Texas Democrats poised to end standoff: 5 things to know
The Texas state legislature wrapped up its first special session on Friday, one of the conditions the Democrats gave for ending their quorum break. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) quickly called a second special session, with Democrats' anticipated return set to clear the way for the Texas House to move forward with an aggressive gerrymander that could net five more House seats for the GOP in the midterms.
But the quorum-breaking Texas Democrats are touting the national attention they've brought to the redistricting fight and looking for hope from California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has vowed to move forward with his own new map.
Here's what to know as Democrats plan to end the standoff:
Why now?
It was always highly unlikely that Texas Democrats would be able to permanently thwart the GOP's redistricting effort. But by fleeing the state, they hoped to raise national attention over the issue and inspire Democrat-led states to move forward with their own new maps.
In both cases, they succeeded.
The Texas Democrats' decision to leave made the redistricting battle a national story. And now California is moving forward with its own effort to rewrite its congressional lines in the hopes of counteracting the Texas GOP. Other blue states may soon follow.
The Texas Democrats also wanted to hold out until the first special session came to an end, which it did on Friday. They cited both that and California's decision to move forward with redistricting as its preconditions for coming home.
The developments allow Democrats to frame the outcome as a victory, even if Republicans will also tout their return as a win.
There were also other financial and political risks for the Democrats. They've been forced to parry Republican criticism that they're holding up other legislative business — including disaster relief for Texas affected by recent floods — by staying out-of-state. And each quorum breaker has been racking up $500-a-day fines for their absence, on top of threats of removal and arrest, as well as the logistical cost of living away from their homes.
What does it mean for the new Texas maps?
The new GOP-friendly maps are almost certain to pass once the Democrats return to the state.
Even as they remained out of state, a set of new congressional lines passed in the state Senate, while an identical set of lines were also approved by a state House committee. House Republicans couldn't bring the new map to a floor vote in the lower chamber, however, until the Democrats returned.
With the Democrats expected to return to the state, Republicans will have the quorum needed to hold a vote on and pass their map. The map would go next to Abbott for his signature before the new congressional lines are enacted.
Texas Democrats knew they would inevitably return to the state since Abbott had threatened to call special session after special session until they returned. Democrats had no options available for blocking the new map from passing, since Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and the GOP also has a Republican governor.
How are both sides spinning it?
Republicans are touting their return as a win, since it means they will be able to move forward with passing new congressional lines.
But Democrats are celebrating the outcome as a political victory too.
'Abbott thought he could silence Black and Latino Texans with his redistricting scheme. He was wrong. We fought back — now other states, starting with California, will neutralize their power grab,' the Texas House Democrats said in a statement posted on X.
National Democrats also hailed it as a win that Republicans were unable to pass their new House map during the first special session.
'Under threats to their safety and livelihood, Texas Democrats have continued to deny Republicans a quorum to enact their rigged maps and ignited a national Democratic movement,' Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said in a statement.
'From California to Washington, D.C, Democrats will continue to stand with the American people and the people of Texas as we battle against Trump and Republicans' anti-democratic attacks,' he added.
But the White House is also pushing other states like Indiana and Missouri to redraw their maps as well – raising questions over how many states will ultimately get involved in the fight and have the upper hand.
What does it mean for the wider redistricting battle?
The redistricting battle in Texas has turned into a nationwide war, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wants to hold a special election in November to ask voters to weigh in on a ballot measure allowing the state legislature to redraw the state's congressional maps for the rest of the decade.
'I hope we are waking up to this reality. Wake up, America. Wake up to what Donald Trump is doing,' Newsom said at a Thursday event on the effort. 'Wake up to his assault, wake up to the assault on institutions and knowledge and history. Wake up to his war on science, public health and his war on the American people.'
California Democrats released their proposed new map, which targets five Republican incumbents, on Friday night.
Other states are also considering jumping into the fray. Ohio is already set to redistrict due to state requirements, and Republicans in Florida and Missouri have suggested they'll be revisiting their maps, too.
Other blue states like New York and Illinois are also weighing redistricting now.
Is it really the end of the fight in Texas?
The next front in the Texas redistricting battle is likely to play out in the courts.
As the Democrats' statement noted on Thursday, their legal counsel has advised them to 'return to Texas to build a strong public legislative record for the upcoming legal battle against a map that violates both the current Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.'
'We will return to the House floor and to the courthouse with a clear message: the fight to protect voting rights has only just begun,' it added.
Democratic groups are likely to file a lawsuit once Texas passes its new map. If that battle plays out in state courts, it will almost certainly fail since the Texas Supreme Court has a conservative majority.
If it were to somehow play out in federal court, it's not as clear-cut, given the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled favorably for Democrats in the past over the Voting Rights Act. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court still enjoys a conservative majority.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for gun purchases, saying it violates 2nd Amendment
A federal appeals court on Tuesday halted New Mexico's seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, ruling that it likely infringes on citizens' Second Amendment rights. The 2-1 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals leaves the law on hold pending a legal challenge and returns the case to a lower court. The waiting period went into effect in May of last year and included violators being subject to a misdemeanor, but it does have an exception for concealed permit holders. Democrats had enacted the measure in an effort to allow for more time for federal background checks on gun buyers to be completed. "Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment's scope," Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote for the majority. "We conclude that New Mexico's Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens." Nra And Conservative Legal Group Sue Democrat Governor Over 7-Day Waiting Period To Buy Guns The Mountain States Legal Foundation and National Rifle Association filed the lawsuit on behalf of two New Mexico residents, arguing that the law was unconstitutional and delayed access to firearms for victims of domestic violence and other citizens. Read On The Fox News App The lawsuit referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in which a new standard to determine whether a gun restriction is unconstitutional was established. To meet that standard, the government must show there is a "historical tradition of firearm regulation" that supports the law. Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep and Bear Arms, celebrated the ruling. "The court found that there was no analogous law from that era that would support the modern day law that's at issue," McCoy said. "For now, it means New Mexicans can go buy their firearms without an arbitrary delay imposed." Federal Appeals Court Rules California Ammunition Background Checks Unconstitutional John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, also praised the court's decision, saying it "serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country." In a dissent, Judge Scott Matheson argued that New Mexico's waiting period "establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends." Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, said she was disappointed with the ruling and claimed it would likely cost lives. "New Mexico's waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights," Lujan Grisham said in a statement, pointing to other exceptions for gun purchases by law enforcement officers and transactions between immediate family members. "Waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis," she added. Since she was sworn in as governor in 2019, Lujan Grisham has signed several gun control measures, including a "red flag" law allowing a court to temporarily remove guns from people suspected of being at risk of hurting themselves or others and restrictions on firearms near polling places. In 2023, the governor suspended the right to carry guns in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque in response to shootings across the state that killed children. Lujan Grisham declared a state of emergency in Albuquerque earlier this year, saying that a significant uptick in crime warranted the help of the state's National Guard. She also declared a state of emergency last week over violent crime and drug trafficking across parts of northern New Mexico. Legal experts have said the ruling could have wider consequences because other states, including California, Hawaii and Illinois, have imposed similar restrictions on gun purchases. In New Mexico, the waiting period applies to all licensed dealer firearm sales for handguns and long guns. The only exception applies to concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement and immediate family transfers. Those in support of the waiting period laws argue that research links the law to reduced suicides and crimes of passion limiting impulsive behavior. Officials in New Mexico have not said if they will seek review from the full 10th Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: Appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for gun purchases, saying it violates 2nd Amendment Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Democrats wage national redistricting war, Republicans may have the upper hand
WASHINGTON — As California legislators begin the process of reconfiguring its congressional districts and creating a more Democratic-friendly map in next year's midterms, the party could be pushing itself into a national redistricting war — and one that would likely hold them at a disadvantage. The California Legislature will work to pass its proposed version of the state's congressional map this week, which would give Democrats an advantage in five additional House seats in the state. After that, the revised map will be on the ballot in November when California voters participate in a special election for municipal races. That means Democrats' attempt to thwart Republican redistricting efforts in other states, namely Texas, where President Donald Trump is pushing for Republicans to draw more GOP-friendly districts, will come down to whether California leaders can convince enough voters to support the gambit. And that may be easier said than done. Even if California is successful and counteracts the five seats Republicans say they'll flip in the Lone Star State, it could ignite efforts in other states to redraw their maps for partisan leverage. Doing so would be an easier fight for Republican-led states than those led by Democrats, largely because of the laws put in place by party leaders to avoid this exact situation. Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans in redrawing maps As state leaders threaten a redraw of their maps, Republicans have an advantage over their Democratic counterparts due to local laws impeding partisan gerrymandering attempts. Most redistricting efforts are completed through state legislatures and more easily accomplished in states with single-party control, meaning one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's mansion. In that category, Republicans have the trifecta advantage: There are 26 states under complete GOP control compared to just 15 under complete Democratic control. Once you factor out the states that don't have split congressional representation — for example, Utah, which only has Republican seats so a map redraw wouldn't do anything to change the calculus — you are down to 15 red states and eight blue states with seats available to flip. Even then, at least four of those Democratic-led states require independent commissions (or some hybrid system with state legislators) to change congressional maps in the middle of the decade. That complicates their efforts while the Republican states would only require their legislatures to do the heavy lifting. 'Even if (Democrats) are hell bent on doing this, I don't think it's going to be a very easy thing for them to do as a matter of their various state laws,' John Malcom, the vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government, told the Deseret News in an interview. 'It's not going to be easy for them to do, and they have less room to maneuver because they've already done a remarkably effective job of redistricting (some states) in a way that … dilutes Republican votes.' California gambles with those obstacles in place Unlike a majority of states, California hands the power of map-drawing not to state legislators but instead to an independent redistricting commission that is meant to draw nonpartisan boundaries based purely on population data. The commission was first enacted in 2010 and is made up of five Republicans, five Democrats and four voters who are not affiliated with either of the major parties. California is mandated by its state constitution to utilize the commission only once a decade, and it already did so in 2021. In order to work around this, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced last week he would introduce a constitutional amendment circumventing those laws. The catch: California voters, who largely support the independent commission, have to approve throwing away the panel's nonpartisan maps until after the census is taken again in 2030 and new maps are drawn for the 2032 election cycle. A recent Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab survey found 64% of voters support keeping the independent commission, compared to just 36% who said state lawmakers should draw the maps. But some members of the commission who drew the current boundaries support throwing out the map, with the agreement that the panel will be reinstated later. But even with that endorsement, Republicans plan to fight back with accusations that Democrats are defying the will of the voters. 'I think that it will be seen as a negatively partisan thing if they try to go back on what the voters only recently approved,' Malcolm told the Deseret News. 'But you know, Gavin Newsom is making it very clear that the lane he wants to run for president in is the 'I'm the anti-Trump guy.' And so being nakedly partisan is not something that Gavin Newsom is going to shy away from.' Still, Democrats could have some luck as nearly half of the state's voters belong to the party compared to just 24.7% who are registered Republicans, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Another 21.9% identify as independents. California and Texas could set off firestorm in other states With Texas expected to approve its new map as early as this week and California moving full steam ahead on its proposal this fall, the boundary battle could elevate to an all-out war encompassing several states across the country. More than half a dozen states are publicly considering changes to their congressional maps next November in an attempt to gain leverage — especially as it becomes likely California will simply neutralize Texas and neither party will benefit. Democrats in New York have openly suggested they would look at ways to change congressional maps to squeeze out GOP lawmakers in vulnerable districts while Florida Republicans are considering the opposite in the Sunshine State. But other states are slowly entering the conversation, such as Indiana, where Republicans already hold a 7-2 advantage to Democrats. All seven of those House Republicans came out in support of redrawing the map on Monday after President Donald Trump began looking to the state as another opportunity to secure his majority. 'Now, with President Trump and the entire Hoosier Republican Congressional delegation expressing support for Congressional redistricting, the General Assembly should act swiftly to get the job done,' Rep. Marlin Stutzman, the first Indiana Republican to announce his support, said in a statement to the Deseret News. 'Hoosiers deserve Congressional districts that ensure voting records are reflected accurately in their Congressional districts.' Despite uphill battle, Democrats say they can't give up Although Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans, the redistricting battle is emerging as a war they must wage, strategists say — lest they risk an unenthusiastic base that has already expressed frustration the minority doesn't do enough to thwart Trump's agenda. 'The way I look at it, you have to fight fire with fire,' Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist based in Washington, D.C., told the Deseret News. 'You just can't let the Republicans gerrymander their way to a House majority that they're going to have difficulty protecting.' Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, a historically slim margin that has often made it difficult for the party to advance legislation even with a Republican trifecta. With control of the White House and Senate, Republicans have enjoyed total control of Washington — something that is at risk next November. Historical trends show that the party of the sitting president typically loses control of the House during midterm elections. If Democrats manage to flip the House, it would deal a massive blow to Trump and likely thwart his agenda for his final two years. As a result, Trump is pressing state Republican leaders to deliver additional seats through redistricting — which some strategists say is a sign of political desperation and should motivate Democrats not to let up. 'Democrats have an opportunity to take back the House, and it won't stop the abuses in the Trump regime, but it will slow them down,' Bannon said. 'Democrats will have the opportunity to call hearings and investigations into the Trump administration, and I don't think we can afford to let that opportunity go by. So I think Democrats should go full steam ahead.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats push their own version of no tax on tips
Aug. 19—President Donald Trump successfully got a no tax on tips policy through Congress in July, but Democrats are serving up their own version. Trump campaigned on the idea of not taxing tipped wages, a policy that was included in the large budget and tax bill Congress passed in July. Democrats, including New Mexico's Rep. Gabe Vasquez, are pushing their own version of no federal tax on tips with a bill that would also eliminate the separate tipped minimum wage, creating one federal minimum wage. Economic experts are skeptical of offering tax breaks that incentivize paying people with tips instead of basing tax breaks on income level. "In general, lowering taxes for lower income people, middle class and below, is a good idea," said Matías Fontenla, a professor of economics at the University of New Mexico. "I just don't understand why they would do just on tips and not for the general population." About 2% of U.S. workers were in tipped jobs in 2023, according to a study from The Budget Lab at Yale University. More than a third of tipped workers already had low enough income that they had no federal income tax in 2022. Taxes can serve as an incentive for employer or consumer behavior. Eliminating tax on tips could encourage employers in tip-based industries to lower salaries, with the justification that employees are benefiting from a tip tax break, according to Fontenla. "This creates an unnecessary, weird incentive that could potentially be nonoptimal, especially if they don't change the minimum wage," Fontenla said. He is in favor of one standard minimum wage. Both Trump's policy and the policy proposed in the Democrat-led TIPS Act offer tax relief in the form of a deduction, meaning federal taxes would still be withheld from employees' paychecks. Trump's no tax on tips policy expires in 2028 and offers a deduction for up to $25,000 in tipped income. The deduction phases out for people making over $150,000. The IRS plans to publish a list of occupations eligible for the tax deduction in October. On Monday, Vasquez donned an apron at the Barelas Coffee House, taking orders for coffee and burritos smothered in green chile under the guidance of one of the restaurant's servers. His hour as a waiter was meant to promote the TIPS Act. The bill would go further than Trump's policy by not including a cap on the deductible and eliminating the separate tipped minimum wage. The federal tipped minimum wage is $2.13, while regular federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. New Mexico's tipped minimum wage is $3 an hour, while regular minimum wage in the state is $12 an hour. The legislation would also make no tax on tips permanent. "If we truly believe in service industry workers that help support our communities and our businesses, it should be permanent," Vasquez said. The deduction would phase out for people earning over $112,500 annually. One of the challenges of living on a tipped wage is fluctuating pay, said Alexis Campos, the server showing Vasquez the ropes. "It's just really random pay. So it's kind of hard to figure out how much you're going to make for the month for the bills," Campos said. "It could be $800, or you can make $1,000 or $400, so it really fluctuates."
