Fifty-one of 67 Democrats in the Texas lege hopped on two chartered planes with a case of Miller Lite to fly to Washington, D.C. Their purpose was explicit, they were denying the Republican majority a quorum with which to enact new voting laws.
Texas Democrats fled the state on Monday in a last-ditch effort to prevent the passage of a restrictive new voting law by the Republican-controlled Legislature, heading to Washington to draw national attention to their cause.
The group left Austin in midafternoon on a pair of chartered flights that arrived at Dulles International Airport just before sunset. Fifty-one of the 67 State House Democrats flew on the planes, leaders of the delegation said, and several others arrived separately in Washington; that’s enough to prevent Texas Republicans from attaining a quorum, which is required to conduct state business.
Life hack: Never ever forget the frosty cold ones before you head to DC in a private plane. #txlege pic.twitter.com/S3NlUk54lw
— Enrique (@EnriqueOther) July 12, 2021
Was this a pointless show, as they will eventually return and then the quorum will exist, the law passed and the experience will be remembered as another failed attempt by a political minority to prevent the majority’s will?
There is no filibuster in Texas as there is in the United States Senate. Whether it would work if there was need not be addressed, as it doesn’t exist. Whether leaving on a jet plane is an alternative solution is unclear, but it’s likely to be more signalling than substance. And perhaps it will work as a signal that federal legislation is needed to prevent states from enacting regulations on voting that impacts the poor and minorities more than anticipated Republican voters.
Whether it does or not isn’t really material, and is a debate of details that nobody seems to find worthy of serious discussion. Laws being enacted in red states are voter suppression laws, even if they mirror laws in blue states, even if they are otherwise entirely reasonable. No, there was no epidemic of voter fraud requiring fixing. Yes, there have always been laws addressing voting to prevent that from happening. And yes, now that gaming the vote is on a lot of people’s minds, enacting laws to make sure there isn’t an epidemic of voter fraud in the future seems insightful. It’s all in the details, that few care much about.
Voting today is hugely easier than it has ever been. Early voting. Mail-in voting. Drop-boxes. It used to be simple, you went to your polling place on election day and pulled a lever. That was hard for many, but that was how we voted. Today, there are a wealth of options, and still people complain. Loudly.
But that doesn’t address the question of whether these laws are being proposed and enacted to adversely influence the ability to vote of minorities and the poor. If they are calculated to make voting harder for people legislators believe will vote for the other party, then it is voter suppression. Easy as it might be, you still can’t frame laws to suppress the other side’s voters.
In Texas, the Dems have been shut out of the process because they don’t control the legislature. Rather than sit there and lose, they cut and ran. Is that the right thing to do? If they can’t influence the law being passed, and are either vehemently against it or want to appear to be against it, what other options do they have?
And Dems in Washington and elsewhere are applauding this bold move by Texas Democrats who only have one case of beer on which to survive. Are these the same people outraged at the Senate Republicans for pulling the filibuster? Is it any different? Is stymieing the will of the majority good or bad based only on whose ox is gored?
Then again, if the Senate Republicans are right to employ the filibuster to prevent the Dems from enacting their “bold” initiatives, why are these Texas Dems not right as well in using the only tool they have to prevent the enactment of law they oppose? Why shouldn’t they fly like an Eagle if they, as the minority party, have no voice in the legislature? If anything, isn’t the burden of flying away more meaningful than the faux filibuster that the Senate now allows?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They way outdid Wisc Dems who back in the Act 10 days fled in sedans sans selfies to Rockford, Illinios. No word if they took Spotted Cow. Or takeout fish fry in Styrofoam. Oh, and they returned. And lost the legislative war.
If it was me, I’d have gone with spotted dick. But then, I’m a sucker for pudding.
Don’t forget the Oregon Republicans did the same thing in an effort to stop a climate change bill.
Too bad we don’t have the technology for legislators to debate bills via video conferencing, or cast their votes remotely. Oh, wait…
The Republicans actually succeeded during that session since Oregon has a constitutionally set date to adjourn the legislative session so they effectively ran out the clock. Then they caved this year and the Democrat super majority rammed through whatever they wanted including something suspiciously like a bill of attainder.
I do believe that the Dems are one vote short of a quorum in the State of Oregon. Also, the Repubs tried to go out of state this year, but some Repubs stayed, allowing a quorum. Constituents of those that stayed tried to recall them for not representing them by leaving the state, and failed.
Of course, this is just from reading the local news here in Oregon. I have no personal knowledge of it all.
They start with the small stuff, like stealing elections. Before you know it, they’re stealing beer.
As it turns out, its rather easy to mess with Texas.
This from a guy who’s lucky Nebraska doesn’t have to play Texas
A twofer. Because Tuesday.
Without a duopoly of state-sanctioned political parties almost everything about this story goes away, from the competing Shock Doctrine election fiddling to the partisan demagoguery and situational principles to the current narrative framework of the filibuster.
Imagine if elected representatives existed to serve the interests of the public instead of the interests of their political team. Or at least if the interests of their political team weren’t a zero sum game of domination rooted in an insipid binary discourse.
You Green Party types are so predictable.
“You’re either with us or you’re against us or you’re a real troublemaker.”
What is this mythical interest of the public. It’s easy do everything my way. I win, you loose. The public is well served.
Hence the fallback position where the interests are pursued through coalitions rather than zero sum domination. But even if most references to “the public interest” are phony and/or circular it can still exist and be contrasted with things that clearly serve other interests.
We live in a time where the main check on each gang of thieves is the other gang of thieves. When they manage to fight each other to a standstill it is probably a net gain for all the common folk. Presently, there is no state that allows its electorate to vote “no” for legislative vacancies. This alternative of paying the legislators to leave the state could really catch on. Especially if the state manages to get along swimmingly with no new laws passed for the entire session. That is really the risk legislators are taking here. If nobody misses them and life goes on, it could signal the electorate’s readiness for a state constitutional convention to get rid of them permanently.
When I was in college, a friend ran for student body president on a single platform: If elected, he would abolish the office. He lost, though he’s gone on to a brilliant career (not in politics).
I’ve always favored the ballot option “None of the above,” though I suspect it would win every election and we’d be permanently without anyone in elected positions – not really a good result, though it has some appeal if you don’t think too hard about what it would actually mean.
I grew up in Texas.
Real Texas Democrats like LBJ would have stayed and fought, bribed, and traded votes to make the best deal for themselves as possible. It wouldn’t have mattered if the voters got screwed.
This group is a bunch of cowardly, unprincipled yellow dog* Democrats elected by losers from California that want to turn Texas into the cesspit they created in the once proud Bear Republic.
*A yellow dog demcrat is someone from a district so safe the party could run a yellow dog and it would get elected.
I know our host is familiar with the term but I’m not so sure about the rest of the east coasters.
If you grew up in Texas, then you should know about the Killer Bees, who were state Senate Democrats who deployed this same tactic against Democratic Lt Gov Bill Hobby.
From your comments, it seems like you might not know this history. Time to get cracking on understanding the history of the Texas Lege.
I grew up in Texas and remember the killer Bs. Both the political group and the baseball group.
Meanwhile while this is happening our president just said that the changes in voting laws currently being enacted are “worse than the Civil War, and that’s not hyperbole”. And the GOP in Tennessee has apparently pressured the state department of health into terminating all vaccine outreach. Not just Covid.
The race to crazy seems to be accelerating.
And of course the people who are infuriated about the senate filibuster think this maneuver is most swell, while the people who think the filibuster is swell are infuriated by this.
I guess they think we don’t notice their rank consistent hypocrisy.
Also note that none of us know whether the bill is all that bad – or not – because the media isn’t covering the actual bill. They’re only interested in the shit flinging competition.
I finally tracked down HB3. It is a rehash of the proposals from the general session. Several provisions are aimed directly at Harris County (Houston). Among others, polling places must be “inside a building” instead of “at a building” and the use of portable structures is prohibited. Both options, legal under current law, were used by Harris County election officials in the 2020 elections.
These Democrats are simply repeating Texas history. But heck, it worked then so why not now? (Except that it is an elitist, anti-democratic stunt).
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/23/archives/12-texas-state-senators-claiming-political-victory-come-out-of.html
Are the Tejas Democrats demonstrating the tyranny of the minority?
No.
I don’t have an issue with Texas Democrats doing this: they’re (arguably) representing their constituents. In a representative, deliberative constitutional democracy, there should be some attempt at consultation with the minority and making concessions; fifty percent plus a feather providing absolute power isn’t a good way for democracy to function, judging by historical experience. The Oregon Republicans did the same thing, fleeing to Idaho in protest of Democratic climate change tax bills after the latter gained a 60% supermajority in both houses, and it ended with the majority making some concessions to the minority. [although judging by AC’s comment above, looks like it ended up for nought anyway]
There should always be some kind of counter-majoritarian check to prevent the minority from being trampled under, including turning it into a contest of wills by going to extremes like fleeing the state to bring the majority to the negotiating table.
There is a filibuster in the Texas Senate. Unlike the US Senate, the rules are harsh. The senator must stick to the topic being debated, must stand the entire time, may not lean on anything, and cannot eat or drink. Much easier to grab a charter to DC.
WTF, I thought you had to own and wear a styling Spence hat to get elected in Texas.
P.S. Looks like the Miller Light wasn’t even cracked. I wonder if that, close to water beer, goes good with tequila.