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

[mystery-ak]

Greg Abbott Skewers the Lies of the Runaway Texas Dems and Decimates Joe Biden In the Process
By Nick Arama | Jul 13, 2021 8:45 PM ET

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has had enough of the runaway Texas Democrats throwing their little tantrum political stunt.

As we reported earlier, he said that he was going to make them do their job and have them arrested if they return to the state.

Abbott eviscerated the Democrats’ false claims about the election security bill, saying that it isn’t denying anyone the right to vote and, in fact, the bill provides for increased voting hours.

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1414884753254268929

more
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/07/13/greg-abbott-skewers-the-lies-of-the-runaway-texas-dems-and-decimates-joe-biden-in-the-process-n410338

[AARguy]

How do we get the REST of the Democrats to leave Texas?

[Free Vulcan]

Yet these runaway Democrats and their staff are still being paid. But if they stay out too long, they won’t be paid and could lose their benefits come the end of next month, and could potentially lose their seats if they are away too long, Abbott said. Meanwhile, they’re doing all this on the taxpayer’s dime rather than arguing their points.

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

[Kamaji]

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

Interesting.  Who would get to appoint their replacements?  Or would a quorum simply consist of a certain percentage of those seats that haven't been declared vacant?

[Free Vulcan]

Interesting.  Who would get to appoint their replacements?  Or would a quorum simply consist of a certain percentage of those seats that haven't been declared vacant?

Maybe someone from the Texas chapter can give more info?

[thackney]

Interesting.  Who would get to appoint their replacements?  Or would a quorum simply consist of a certain percentage of those seats that haven't been declared vacant?

Vacant seats require special elections. 

ec. 203.001.  APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER.  This chapter applies to the offices of state senator and state representative.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Sec. 203.002.  VACANCY FILLED AT SPECIAL ELECTION.  An unexpired term in office may be filled only by a special election in accordance with this chapter.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.203.htm#203.001

[Free Vulcan]

Vacant seats require special elections. 

ec. 203.001.  APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER.  This chapter applies to the offices of state senator and state representative.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Sec. 203.002.  VACANCY FILLED AT SPECIAL ELECTION.  An unexpired term in office may be filled only by a special election in accordance with this chapter.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.203.htm#203.001

What constitutes a sufficient condition to declare a vacancy?

[Bigun]

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

@Free Vulcan

Article 3 of the Texas Constitution

Relevant to this discussion are:

Sec. 10.  QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE.  Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Sec. 11.  RULES OF PROCEDURE; PUNISHMENT OR EXPULSION OF MEMBER.  Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings, punish members for disorderly conduct, and, with the consent of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same offense.

Sec. 23.  VACANCY FOLLOWING REMOVAL FROM DISTRICT OR COUNTY FROM WHICH ELECTED.  If any Senator or Representative remove his residence from the district or county for which he was elected, his office shall thereby become vacant, and the vacancy shall be filled as provided in section 13 of this article.

[Kamaji]

@Free Vulcan

Article 3 of the Texas Constitution

Relevant to this discussion are:

Thanks!!!

And, just to round it out, Section 13 on how vacancies are to be filled:

Sec. 13.  VACANCY IN LEGISLATURE.  (a)  When vacancies occur in either House, the Governor, or the person exercising the power of the Governor, shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; and should the Governor fail to issue a writ of election to fill any such vacancy within twenty days after it occurs, the returning officer of the district in which such vacancy may have happened, shall be authorized to order an election for that purpose.

(b)  The legislature may provide by general law for the filling of a vacancy in the legislature without an election if only one person qualifies and declares a candidacy in an election to fill the vacancy.

[thackney]

@Free Vulcan

Article 3 of the Texas Constitution

Relevant to this discussion are:

I do not see where a seat can be declared vacant without a quorum.

[Bigun]

I do not see where a seat can be declared vacant without a quorum.

@thackney

Sec. 23.  VACANCY FOLLOWING REMOVAL FROM DISTRICT OR COUNTY FROM WHICH ELECTED.  If any Senator or Representative remove his residence from the district or county for which he was elected, his office shall thereby become vacant, and the vacancy shall be filled as provided in section 13 of this article.

[Kamaji]

I do not see where a seat can be declared vacant without a quorum.

It takes a quorum to expel a member, but Sec. 23 is interesting, because it states that if a member moves his residence from the district or county to which he was elected, then his seat automatically becomes vacant.

Which raises the question:  what are the criteria for determining that a member has moved his residence?  Would having the fleebaggers stay outside of Texas for 6 months be sufficient?

[Free Vulcan]

@Free Vulcan

Article 3 of the Texas Constitution

Relevant to this discussion are:

Thanks @Bigun 

Not sure what Texas residency requirements are, but at some point after 30 - 90 days for most states, if they are still in DC, it seems like theirs could be questioned.

And it sounds like the House makes the rules on that definition?

Seems like between that and recall petitions (if allowed under Texas law), Texans could start to put the squeeze on them fairly quickly.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I wish we could find in the Constitution some verbiage that declares a vacancy can be filled by the runner-up in the election for that seat.

Seems that will be all Republicans filling seats.

[thackney]

Thanks @Bigun 

Not sure what Texas residency requirements are, but at some point after 30 - 90 days for most states, if they are still in DC, it seems like theirs could be questioned.

And it sounds like the House makes the rules on that definition?

Seems like between that and recall petitions (if allowed under Texas law), Texans could start to put the squeeze on them fairly quickly.

I do not see how an extended vacation can make someone ineligible for Texas residency while still maintaining a home in Texas, still keeping voter registration, etc.

[Free Vulcan]

I do not see how an extended vacation can make someone ineligible for Texas residency while still maintaining a home in Texas, still keeping voter registration, etc.

Maybe for the average citizen, but for the elected official in the legislature.

[thackney]

Maybe for the average citizen, but for the elected official in the legislature.

I just do not find a way to declare the seats vacant without a quorum to due so.  Since this is a repeated problem, we need to deal with it.  But it likely is going to take voting 17 more democrats out of the Texas House.

[Bigun]

Thanks @Bigun 

Not sure what Texas residency requirements are, but at some point after 30 - 90 days for most states, if they are still in DC, it seems like theirs could be questioned.

And it sounds like the House makes the rules on that definition?

Seems like between that and recall petitions (if allowed under Texas law), Texans could start to put the squeeze on them fairly quickly.

Recall petitions are not allowed in Texas and I cannot find anything to define what it takes to declare a legislative seat abandoned.

@Free Vulcan

[Free Vulcan]

Recall petitions are not allowed in Texas and I cannot find anything to define what it takes to declare a legislative seat abandoned.

@Free Vulcan

Well damn.

[Kamaji]

I do not see how an extended vacation can make someone ineligible for Texas residency while still maintaining a home in Texas, still keeping voter registration, etc.

Except that it's not an extended vacation.  It is an intentional abandonment of the district or county to which one was elected for the purpose of frustrating the mechanisms of government, and for an indefinite period of time.  That comes close to the requirements for a change of domicile, not just residency.

[Bigun]

Except that it's not an extended vacation.  It is an intentional abandonment of the district or county to which one was elected for the purpose of frustrating the mechanisms of government, and for an indefinite period of time.  That comes close to the requirements for a change of domicile, not just residency.

It SHOULD be a felony for a member of the legislature to refuse to appear at his post when the legislature is in session, but I don't think it currently is. 

[thackney]

Except that it's not an extended vacation.  It is an intentional abandonment of the district or county to which one was elected for the purpose of frustrating the mechanisms of government, and for an indefinite period of time.  That comes close to the requirements for a change of domicile, not just residency.

So show me the law that deals with it.  I find nothing.

[Kamaji]

So show me the law that deals with it.  I find nothing.

It was right upthread in the materials posted by someone else.

Show me that this is an "extended vacation".  Calling a pig a goat doesn't make it a goat, no matter how little statute law there is on the matter.

[thackney]

It was right upthread in the materials posted by someone else.

Show me that this is an "extended vacation".  Calling a pig a goat doesn't make it a goat, no matter how little statute law there is on the matter.

That was after the seat is vacant, and the rules for being vacant do not include this scenario, regardless of us wanting it to.

[Kamaji]

That was after the seat is vacant, and the rules for being vacant do not include this scenario, regardless of us wanting it to.

Section 23 very expressly covers the point:

Sec. 23.  VACANCY FOLLOWING REMOVAL FROM DISTRICT OR COUNTY FROM WHICH ELECTED.  If any Senator or Representative remove his residence from the district or county for which he was elected, his office shall thereby become vacant, and the vacancy shall be filled as provided in section 13 of this article.

To emphasize:  "shall become vacant"

[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!