Greg Abbott Skewers the Lies of the Runaway Texas Dems and Decimates Joe Biden In the Process

[Free Vulcan]

The definition for vacant in this case seems to be determined by the Texas House since there seems to be no code covering it, in terms of how long and what is considered a vacancy.

Then it seems to be a question of whether they need a quorum to determine a seat vacant. If they don't, the quorum problem solves itself.

[thackney]

Section 23 very expressly covers the point:

To emphasize:  "shall become vacant"

Residence has not changed because of a trip.  They still own their home, pay the bills and get their mail, have their driver license showing that address.

Wishing will not make it different.

[Free Vulcan]

Residence has not changed because of a trip.  They still own their home, pay the bills and get their mail, have their driver license showing that address.

Wishing will not make it different.

In terms of being a Texas citizen yes.

In terms of being a representative in the House? It seems a little gray.

[Kamaji]

Residence has not changed because of a trip.  They still own their home, pay the bills and get their mail, have their driver license showing that address.

Wishing will not make it different.

Nonsense.  In fact, in certain circumstances, one can have multiple residences - or, to be more precise, places of residence.  For example, if one state defines residency based on domicile, and another state defines residence based on a certain minimum number of days of presence within the state - typically, states that do this use 183 days or more - a person who has their domicile in the first state, but spends 200 days in the second state will have two residences - will be resident in both states.

Similarly, a person who leaves a particular state, takes up physical residence in another state, and evinces an intention to remain out of the first state indefinitely will sometimes be treated as having abandoned domicile in the first state and, depending on the state's definition of "residence" of having given up their residence in that state.

Clearly there is a dearth of binding legal authority on what "residence" means for the purposes of this section, as well as what it means to "remove" one's residence from the district or county to which one was elected, and so there will necessarily be a legal court case if Gov. Abbott decides to pursue that route.

But a lack of finely granulated authority does not mean that the terms are meaningless, and does not mean that what the fleebaggers have done does not constitute "removing" their "residence" for the purposes of Sec. 23.

In fact, if one looks at the purpose and intent of Sec. 23, I am going to guess that it is closely connected with ensuring that the incumbent in office continues to undertake his role as an elected official properly, and that intentionally leaving the state so that one cannot be corralled into doing one's duty as a legislature, if maintained for a sufficient period of time, constitutes "removing" one's residence.

There is most definitely a basis for that argument, and I would strongly urge Gov. Abbott to consider it.

[thackney]

In terms of being a Texas citizen yes.

In terms of being a representative in the House? It seems a little gray.

The concern was if they were no longer a resident in their district, as I understand it.  That is a requirement that otherwise makes the seat become vacant and subject to being replaced.  If their home residency has not changed, that Section 23 does not apply.

Not gray at all.

[thackney]

Nonsense.  In fact, in certain circumstances, one can have multiple residences - or, to be more precise, places of residence.  For example, if one state defines residency based on domicile, and another state defines residence based on a certain minimum number of days of presence within the state - typically, states that do this use 183 days or more - a person who has their domicile in the first state, but spends 200 days in the second state will have two residences - will be resident in both states.

Similarly, a person who leaves a particular state, takes up physical residence in another state, and evinces an intention to remain out of the first state indefinitely will sometimes be treated as having abandoned domicile in the first state and, depending on the state's definition of "residence" of having given up their residence in that state.

Clearly there is a dearth of binding legal authority on what "residence" means for the purposes of this section, as well as what it means to "remove" one's residence from the district or county to which one was elected, and so there will necessarily be a legal court case if Gov. Abbott decides to pursue that route.

But a lack of finely granulated authority does not mean that the terms are meaningless, and does not mean that what the fleebaggers have done does not constitute "removing" their "residence" for the purposes of Sec. 23.

In fact, if one looks at the purpose and intent of Sec. 23, I am going to guess that it is closely connected with ensuring that the incumbent in office continues to undertake his role as an elected official properly, and that intentionally leaving the state so that one cannot be corralled into doing one's duty as a legislature, if maintained for a sufficient period of time, constitutes "removing" one's residence.

There is most definitely a basis for that argument, and I would strongly urge Gov. Abbott to consider it.

Abbott does not have the authority to declare the seat vacant.  It takes a change of residency, or a death, or resignation.

[Free Vulcan]

Probably a good idea is for the Texas House to look thru their records and see if any similar precedent exists.

Personally I'd create a ruse. Announce that the House will consider these seats vacant after so many days and will conduct a vote with a new quorum number that doesn't include those seats.

Dare the Dems to do something about it and force them to come back, then arrest and confine them for a quorum and vote.

[Free Vulcan]

The concern was if they were no longer a resident in their district, as I understand it.  That is a requirement that otherwise makes the seat become vacant and subject to being replaced.  If their home residency has not changed, that Section 23 does not apply.

Not gray at all.

But the law doesn't define the specifics of a legislative vacancy. It would seem the House has the leeway to define their own rules.

[thackney]

The state's election law calls residence "one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence." It also says you don't lose your residence by temporarily moving somewhere else and that you don't necessarily become a resident of another place if it's not your intention to stay there. And it says the issue is subject to case law.

Hold On, Mr. Resident
https://www.texastribune.org/2010/08/11/residency-isnt-a-simple-issue-in-texas-law/

[thackney]

But the law doesn't define the specifics of a legislative vacancy. It would seem the House has the leeway to define their own rules.

Well, they probably could if they had a quorum....

[Kamaji]

The state's election law calls residence "one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence." It also says you don't lose your residence by temporarily moving somewhere else and that you don't necessarily become a resident of another place if it's not your intention to stay there. And it says the issue is subject to case law.

Hold On, Mr. Resident
https://www.texastribune.org/2010/08/11/residency-isnt-a-simple-issue-in-texas-law/

That defines residence for the purposes of where an individual votes.  It doesn't automatically define "residence" for the purposes of Sec. 23, Art. 3, of the Texas Constitution.

[thackney]

That defines residence for the purposes of where an individual votes.  It doesn't automatically define "residence" for the purposes of Sec. 23, Art. 3, of the Texas Constitution.

You will have to show me where Section 23 uses a unique definition of residency separate from the one used in election law.  They have to meet the election law residency requirement to run for the office.  To use a different definition to keep the office would be nonsense.

[Kamaji]

Abbott does not have the authority to declare the seat vacant.  It takes a change of residency, or a death, or resignation.

He doesn't have to.  The Constitution itself declares the seat vacant if the occupant has "removed" his "residence" from his district or county.  All Gov. Abbott has to do is call for a special election on the basis that, after a certain minimum period of time, coupled with a stated intent to remain out of the state indefinitely to avoid legislative duties, the seat has become vacant by operation of law.

Then the fleebaggers can contest the calling of the special election on the basis that they did not "remove" their "residence", and see what a court of competent jurisdiction says.

[Kamaji]

You will have to show me where Section 23 uses a unique definition of residency separate from the one used in election law.

No, I don't.  That is not the way that constitutional law works.

A constitution is, almost by definition, supreme to any law that was enacted under the authority of the constitution.  Accordingly, you have to show some basis in logic, or legal authority, for the proposition that, without so much as a single enabling provision, the terms of the Texas election statute automatically governs the meaning of the constitution under whose authority that election statute was enacted.

[thackney]

He doesn't have to.  The Constitution itself declares the seat vacant if the occupant has "removed" his "residence" from his district or county.  All Gov. Abbott has to do is call for a special election on the basis that, after a certain minimum period of time, coupled with a stated intent to remain out of the state indefinitely to avoid legislative duties, the seat has become vacant by operation of law.

Then the fleebaggers can contest the calling of the special election on the basis that they did not "remove" their "residence", and see what a court of competent jurisdiction says.

Their residency has not changed.  The occupant has not removed it regardless of how badly you want to redefine it.

[thackney]

No, I don't.  That is not the way that constitutional law works.

A constitution is, almost by definition, supreme to any law that was enacted under the authority of the constitution.  Accordingly, you have to show some basis in logic, or legal authority, for the proposition that, without so much as a single enabling provision, the terms of the Texas election statute automatically governs the meaning of the constitution under whose authority that election statute was enacted.

So you believe the requirement for residency to run for office are different than the requirements for residency to keep the office?

Please, show me your basis in logic.

[Free Vulcan]

Well, they probably could if they had a quorum....

Maybe, maybe not.

[thackney]

Maybe, maybe not.

Please understand, I am not trying to support what the Texas Democrats are doing.  But I believe using residency does not have any chance at all.  Also, I do not see the Governor having any power to declare a seat "vacant"; that would very much open up separation of power issues.

The real problem remains not enough voters hold legislators accountable for their actions.

[Kamaji]

So you believe the requirement for residency to run for office are different than the requirements for residency to keep the office?

Please, show me your basis in logic.

Because they occur in different legal documents, enacted for different purposes, and do not bear a necessary cross reference.

There is no reason a priori why the definition of residence in a statute must eo nomine limit the definition of residence in the constitution itself.

The only person who owes an explanation here, chief, is you, who seem to have gotten very, very confused about the difference between a statute and a constitution, and to have decided - contrary to all logic and practice - that the statute must necessarily confine and limit the constitution.

So, chief, since you are clearly a legal genius, prove that the definition of residence in the election statute necessarily constricts and limits the meaning of that term for the purposes of Art. III, Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution.

If you cannot, then STFU and admit that there is a clear gray area, with no particular guidance, and a plausible argument both ways.

In other words, climb down off your hobby horse and start acting like an adult again.

[Kamaji]

Their residency has not changed.  The occupant has not removed it regardless of how badly you want to redefine it.

You clearly do not understand the concept of residence as a legal concept.  It is not coextensive with "where your permanent house is located".

[Cyber Liberty]

Apparently a vacancy can be declared after so much time of not doing their job?

That's what I'm hoping for.  In the real world, job abandonment will get you sacked.

[Free Vulcan]

Please understand, I am not trying to support what the Texas Democrats are doing.  But I believe using residency does not have any chance at all.  Also, I do not see the Governor having any power to declare a seat "vacant"; that would very much open up separation of power issues.

The real problem remains not enough voters hold legislators accountable for their actions.

I'd do it anyway. Make them defend their seats.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'd do it anyway. Make them defend their seats.

They'd have to return to Texas to do that.  Heh.

[Free Vulcan]

They'd have to return to Texas to do that.  Heh.

 

[Bigun]

I'd do it anyway. Make them defend their seats.

  I like the way you think!