Some Texas Democrats to rip up agreements to leave House floor under police escort and return to chamber in protest
Follow
Several Texas state House Democrats plan to rip up the written agreements that allowed them to leave the chamber with a police escort on Monday and return to the House floor Tuesday night, the caucus announced.
The lawmakers plan to spend the night on the House floor with state Rep. Nicole Collier, who has stayed in the House chamber for over 24 hours after declining to sign the 'permission slip' to leave.
'Without permission to leave, they will join Representative Nicole Collier on the House floor overnight ahead of tomorrow's vote on Trump and Abbott's racist redistricting maps that threaten to divide Texas communities and strip representation from historically-united Texas neighborhoods,' the announcement read.
House Republicans announced the requirement on Monday when Democrats, who faced civil arrest warrants for leaving the state during a special session, returned from their 15-day quorum break.
The Democrats fled the state earlier this month to prevent a vote on a controversial redistricting plan pushed for President Donald Trump that could potentially eliminate five Democratic US House seats.
Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows said the Democrats could only leave the House floor if they received written permission and agreed to be under a Department of Public Safety officer's escort until the chamber reconvenes on Wednesday morning.
All Democrats who were present agreed at the time – except for Collier.
'Rep. Collier's choice to stay and not sign the permission slip is well within her rights under the House Rules,' Burrows said in a statement earlier Tuesday. The Texas House Speaker said he is 'choosing to spend my time focused on' important legislation. CNN has reached out to the speaker's office for comment.
While the protest move draws more attention to their redistricting fight, Texas House Democrats have little to no legislative options available to prevent the new congressional maps from being passed. The Texas House is aiming to vote on the measure after it reconvenes at 10 a.m. CT on Wednesday, but the timing for final passage remains unclear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles defends Jennings settlement, makes the case for reelection
Many candidates describe Charlotte City Council as dysfunctional and lacking in transparency, but as Mayor Vi Lyles seeks a fifth term, she wants to improve that perception. However, she says she's standing by the decision to settle with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings. The city is paying more than $300,000 to its top cop after Jennings says he was mistreated by former councilmember Tariq Bokhari during the councilman's quest to secure outer carrier vests. PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Charlotte City Council settles with Chief Johnny Jennings The settlement sparked controversy when the city refused to disclose until Jennings made it public under pressure. Channel 9's Joe Bruno sat down with the mayor to talk about the state of the city and her efforts to secure her fifth term this November. Lyles: 'I believe that we treat people fairly. If you know, in our HR programs, and all of the things that we do, that Johnny isn't any different than other people that we've actually had these kinds of contracts with. I just tell you, by the person that he is, is because he gave the media the story, and it wasn't something that we would have done.' Bruno: 'So the city never would have revealed this?' Lyles: 'We'd have to ask a lawyer that, and I'm not a lawyer today.' She's the mayor today and wants to call herself that a year from now. As she campaigns for another term, she is aggressively backing the sales tax increase for transit. She says she also understands public safety needs to be a priority. Bruno: 'How safe do you consider Charlotte?' Lyles: 'I think it all depends on where you live and what you're doing and whether or not we have a program for you at this time.' She says if given another term, she wants to see the city prioritize addressing homelessness. 'I think the housing of the unhoused is one of the things that we have to tackle pretty immediately,' she said. Her fifth term isn't guaranteed. She's facing four challengers in the Democratic primary, but she says her work isn't finished and she's prepared to make the case to voters. Charlotte's city council primaries are Sept. 9. Early voting began Thursday. Before you head to the voting booth, check out our Political Beat Candidate Guide. We asked every candidate key questions on topics that matter to you. VIDEO: Where you can vote early in Charlotte for the primary election Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canada's Carney spoke to Trump and discussed trade, Ottawa says
OTTAWA (Reuters) -Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke to U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday and had "a productive and wide-ranging conversation" on trade challenges and other issues, Carney's office said in a statement. The leaders agreed to reconvene shortly, the statement added, but did not give details.
American Press
24 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
