Texas Democrat Defies GOP Law Enforcement Escort
Collier was one of more than 50 Texas Democrats who left the state earlier this month in protest of Republican-led redistricting that would likely flip five national House of Representatives seats from Democrat to Republican. Texas Democrats have described the plan as "gerrymandering," which means dividing up the district map strategically for the purpose of political gains.
Now that Collier and her fellow Democrats have returned to Texas, Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows said Monday that representatives who had warrants issued against them during their absence would not be allowed to leave the chamber without agreeing to one very specific condition. "Members who have not been present until today, for whom arrest warrants were issued, will be granted written permission to leave only after agreeing to be released into the custody of a designated [Department of Public Safety] officer appointment under the rules of the house."
Collier, however, refused the escort, which led to her spending the night in the Texas statehouse. In a statement to the Fort Worth Report, Collier wrote, "I don't know how long I will be here. Instead of DPS officers looking for pedophiles, they have been assigned to follow Democratic state representatives around only to ensure their return to the Capitol on Wednesday (when the House reconvenes). I sure hope the public feels safe without those officers on beat."
According to Republican Rep. Charlie Geren, Collier may stay in the chamber or go to her office, but she is not allowed to leave the state capitol grounds. She is the only Democrat who refused a law enforcement escort, but other members have reportedly visited her.
Online, people have a lot of thoughts about the situation. "They have a duly elected lawmaker locked in the Texas Capitol because she refused her Republican-assigned police babysitter," one person wrote.
In a tweet, Representative Jasmine Crockett called it "beyond outrageous," and wrote, "That's some old Jim Crow playbook. Texas Republicans have lost their damn minds."
Some are calling it "kidnapping."
And others are calling it "authoritarianism."
But others are applauding Collier for taking a stand, like this Arizona state senator who wrote simply, "American hero."
As one Twitter user put it, "Not all heroes wear capes. Some wear bonnets!"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
Most Americans in favor of Palestinian state, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - A 58% majority of Americans believe that every country in the United Nations should recognize Palestine as a nation, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, as Israel and Hamas considered a possible truce in the nearly two-year-long Gaza war. Some 33% of respondents did not agree that U.N. members should recognize a Palestinian state and 9% did not answer. The six-day poll, which closed on Monday, found a pronounced partisan divide on the issue, with 78% of Democrats supporting the idea, far more than the 41% of President Donald Trump's Republicans who agreed. A narrow 53% majority of Republicans did not agree that all U.N. member nations should recognize a Palestinian state. Israel has long counted on the U.S., its most powerful ally, for billions of dollars a year in military aid and international diplomatic support. An erosion of U.S. public support would be a worrisome sign for Israel as it faces not only Hamas militants in Gaza but unresolved conflict with Iran, its regional arch-foe. A widely condemned Israeli settlement plan that would cut across occupied West Bank land which the Palestinians seek for a state received final approval on Wednesday, according to an Israeli government statement. More: Israel says it has taken first steps of military operation in Gaza City The poll was taken within weeks of three countries, close U.S. allies Canada, Britain and France, announcing they intend to recognize a Palestinian state. This ratcheted up pressure on Israel as starvation spreads in Gaza. The survey was taken amid hopes that Israel and Hamas would agree on a ceasefire to provide a break in the fighting, free some hostages and ease shipments of humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip. Britain, Canada, Australia and several of their European allies said last week that the humanitarian crisis in the war-torn Palestinian enclave has reached "unimaginable levels," as aid groups warned that Gazans are on the verge of famine. The United Nations human rights office said on Tuesday Israel was not letting enough supplies into the Gaza Strip to avert widespread starvation. Israel has denied responsibility for hunger in Gaza, accusing Hamas of stealing aid shipments, which Hamas denies. More: As Netanyahu expands Gaza war, some reservists grow more disillusioned SUPPORT FOR FIGHTING STARVATION Some 65% of the Reuters/Ipsos poll respondents said the U.S. should take action in Gaza to help people facing starvation, with 28% disagreeing. The number disagreeing included 41% of Republicans. Trump and many of his fellow Republicans take an "America First" approach to international relations, backing steep cuts to the country's international food and medical assistance programs in the belief that U.S. funds should assist Americans, not those outside its borders. More: One meal a day. $20 for an egg. Choosing which kid gets fed. Starvation stalks Gaza The war in Gaza began when Hamas-led fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Israel's offensive has since killed more than 62,000 Palestinians, plunged Gaza into humanitarian crisis and displaced most of its population, according to Gaza health authorities. The Reuters/Ipsos poll also showed that 59% of Americans believe Israel's military response in Gaza has been excessive. Thirty-three percent of respondents disagreed. In a similar Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in February 2024, 53% of respondents agreed that Israel's response had been excessive, and 42% disagreed. Officials at the Israeli embassy in Washington and mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the poll. The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey, conducted online, gathered responses from 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points. (Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Jason Lange; editing by Scott Malone, Cynthia Osterman and Mark Heinrich)
Axios
a minute ago
- Axios
Unlikely enforcers shape Trump's "weaponization" crusade
A housing regulator, a prosecutor rejected by the Senate and a former Democrat have emerged as the unlikely faces of President Trump's"weaponization" crusade. Why it matters: In a sea of Trump loyalists, these three officials — Bill Pulte, Ed Martin and Tulsi Gabbard — stand out for how aggressively they've shattered norms in pursuit of the president's enemies. 1. Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has used his 3 million followers on X to reinvent the sleepy mortgage regulator as a platform for political combat. Pulte has elevated allegations of mortgage fraud against two of Trump's top antagonists, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Both are now under criminal investigation. Pulte also has led the campaign to oust Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, calling for him to resign — or be fired — over cost overruns in the Fed's $2.5 billion headquarters renovation. On Wednesday, Pulte escalated Trump's war on the central bank by accusing Fed governor Lisa Cook of mortgage fraud. Trump responded by calling for Cook to resign. 2. Martin, a conservative activist who defended Jan. 6 rioters, was named the Justice Department's weaponization czar after his nomination to be U.S. attorney for D.C. collapsed in the Senate. In his brief time as acting U.S. attorney, Martin demoted prosecutors who had worked on Jan. 6 cases, vowed to pursue legal action against critics of Elon Musk's DOGE initiative, and attempted to launch an investigation into Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Now leading the DOJ's probe of James, Martin stunned ethics experts by showing up outside the New York attorney general's Brooklyn home in a trench coat and posing for tabloid photos. Martin's conduct in the case has violated Justice Department rules and norms barring prosecutors from commenting on specific cases, and turning investigations into public spectacles. 3. Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, sent shockwaves through the intel community by accusing former Obama officials of a "treasonous conspiracy" stemming from the 2016 Russia probe. Her allegations — now the subject of a criminal grand jury investigation — have electrified Trump's base and seem to have turned the former Democratic congresswoman into one of the president's favorite Cabinet members. Gabbard went further this week, revoking the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials she claimed had manipulated or leaked classified intelligence. Then on Wednesday, she approved plans to slash ODNI's staff by 40% — extending Trump's purge of an intelligence community he has long viewed as hostile. What they're saying: "Over the last 20 years, ODNI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence," Gabbard said in a statement. "Anyone who engages in criminal activity should be held accountable. No one is above the law. President Trump's only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people," a White House official told Axios. The big picture: Trump's fixation with the "weaponization" of government stems from his own years under investigation: the Russia probe, two impeachments and a cascade of criminal prosecutions after he left office.
Axios
a minute ago
- Axios
Inside the Dems' fight to be "the new Iowa" and hold the first 2028 primary
Democratic Party officials are quietly battling over which state will be the first to vote in the 2028 presidential primary — a fight that's set to break into the open next week, when the officials meet in Minneapolis. Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan are currently the frontrunners to be "the new Iowa," and lead off the 2028 Democratic primary season, according to several people familiar with the Rules and Bylaws committee that will determine the order. Why it matters: The candidate who wins the first state primary gets a boost that can help propel them to the nomination — and potential candidates already are looking into which order of contests could benefit them the most. State of play: For decades, Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary kicked off the presidential primary season. But the order of contests has become a free-for-all since Iowa botched its caucuses in 2020, and then-President Biden changed the calendar in 2024 to favor his re-election bid by moving up the primary in Biden-friendly South Carolina. Potential candidates and their teams have been contacting members of the party's Rules and Bylaws panel to develop relationships before the 2028 calendar is set. These are the current pitches — and arguments against — the states that appear to be the top contenders to kick off the primary voting, according to several people familiar with them. Pro-Nevada: It has a strong union presence, is racially diverse, and has a large working-class Latino population at a time when Democrats are losing ground with such voters. It's also a swing state, and a presidential primary would bring in money and organizing power that could help Democrats there in the November 2028 election. Anti-Nevada: Voters there typically aren't as engaged as those in places like Iowa, it takes longer to get around a state that's more than 10 times the size of New Hampshire by square mileage, and it's far away from the political classes in Washington and New York. Pro-New Hampshire: It's traditionally been an early primary, and it's a small state with engaged voters who'll give any candidate a shot instead of favoring the one with the most money. Anti-New Hampshire: It's more than 60% white, and the Democratic Party is significantly more diverse than that. There isn't a strong union presence at a time when Democrats are trying to win back working-class voters. Pro-Michigan: It's racially and regionally diverse with a mix of rural and urban residents, and is an important Midwestern swing state with a strong union presence. To some Democrats, it's the choice most representative of all of America. Anti-Michigan: It's too big with too many people (pop. 10 million-plus), which could favor the candidate with the most advertising money rather than one who meets a lot of voters and has a robust organization on the ground. Some Democratic operatives worry that a spotlight on the state's large Arab and Jewish populations could further stoke divisions in the party over the war in Gaza, while other Democrats want that to be part of the debate. Zoom in: The new chair of the DNC, Ken Martin, overhauled and expanded the committee in ways that will affect the final vote. The committee now includes many current and former state party chairs who are seen as close allies of Martin. That could give him significant influence over the final decision. The committee also has expanded from 33 to 49 members. Many of the new members have never served on the Rules and Bylaws panel, which could complicate the process. What they're saying: Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan, who joined the committee and is advocating for her state, told Axios she wants to "put the light on important issues early in the primaries, and not in November when we are losing." Michigan's party chair Curtis Hertel added that "placing Michigan early in the process is healthy for our democracy and for the country." "The DNC is committed to running a fair, rigorous, and transparent process for the 2028 presidential nominating calendar," DNC Deputy Communications Director Abhi Rahman said. "All states will have an opportunity to participate." Longtime DNC member Michael Kapp, who is new to the committee, said Martin "is not putting his thumb on the scale," like former chairs did. "It's a very different process than before, and in the right direction." Reality check: It's early in the process, and other states will make bids to host the first primary as conversations heat up later this year. Iowa, which mishandled the vote counting during its 2020 caucuses, will try to make a comeback. But there are no Iowans on the Rules and Bylaws panel that will meet next week. South Carolina, which went first in 2024, also is likely to try to stay first. About one-quarter of South Carolina's residents are Black — a population that leans heavily toward Democrats.
