Texas governor vows to replace Democrats absent at Monday redistricting vote
The more than 50 Democratic members of the Texas legislature left the state on Sunday to deny Republicans the quorum necessary to vote on the redistricting plan, which President Donald Trump has championed, and which he and his Republicans hope will protect the party's narrow U.S. House majority in next year's midterm elections.
Republicans hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, with three Democratic-held seats vacant after deaths, and one Republican hold vacant after a member resigned. A stronger Republican majority in the House would enable the president to further advance his agenda.
Abbott in a statement late on Sunday cited a Texas attorney general opinion that district courts may determine whether legislators have forfeited their offices "due to abandonment," saying that empowered him to "swiftly fill vacancies."
The governor said in the statement he would use that power against any Democrats who were absent when the Texas legislature reconvenes at 3 p.m. Central Time (2000 GMT) on Monday.
In addition to acting on the redistricting plan, Abbott called the special legislative session to address funding for flood prevention and relief in the wake of the deadly July 4 flash flooding that killed more than 130 people.
Upon arriving in Chicago on Sunday evening with several other Democratic lawmakers, Gene Wu, the chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, slammed his Republican counterparts for pushing the redistricting plan alongside a flood-related bill.
"Governor Abbott has used this tragedy, taken these families who are grieving... and used them as hostages in a political game," he said at a press conference, flanked by Democratic Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. Other Democratic lawmakers went to New York and Massachusetts.
Wu called the redistricting plan "racist," saying it sought to dilute the voting power of racial minorities in the state. "Abbott is doing this in submission to Donald Trump, so that Donald Trump could steal these communities' power and voice," he added.
Abbott in a Monday morning appearance on Fox News' "America's Newsroom" said Wu's accusation was "bogus". He said the redistricting would expand the number of Hispanic-majority districts and that it was necessary to give Trump voters in Democrat-majority districts the ability to elect Republican U.S. representatives.
A White House official told Reuters that Trump supports Abbott's threat to remove absent Democratic lawmakers and wants "whatever is necessary" done to get the new map passed. Trump has told reporters he expects the effort to yield as many as five additional House Republicans.
States are required to redistrict every 10 years based on the U.S. Census, but the current Texas map was passed just four years ago by the Republican-dominated legislature. While mid-cycle redistricting occasionally takes place, it is usually prompted by a change in power at the legislature.
Leaders of Democrat-led states such as California and Illinois have recently raised the idea of redistricting their own U.S. congressional maps to boost the number of Democratic seats in response to Abbott's push in Texas.
Under Texas' current lines, Republicans control 25 out of 38 seats, nearly two-thirds of the districts in a state that went for Trump last year by a 56% to 42% margin.
Texas Democratic lawmakers have before tried the strategy of leaving the state to block a redistricting plan. Some fled in 2021 in a similar bid to deny Abbott the quorum needed to pass a voting restriction measure. That bill passed after three of the lawmakers returned, saying they had achieved their goal of bringing national attention to the issue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump wants to put Washington DC under full federal control. Can he?
President Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced intentions to place Washington D.C. under complete federal control, citing a need to curb crime. This stance comes despite city officials saying that crime rates are already on the decline. While the president holds some sway over the capital's police force and National Guard, a comprehensive federal takeover would almost certainly face legal challenges and likely be blocked in court. The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1787, established a federal capital district to serve as the permanent seat of government. It explicitly grants Congress complete legislative authority over the district. However, Congress has historically delegated a degree of day-to-day municipal governance to other bodies. How is DC governed? A federal law passed by Congress in 1973, known as the Home Rule Act, allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council, who have some autonomy to pass their own laws. Congress still has budgetary oversight over D.C., however, and can overturn local legislation. Congress did that most recently in 2023, voting to overturn changes to Washington's laws that lowered penalties for some crimes. Who controls DC law enforcement? The Democratic mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, has authority over the city's Metropolitan Police Department. However, the Home Rule Act allows the president to take control of the MPD for federal purposes during emergencies if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' A presidential takeover is limited to 30 days, unless Congress votes to extend it through a joint resolution. Trump invoked this part of the Home Rule Act on Monday, saying in an executive order that there is a "crime emergency" in the city that necessitates federal management of the police department. Bowser has pushed back on Trump's claims of unchecked violence, saying the city is "not experiencing a crime spike" and highlighting that violent crime hit its lowest level in more than three decades last year. Violent crime, including murders, spiked in 2023, turning Washington into one of the nation's deadliest cities, according to city police data. However, violent crime dropped 35 per cent in 2024, according to federal data, and it has fallen an additional 26 per cent in the first seven months of 2025. Trump also has broad control over the D.C. National Guard's 2,700 soldiers and airmen. They report directly to the president, unlike counterparts in other states and territories. Trump said on Monday he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to Washington. Can Trump 'federalize' DC? It is highly unlikely. To exert full federal control of D.C., Trump would need Congress to repeal the Home Rule Act. Such a repeal would require 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, where Trump's Republican Party has a 53-47 advantage. Democrats have been supportive of home rule for DC and are not expected to cross party lines to endorse Trump's vision. But there are ways Trump can exert more influence over the district without fully taking it over. Trump in recent months has directed federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI to increase the police presence in Washington. Trump has broad authority to reallocate FBI personnel, and in recent months, FBI agents around the country have been given temporary assignments to help with immigration enforcement. Trump also signed an executive order in March to make D.C. "safe and beautiful," establishing a task force to increase police presence in public areas, maximize immigration enforcement, and expedite concealed carry licenses. Trump has said homeless people must move out of Washington, without offering specifics of a plan to accomplish this. "I'm going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before," Trump said on Truth Social. "The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital." The federal government owns much of Washington's parkland, so the Trump administration has legal authority to clear homeless encampments in those areas, like President Joe Biden did while in office. But the federal government cannot force people to move out of the city because they lack shelter, legal experts said.
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Price of gold eases after Trump rules out tariffs on imported bars
The price of gold has eased after Donald Trump announced tariffs would not be placed on gold bars. His social media statement on Monday put an end to uncertainty which had sparked panic in global trade of the precious metal. Investors sold off the metal as Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that 'Gold will not be tariffed'. The White House had earlier said it would clarify 'misinformation' about tariffs on gold bars, which are duty-free. On Friday, the price of gold futures jumped to a record high after it was reported that the US would put tariffs on imports of 1kg bars. That decision was seen as a big setback to Switzerland, which dominates the bullion market, with $36bn (£27bn) of exports making up more than two-thirds of the country's trade surplus with the US in the first quarter, according to Swiss customs data. Switzerland was hit with a blanket 39% tariff on all imports from the country, from gold to luxury watches, chocolate and cheese. However, Trump's statement on Monday allayed concerns about bullion exports, and US gold futures dropped 2.4% to $3,407 per ounce after Trump's post on Monday, reducing a premium over spot gold, the global benchmark, which fell 1.2% to $3,357. On Tuesday, gold prices were flat as investors awaited US inflation data. The Swiss Association of Precious Metals Producers and Traders (ASFCMP) welcomed the statement by Trump but said it must be followed up with a 'formal' decision. 'President Trump's statement is an encouraging signal for trade stability,' said Christoph Wild, president of the ASFCMP. 'However, only a formal and binding decision will provide the certainty the gold sector and its partners require.' A White House official told Reuters that the Trump administration was preparing an executive order 'clarifying misinformation' about tariffs on gold bars and other products. The gold market, considered a safe haven investment sector for customers ranging from individual investors to sovereign funds, was thrown into disarray last week when the US Customs and Border Protection said that 1kg and 100-ounce cast bars were not exempt from tariffs. The authorities clarified their position in response to a letter from a law firm representing a metals financier after they were suddenly faced with tariffs. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Ross Norman, chief executive of Metals Daily in London, said most physical gold being flown to New York, where the gold futures market is based, would have been held back in bonded warehouses while representatives sought urgent clarification from the White House. 'I am delighted to hear the crisis has been averted,' he said. 'It will come as an enormous relief to the bullion markets, as the potential for disruption was incalculable.' Norman said gold bullion investment was a major market in the US, where customers could buy gold in their local supermarkets, including Costco. A kilo bar costs about £89,000 and coins, weighing an ounce, can be bought for £2,500. The metal is also used as a safe haven to hedge against inflation by commercial investors. Bullion refers to gold and silver officially recognised as being at least 99.5% pure and is in the form of bars or ingots rather than coins.
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Hurry, hurry, hurry! It's Trump's great Ukraine giveaway. Bargains galore, if your name is Vladimir Putin
Good to have it confirmed that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will be taking about Ukraine behind its back on Friday in Alaska, as the US president rambled through a press conference on Monday in which he explained that Putin 'wasn't going to mess with me' and that Ukraine was going to have to accept new borders. And listen – you'll agree that territorial pronouncements mean so much more coming from a guy whose staff once shamelessly redrew a hurricane impact map to stop him looking stoopid. It's a true honour for the Ukrainians to see their country effectively carved up by someone who would prefer to post-rationalise any old crap with a Sharpie than admit he doesn't have the first clue about it and cares even less. Leave it to the tasteful visionary behind the Gaza Riviera to categorise what he's doing as trying to get back some of Ukraine's 'oceanfront property'. 'In real estate we call it oceanfront property,' Trump said on Monday, demystifying this term of high art for non-developers who haven't contrived to bankrupt several Atlantic City casinos. 'That's always the most valuable property.' Thanks, Mister Mogul! It is assumed that the stretch of high-end primo coastline Trump was referring to included Mariupol, the utterly ruined port in which many thousands of civilians perished during the Russian siege. In international law we call it a possible war crime; in real estate we call it … what? Strategic pre-construction? Spa-chitecture? Certainly, how we put things is a matter of concern to this supremely sensitive president, who can find words very hurty, particularly when allied to optional concepts such as truth or the law. 'I was a little bothered by the fact Zelensky was saying, 'I have to get constitutional approval,'' he whined on Monday of the Ukrainian leader's desire to put any peace deal to the Ukrainian people via a referendum. 'He's got approval to go into war and kill everybody?' Again, whether Ukraine 'go[ing] into war' is a fair categorisation of its being invaded by Russia is not something that bothers the Sharpie king of the White House. As for the precise nature of the forthcoming cartography, Trump spent quite a lot of time talking suspiciously nebulously about 'land swapping'. Can you swap things on behalf of someone who doesn't want to swap them, and without them being present at the table? If so, I would like someone to swap me one of Trump's second-tier golf courses, and would expect him to be very relaxed about it. He'll just have to take my word that it's in the wider interests of everybody. In terms of what he deems to be the interests of interested parties, there has been some strong suggestion in recent days that the Trump administration thinks it would be a win for Ukraine to abandon the bits of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not even occupied by Russia, with only a ceasefire and the promise of some future better deal to show for it. Which would certainly be the absolute wrongest reading of a land deal since the New York Tribune called the Alaska purchase a folly and a waste of money. In fact, it would explain Putin's willingness to travel to that very territory to hold Friday's peace talks instead of doing it on neutral turf – you can probably afford to concede on the meeting location if everything else is likely to be such a complete gift to you. The Russian president might even bring along another hideously flattering portrait of Trump as an ice-breaking present, having already commissioned one as a personal gift earlier this year, which was passed on to Trump via his special envoy Steve Witkoff. Witkoff said it was a 'beautiful portrait' and that the president was 'clearly touched by it'. And so to the buildup to Friday. We'll have to see how excited Trump gets about the chance to join some sort of German-organised conference call with European leaders on Wednesday. For the US president, the negotiating table is a place that seats only two people, one of which should always be him. For Putin, many fear through bitter experience, the negotiating table is a place where you simply obfuscate and buy time to regroup before renewing aggression. Rather like Holly Golightly at the window of Tiffany's, nothing very bad can happen to Putin in Alaska. Merely turning up avoids the threatened sanctions. If, as seems likely, Trump decides he should be appeased with some land, any Ukrainian refusal to rubber-stamp this would leave him frustrated with and lashing out at Zelenskyy, not Putin. (Give the orange guy his peace deal and then his peace prize, dammit! He's getting bored out here.) And if a ceasefire is somehow agreed, it would surely, on the form book, be regarded by Putin merely as a strategic buying of time. The Russian leader is obsessed with Ukraine in a way the Trump administration seems incapable of, or indifferent to, grasping. Look, maybe geopolitics really will turn out to be just a simpler version of commercial real estate. Maybe someone who has lost almost as many fortunes as he has gained in that particular trade really will turn out to be a maverick master whose refresh-the-parts traditional diplomacy can't reach. Maybe! But the sheer lack of jeopardy for Putin in Alaska feels far more significant than the mood music. The best-case scenario is that Europe and Ukraine prepare themselves for the artlessness of the deal. The worst-case scenario is a darker pathway altogether – and one we seem increasingly likely to stumble on to. Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist
