 cases. While legislation is by no means a complete replacement for a constitutional amendment, the constitutional right to gay marriage is rendered somewhat obsolete by the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 piece of bipartisan legislation that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The odds of that legislation being overturned are extremely low, given gay marriage's popularity, even among conservatives. Thus, if the constitutional protections for gay marriage were to disappear, the practice still would most likely remain protected. The fearmongering began almost immediately But none of that stopped people from panicking at the prospect of the court considering such a case. Obviously, the partisan hacks of X immediately latched onto this story to fearmonger, but even larger news sources like ABC couldn't help themselves from dedicating feature-length articles to the topic. 'Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision,' said ABC News in an X post. Despite acknowledging the fact that the case is a 'long shot' in its own article on the matter, ABC News chose to frame this piece in this manner because it sensationalizes the potential for Obergefell to be overturned, with little indication that this is not an impending event. Other news sources were far more honest in their framing, but ABC News' post is irresponsible because it capitalizes on a massive problem in American civic education. Others, including USA TODAY, have tied it to President Donald Trump's position, while highlighting that the case is unlikely to succeed. Supreme Court literacy is important, but it's currently lacking At the moment, gay marriage is extremely safe going into the future. So, what is all the worry about? As it stands, very few Americans understand the judicial processes that lead to a case being considered by the Supreme Court. Even many who are otherwise rather politically intelligent understand very little about how the Supreme Court operates. The typical American comically knows little about the Supreme Court, from basic facts like the number of justices to the branch of government the court is housed within. Americans who have a limited understanding of this information naturally have little business understanding the meaning of a petition for certiorari or how precedent is overturned. Partisan sources are aware of this and capitalize on it. Democratic groups have already begun to incorporate the mere fact that someone has petitioned the court to review such a decision. I've written previously about how people's views of the court are far too simplistic, and that is an interconnected problem with this one. People do not understand the dynamic of the court well enough to actually make judgments beyond the partisan talking points. People naturally assume that the conservative majority Supreme Court will always rule in favor of conservative social outcomes, but the justices have proved that's not the case. Sources like the ABC News article may not be malicious, but their potential for harm is still great. America has a problem with civic education when it comes to the Supreme Court, but an honest news media has a responsibility to be conscious of framing court stories in relation to the public's knowledge. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Redistricting California: Newly proposed congressional maps released
The Brief The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has submitted a proposed map of California's redrawn congressional districts. The move by Newsom, and state Democrats, counters similar efforts underway in Texas. The new maps will likely be decided by California voters in a Nov. 4 special election. LOS ANGELES - A day after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans to redraw California's congressional districts, in response to a similar attempt by Republicans in Texas, a proposed map of the new districts was released. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee submitted the following congressional map to the California state legislature for consideration. Key points and differences Below is a breakdown of the key points of the new map from the DCCC. The submitted map is consistent with criteria laid out by the California's Citizen Redistricting Commission. It keeps districts more compact than in the current Commission-drawn map, which helps to keep more communities and neighborhoods together. It splits fewer cities than the current map (57 in submitted map versus 60 in current map). It minimizes changes to the 2020 Commission map to impact as few residents as possible. The submitted map leaves 8 districts untouched and, in 20 districts, fewer than 10% of residents are impacted. Communities of interest are protected, with necessary splits in San Jose, Sacramento, and Los Angeles (all cities that were split by the commission) done so along neighborhood boundaries and/or city council district lines. View the newly proposed congressional maps here View the current congressional maps here What they're saying "We will not stand by as Republicans attempt to rig the election in their favor and choose their voters. It's increasingly clear that Republicans will do anything to protect their narrow majority because they know they can't win on their disastrous legislative record which has raised costs and rips away healthcare for millions, all to give the ultra-wealthy a tax break," DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz said in a statement. The new map will be put forth to voters in a special election, with the California legislature set to take up the issue next week to call a Nov. 4 vote. PREVIOUS COVERAGE:Newsom unveils plan for redistricting California According to Politico, if the redistricting happens, three seats that are currently considered 'safe Republican' would change to 'safe Democratic' and one more would switch to 'lean Democratic'. Those seats currently belong to Republicans Doug Lamalfa, Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, and Kevin Kiley. Reason for redistricting The backstory The move to redistrict California is a direct response to a Republican-led effort in Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump, as his party seeks to maintain its slim House majority after the midterm election. Texas lawmakers are considering a new map that would help them send five more Republicans to Washington, but Democrats have so far halted a vote by leaving the state to prevent their GOP colleagues from meeting Trump's demands. "We can't stand back and watch this amok or this bankruptcy disappear. We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear, district by district, all across this country, not just in Texas, but in Missouri, where J.D. Vance went just a week ago in Indiana, in places like Ohio and places like Florida. We need to stand up, not just California. Other blue states need to stand up," Newsom said during a press conference Thursday in Los Angeles. There are 435 seats in the U.S. House and Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states give legislators the power to draw maps but some, like California, rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. California Democrats already hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. The Source Information for this story came from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and previous FOX 11 reports.
