Finances weigh on Texas Democrats as costs of their quorum break add up
The Democrats face a $500 fine for each day they're "absent without leave," a rule put into place after Democratic legislators mounted a similar effort to deny the Legislature a quorum in 2021, plus a "pro rata share" of what the state House Sergeant at Arms spends in their efforts to compel them to return to the Capitol in Austin.
Those fines have already eclipsed the $600 monthly salary the lawmakers receive from their part-time elected posts. And given their meager salaries, and the fact that the Legislature only meets for regular session for six months every two years, virtually every state lawmaker has a day job they've left behind in Texas, too.
Those monetary factors, plus the realities of being far away from family and other obligations, further complicate the plan for Democrats who have fled their home state to deny Republicans the requisite number of lawmakers needed to move forward with business in the Legislature.
It's all why state Democrats have been fundraising around their quorum break, why other Democrats have been lending a hand — and why Republicans have been targeting their funding.
"There's people who are single moms, single dads, with their kids, and we just do what we can. None of this is fun," state Rep. Gene Wu, the leader of the state House Democratic Caucus, told NBC News.
"We've been away from our families for six months already, right?" Wu continued, a reference to the six month legislative session that started in January. "During the special session, I can't work. Most people can't work. They're away from their families. ... All of us are making actual, real sacrifices to be here."
State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer said when it came to financial support, he believed most members felt comfortable, but if anyone didn't, the rest of the members would have their backs.
'Because of the bond we have with this, if any member was in need of anything — there are a lot of camp counselors around, like I'm one of the camp counselors — we're all going to help each other, and we're not gonna leave anybody behind, and that's what it's all about,' he said.
State Rep. Armando Walle, who represents a Houston-area district, was one of two Texas House members to come to Boston — not only to break quorum but to attend the National Conference of State Legislatures annual summit, where he felt he could spread the word.
He left Boston for Chicago on Wednesday alongside fellow state Rep. Ana Hernandez, where they plan to stay 'as long as this special session lasts' — raising questions about how long he and the others can sustain lost wages and income.
But Walle, who owns a small civil law firm, said he has continued to see clients and attend hearings virtually, allowing him to continue making a living while not being physically present at his office and in the Harris County courts.
'I'm not independently wealthy,' Walle told NBC News on the sidelines of the state legislatures summit. 'But I have clients that are right now accommodating. They understand the situation. Our judges, as well.'
Financing the quorum break
Texas Democrats haven't been clear about how much money they've raised for their efforts. Wu told NBC News that on the first day they announced their quorum break they raised about $20,000 in small-dollar donations.
After Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker helped strike a deal with Texas Democratic leaders to take refuge in Illinois during the quorum break, speculation grew that Pritzker, a billionaire Democrat, was financially underwriting the efforts. Pritzker said more than once during press conferences this week that was not the case.
"I made clear to them that we would do everything logistically and otherwise to try to support them. I have not written a check or supported them financially, though I am not reticent to do that," Pritzker said. "I have not done that but lots and lots of people around the country have.'
Former Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke built a potent fundraising machine during a run for Senate in 2018, and his political group, Powered by People, has been raising money to support the Texas Democrats. O'Rourke told CNN during a Wednesday interview the money was going to "make sure they have the resources for their lodging, their food, their flights" as well as their legal defense.
That disclosure prompted state Attorney General Ken Paxton to announce he was investigating O'Rourke's group over that funding, which he called "illegal bribes." (Paxton is running for Senate in 2026, and O'Rourke has not ruled out a Senate bid of his own.)
"Any Democrat coward breaking the law by taking a Beto Bribe will be held accountable," Paxton said in a statement.
In a statement responding to that investigation, O'Rourke invoked the Texas state House's impeachment of the attorney general in 2023. Paxton was later acquitted in the state Senate.
"The guy impeached for bribery is going after the folks trying to stop the theft of five congressional seats," O'Rourke said. "Let's stop these thugs before they steal our country."
No matter how the fundraising efforts go, eventually, something has to give. Walle, the Texas lawmaker who traveled from Boston to Chicago this week to continue breaking quorum, acknowledged to NBC News that the group's decampment from Texas couldn't go on forever.
But he also wouldn't commit to an end date or a firm or specific end goal, saying only he wanted to continue 'raising awareness' and would likely remain out of state through the current special session.
'Beyond that, we'll cross that bridge when we get there,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
8 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Gerrymandering now truly is a dangerous threat to American democracy
'If the United States is to deter a nuclear attack,' then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said in a 1967 speech in San Francisco, 'it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction capability.' McNamara was elucidating a long-established defense concept known as 'mutually assured destruction,' meaning that if one side has the ability to destroy its enemy but knows that it cannot do so without being destroyed itself, and that its enemy can and will act to do precisely that, stability is the result. Something like that argument is being applied to gerrymandering, which is applying nuclear-level destruction to American democracy at both state and federal levels. And it is proliferating. California Gov. Gavin Newsom used the phrase 'fight fire with fire' when he said he planned to work with the California legislature and congressional representatives on a plan that would temporarily set aside California's independent redistricting commission. The aim is to draw a map that would offset any gains the GOP makes in Texas, where President Donald Trump and Gov. Greg Abbott are trying to force a gerrymandered, mid-decade congressional map through the Texas legislature with the aim of maintaining Republican control of the U.S. House. That action in Texas, of course, explains why Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker was holding a news conference this week with Texas Democrats who had fled the Lone Star State to try to prevent, well, their own mutually assured destruction. After other Texans in exile made their way to New York City for a separate news conference, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said that 'if Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules to give themselves an advantage, then they're leaving us no choice, we must do the same.' Closer to home, Pritzker assailed what was happening in Texas as a 'corrupt' act, likely to 'silence millions of voters,' with nary a sense of irony, as if his own party was squeaky clean on the matter in Illinois, which is hardly the case. Illinois Republicans, or what is left of them, roared at the hypocrisy, given that the Illinois version of gerrymandering, as egregiously implemented in 2021, has effectively disempowered Republicans, and thus Republican voters, to the point that very few of them even see a point in running for office in Illinois districts anymore, beyond the safe Republican islands. That's despite 44% of Illinoisans voting for Trump in 2024. The problem with applying the language of assured mutual destruction is that democracy does not die in a nuclear flash, to be avoided at all costs. It dies progressively, eaten away by incremental loss of trust. The Illinois State Fair, which began Thursday in Springfield, is typically the kickoff of the new political season. But this year serious Republican candidates in districts now held by Democrats are outnumbered not just by cows but maybe even the one made of butter. Party representatives tell us that donors can read maps with impossible odds like anyone else and thus no longer see much point in supporting Republican efforts in Illinois. They feel their money is better spent on races outside the state, the competitiveness of which are now being undermined by Trump and his cronies in Texas and elsewhere. Indiana appears to be next. Vice President JD Vance already has met with the Indiana governor and Republican legislative leaders, reportedly to 'discuss ways to strengthen the GOP's House majority ahead of the 2026 midterms.' The vice president would have been better advised to stand for fair and impartial maps in the Hoosier State and beyond. He should be shouting out for democracy, loud and clear. We've railed against gerrymandering on both state and federal levels before, of course, and not just to lament the cowardice on gerrymandering displayed by the Illinois Supreme Court, as well the U.S. Supreme Court's lamentable 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause that removed federal courts as a crucial check on partisan gerrymandering. At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts clearly recognized the threat gerrymandering posed to democracy, but the 5-4 court majority he led ruled that the only lawful remedies were political, as distinct from federal judicial intervention. Already that decision has not aged well. We're with Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote in her dissent: 'The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations.' If not that, then what else is the court for? We're back on the topic today to say that the events of the last few days only have deepened our conviction that gerrymandering is a real and present threat to American democracy that must be stopped before yet more damage is done. We also are here to say that phrases like 'fire with fire' and 'all's fair in love and war' are nothing more than lazy, partisan thinking, tempting as they may be to utter. So we were glad to hear Rep. Mark Lawler of New York say on CNN Tuesday that he thought what his fellow Republicans were doing in Texas was 'wrong.' A voice in the wilderness perhaps, but a voice nonetheless. 'We have to actually have neutral districts across this country,' Lawler told the news outlet. 'It would serve the country better.' Ya think? In a separate interview with PBS, wherein he strikingly echoed the arguments in Kagan's dissent from 2019, Lawler allowed that 'both sides have been guilty' of gerrymandering. 'We should have competitive districts based on communities of interest, and ultimately the voters, not the politicians, should decide who is in the majority,' he said. Such a novel concept. Lawson has said he plans to introduce legislation that would 'outright ban gerrymandering.' Good for him. We hope to be able to support that. We think all Americans with a sense of fairness should do the same. Erudite cynics like Karl Rove have written that gerrymandering has been around as long as there have been politicians and districts and that public officials invariably become inured to their own hypocrisy. . Perhaps. But such is the frighteningly rapid deterioration of structural fairness within the American political system these last few months, thanks mostly to a craven administration that sees everything as a zero-sum game and its singular ability to bring out the worst in its opponents, that surely some who have failed to see the clear and present dangers might wake up. Even if that means acting against their own short-term interests. This isn't about one side laying down its arms, or refusing to do so. It's about building a structure with bipartisan buy-in so both are able to do so at once. We like to believe that could still be done in America.
Chicago Tribune
8 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: Time for Democrats to get serious about their political future
Gee, what's happened to the 'silly season' of U.S. politics? That's what many of us in the daily journalism trades used to call the periods, usually in late summer or near holidays, when news media put an unusually intense focus on lighthearted or frivolous storiesbecause of a shortage of more serious news. We currently have no such shortage. Even late-breaking investigations and speculation surrounding the suicide of President Donald Trump's late acquaintance Jeffrey Epstein have had to compete with a ferocious partisan war within some of the states over redistricting. Consider Texas, where Republicans in the state legislature are attempting, at Trump's urging, to redraw congressional districts in order to flip five more districts to Republican majorities. Democratic legislators fled the state to deny the legislature a quorum, in hopes of preventing Republicans from carrying out their plan. Some have taken refuge in Illinois, leading Texas Republicans to call for their arrest by the FBI. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has vowed to protect them. 'Donald Trump is trying to steal five seats from the people — frankly, of the country, not just the people of Texas — and disenfranchise people,' Pritzker said on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.' 'We're talking about violating the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.' Pritzker also declined to turn away from the possibility of a mid-decade congressional remap in his own state. He told Colbert: 'It's possible. I've said everything is on the table. We've gotta fight fire with fire.' Are we starting to see the hardball attitude that many frustrated Democrats have been urging their national party to adopt? Still smarting from the debacle of Joe Biden's 2024 candidacy and the subsequent defeat of the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz ticket, Democrats appear increasingly ready to face a real threat to their ability to regain power in 2026 and beyond. For their part, Republicans are not trying to hide their determination to gerrymander their way out of a midterm backlash in November 2026. Vice President JD Vance visited Indiana to urge lawmakers to redraw their congressional map. It's already a reliably Republican-voting state, but it appears the GOP wants to leave nothing to chance. I find it to be no small irony that these battle lines are being drawn on the 60th anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Some of us are old enough to remember the feeling that a new page in American history had been turned when that law was enacted. We believed that it would finally end the denial and dilution of Black voting power. That dream, once won, now must be defended once again. Frankly, it's been a never-ending chore. The last time House Democrats held the majority, they introduced a sweeping package of good-government reforms, including a centerpiece legislation to end partisan gerrymandering. 'The people should choose their politicians,' then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in 2021 before the House passed the For the People Act, which would later die in the Senate. 'Politicians should not be choosing their voters.' Of course, choosing their voters is precisely what Trump and Republican legislatures intend to do. Trump's team has pushed Republicans to redraw maps 'wherever redistricting is an option.' Democrats can't afford to respond with anything less. Indeed, some Democrats, such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, are switching from their past lofty positions in favor of bipartisan redistricting commissions to embracing the idea of fighting fire with fire. Pelosi, who remains a member of the U.S. House, said that while Democrats favor nationwide independent commissions to draw congressional district maps, 'Democrats cannot and will not unilaterally disarm.' Recent polling trends show eroding support for Trump's actions and policies, which can aptly summed up as 'reverse Robin Hood' with a police-state sideshow. This is especially the case among independents but is noticeable even among Republicans, many of whom no doubt realize their president is off the chain. A big opportunity is opening for challengers who can show voters sanity, humanity and the backbone to stand up to the schoolyard bully in the Oval Office. And Democrats have shown before that they can rise from the slough of despond to win an electoral mandate. This normally silly season has turned sinister, and the stakes to Democrats are existential. Their first step in winning back voters is showing they're willing to fight.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nancy Mace's governor bid tees up volatile primary
Rep. Nancy Mace's (R-S.C.) entrance into South Carolina's GOP gubernatorial primary is setting the stage for a tumultuous intraparty battle as five Republicans vie for the state's top executive post. Early polling shows Mace and the state's Attorney General Alan Wilson (R) leading the primary pack, with Mace calling the primary a two-way race between her and Wilson. The two officials already have a contentious history. Earlier this year the congresswoman accused four men of sexual misconduct in a speech on the House floor and accused the state attorney general of not prosecuting the men. However, other contenders, including Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette (R) and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), could also have an impact on the race. 'When it comes to our politics, it truly is really cut-throat,' said Alex Stroman, former South Carolina GOP executive director. A South Carolina Policy Council poll released late last month showed Mace leading the crowded field with 16 percent of voters who said they identified as Republicans while Wilson closely trailed at 15 percent. Evette came in with eight percent support, followed by Norman at six percent. State Sen. Josh Kimbrell (R) received three percent support. The same poll showed 52 percent of voters were undecided, suggesting there is ample opportunity for the candidates to bolster their support. The nature of the crowded primary could make it difficult for any candidate to win a majority of voters outright. If no candidates win a majority, the two candidates with the most votes will proceed to a runoff. Additionally, strategists note that most polling at this point of the cycle is about name ID. Mace, who is a Trump critic-turned-vocal-supporter, arguably has the highest name ID in the race. 'I don't sleep. I went to bed at 1 a.m., and I was up at 4 a.m. OK, I am Trump in high heels. I love what I am doing. I mean, he doesn't sleep,' Mace said at her campaign's first town hall in Myrtle Beach this week. The congresswoman is an outspoken opponent of transgender rights, making headlines late last year for introducing legislation that would ban transgender women from using women's restrooms in the U.S. Capitol following the election of the first openly transgender Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.). Mace also made waves during a contentious interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos when she accused him of shaming her for being a rape victim. Stephanopoulos had asked Mace how she could endorse Trump, who has been found liable for sexual battery in his defamation lawsuit with E. Jean Carroll. One national GOP operative working on South Carolina races noted that Mace's status as an outspoken, firebrand figure will not be enough to ensure a victory. 'Crazy wins the attention in the primary, but that's not going to translate into votes,' the operative noted. Mace and Wilson's feud is likely to be a defining part of the race, with both candidates escalating their attacks on the campaign trail. During an appearance on Fox News' Brian Kilmeade Show, Mace accused Wilson of being too lenient on violent offenders, including child sex abusers. Wilson has defended his record on the issue as attorney general while hitting back at Mace. 'It's obvious to me that Congresswoman Mace thinks a lot more about me than I think about her,' Wilson said in an interview with The Hill on Friday. 'You can always tell how you're doing in a crowded race when one of the candidates only talks about you and spends all of their time obsessing and lying about their record.' 'People do not get attacked when they are irrelevant and apparently I am incredibly relevant to some of my opponents in this race,' he continued. Wilson's father, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), also has bad blood with Mace. The congressman notably endorsed Mace's previous primary challengers in 2022 and 2024. The elder Wilson issued a scathing statement against Mace earlier this week, calling her 'a party of one' in the Republican Conference. Mace hit back in her own statement, saying 'South Carolina deserves a fighter, not a dynasty.' Some Republicans note that while early polling shows Mace and Wilson as the early frontrunners, their ongoing feud comes with the risk of their campaigns cannibalizing each other. 'They're going to kill each other because they can't help it,' said the national GOP operative working on South Carolina races. 'They're going to create an opening for either Pam or Ralph, or maybe both of them.' Unlike Mace, Norman and Kimbrell, Wilson and Evette can more easily run on South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster's (R) record given their roles in the executive branch. McMaster, who has been governor since 2015, holds a 43 percent approval rating. '[Evette] is the one who run on the McMaster record,' said the national GOP operative working on South Carolina races. 'They're all attacking Columbia and the government and they don't realize how popular McMaster is.' Wilson argued that the attorney's general office, which he has held since 2011, is 'the most consequential elected position in state government.' 'I have gone and been involved in hundreds of legal actions both during the Biden and Obama administrations, so when I say something and I back it up in court, it has a real impact on people's lives,' he said, adding that the office of lieutenant governor is 'a ceremonial position.' 'That is not the fault of the current occupant,' he said, referring to Evette. Additionally, it's been over a decade since there was an open South Carolina governor's primary, meaning the party's candidates find themselves in somewhat unchartered territory. 'We haven't had a true open governor's race in 16 years,' Stroman said. 'I think everyone is trying to figure out what do South Carolina voters actually care about.' One thing that is known is how valuable Trump's endorsement will be in the race. 'He is a consequential voice in South Carolina party politics,' Wilson said. 'Of course everybody running for governor of South Carolina wants the president's endorsement. I'm no different but at the end of the day, I think that people have to earn the president's endorsement.' Many members of Evette's staff are former Trump staffers and have had ties to the president's political operation. 'All of the candidates in the race think they're the Trump candidate,' Stroman said. 'But I think Evette actually lands the endorsement.'
