Constitutional Law, Lawyering, Politics

Texas Democrats Sue Over Effort To Force Them Back To Austin To Vote

In a demonstrably meritless lawsuit, 22 Texas House Democrats sued some of the state’s top Republican leaders in federal court in Austin over the efforts to bring them home for a special legislative session. After fleeing to Washington, the legislators claim that the criticism and threats made by the governor and other  infringed on their constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Despite recent calls for sanctions and disbarments for frivolous filings by Republicans (which I have expressed concerns over), none of those experts are expressing the same view of this filing, which is shockingly short of legal merit.

Gov. Greg Abbott has called for a second specially called legislative session and he has called for the arrest of members to bring them to the floor for a quorum. Phelan signed a civil warrant for Rep. Philip Cortez, D-San Antonio, after he returned to the Texas. Cortez however then fled back to D.C. The lawsuit sues not only Abbott and House Speaker Dade Phelan but State Rep. James White. White’s inclusion is particularly curious since the Democratic members are declaring fealty to free speech while trying to sue another members presumably for his exercise of free speech.

The complaint by Craig Anthony Washington, a former Democratic lawmaker, also does not use Phelan’s legal name (Matthew McDade Phelan) but just “Dade Phelan.” It also misspells Abbott’s name on page one as “Abbot.”

Strangely, the counsel on the brief is listed as “Deguren and Dickson.” It is not clear if that is supposed to be DeGuerin and Dickson which has an office at the listed address. There is an email on the complaint reading “caw@deguerin.com.”

The plaintiffs listed in the case are state Reps. Senfronia Thompson, Trey Martinez Fischer, Gene Wu, Vikki Goodwin, Ron Reynolds, Eddie Rodriguez, Jon Rosenthal, Jasmine Crockett, Mary Ann Perez, Alma Allen, Christina Morales, Nicole Collier, Celia Israel, Ana-Maria Ramos, Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, Terry Meza, Donna Howard, Jarvis Johnson, Ray Lopez, Shawn Thierry, Elizabeth Campos and Gina Hinojosa.

The Democrats sue over deprivations caused by their own decisions to flee the state to prevent the vote. It was an ironic moment as Democrats in Washington celebrated their act while they denounced filibusters. The Texas Democrats were carrying out a type of de fact filibuster by flight. However, they would not have incurred those costs but for their own actions. Two other Democratic members have been criticized over taking a vacation to Portugal after fleeing to Washington.

Yet, the filing alleges that the Republicans are conspiring against them in plain view in response to their consensual consent:

  1. Plaintiffs allege that in doing the acts and things complained of, the Defendants were conspirator [sic] engaged in a scheme and conspiracy designed and intended to deny and deprive them of rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution and laws of the United States and particularly those herein above enumerated.

They ask for $5 in actual damages and $10 in punitive damages. However, Washington is seeking his fees under the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act.

Under Rule 3.1 a “lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” Moreover, the defendants could seek sanctions  under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 claiming a lawsuit “for an improper purpose” of causing “unnecessary delay.”  Indeed, Democratic activists in Texas have filed such complaints against Republicans on these grounds.

These Democratic members are asking a federal court to allow a lawsuit based on the use of statutorily permitted sanctions in response to their own decisions to flee the state. There is no legal authority that directly support such a claim. Indeed, the short complaint reads more like a press release from the DNC — restating political claims with a caption on the top.

Here is the complaint: Thompson v. Abbott

50 thoughts on “Texas Democrats Sue Over Effort To Force Them Back To Austin To Vote”

  2. The organizing principal is that the Democrats will take whatever position they can use to gain and consolidate political power.

  3. JT says the free speech claim has no merit but surprisingly offers no free speech judicial decision analysis to support his position.

  4. We don’t want their love.

    We don’t want their respect.

    We want their fear.
    _______________

    “Do one thing every day that scares you.”

    – Eleanor Roosevelt

  5. Of course, these communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are subverting and committing insurrection and treason against the Constitution of Texas and, therefore, the Constitution of the United States.
    ___________

    “Then spare the rod and spoil the child.”

    – Samuel Butler

  7. Almost all states at least require a valid form of ID when registering to vote. Some states require your ID when you vote. In either instance a valid form of ID is required. Biden’s home state of Delaware requires a valid form of ID to vote. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_Delaware. The Democrats make a big show over voting rights but even in their own states a valid form of ID is required. Has anyone noticed that they never want to tell us what voting rights are being suppressed. They tell us that our voting rights are being attacked because they can’t give us a hotdog wrapped in a Biden for President wrapper within one hundred feet of the polling door. They think they have found a smart talking point because they think that their constituency is to dumb to figure out that their circus show is a sham. Seems racist to me.

  8. Construct a border wall to distance and sequester DC, and move the capital to Constitutional ground.

    1. Can we include NYC, Chicago, and LA in that sequester? Then we might get a sane republic, again, instead of the United States of Waziristan.

  9. TheseDNC infants should go home to Texas and do their job or resign from office in the ultimate protest.

    And If republicans think they can imitate this stunt sometime in the future, because the Dems set a precedent , I would comment the same

    1. They are doing their job. They are representing their voters by blocking bills that the voters oppose. This is functionally the same as Rs filibustering bills.

      1. Oralloy, you stated that the Democrats are blocking votes on legislation that the voters oppose. The fact is they are blocking legislation that their voters oppose. There is a difference in the word their and the. Once they have garnered enough votes to be in control of all of the votes in Texas you will be able to say that they represent “the” people of Texas. They can’t control the state so they resort to cheap tricks so that they can catch COVID. Some smart Reps you got there.

          1. Their job is to vote on legislation.

            Running away from home to prevent a vote from occurring is a direct attack on democracy.

            Your rhetorical sophistry does not change that fact.

      2. Their “job” is to represent their constituents by VOTING on the bills in the state legislature. If their constituents are against a certain bill, then it is their job to vote “No”. These Dems have chosen instead to violate the terms of their oath of office in obstructing a vote by fleeing the state. This is NOT the same as filibustering (something that the Dems have engaged in on other bills well over a hundred times just in the last few years!)

        1. IMHO, they belong in the state where they were elected to do a job they were elected to do to the best of their ability for the most benefit to the citizens of that state. It is not about them. It’s about the citizens. Some bills will go their way, some bills won’t go their way. Kind of like when I vote. Because I am in a very dark blue state when I vote for who I want to represent me, I don’t do too well. I just have to suck it up.

      3. This is functionally the same as Rs filibustering bills.

        And Jan. 6th is functionallyThe same as petitioning your government for redress.

        See how stupid and idiotic it sounds when you apply your own standard of leftits doublespeak?

      4. You spelled Democrats wrong. THEY used the filibuster 327 times to the one time the Republicans used it on 2020. Don’t believe the lies CNN is telling you.

  10. Members of the group held a press conference on Capitol Hill on Friday. Senator Merkley (D-OR) stood with them, delivered some remarks and took a few questions. I asked if anyone had any beer, and the response was ‘no’.

  11. My favorite part of this besides the Democrats flying maskless is they go to D.C to lobby for the end of the filibuster. When in fact they just fillibustered by way of a private plane.
    They should just change the name of the party to The Hypocrite Party. Or maybe the Hypocrite Communist Party.

  12. Oh, look. Democrats are once again accusing Republicans of conspiring and colluding, when in fact it is they who are doing so.

    Shame!

    Vote their lawless, worthless, lying hides out of office.

    1. Dems and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, Karen S. The whole system stinks.

  13. This is terrible. They can’t get what they want through votes, so instead they just refused to show up to work. This is abusive of the people of Texas. They agreed to a job they then abandoned.

    Is this how it’s going to be now? Should Republicans bolt the next time legislation comes up that they don’t like? Just leave and stay gone for a year or two, drawing their salary? Shut down the government to force a minority viewpoint on the majority? You know you’re doing wrong if you would be upset if the other side did it.

    This is anathema to a republic.

    To add insult to injury, they falsely portrayed this legislation as racist. This is indefensible. Nothing about this bill takes away any legal voter’s rights, of any color. It actually expands voting while making it harder to cheat.

    Democrats are betting everything on their supporters not doing their homework. Not reading the actual bill. Or having the willful blindness to just ignore the facts and keep repeating what’s been proven untrue – that this is a racist bill and these truants are freedom fighters.

    I think this strategy is going to work. I’ve never once convinced a Democrat of anything. I’ve laid out facts that utterly disprove their position. All they do is ignore it, change the subject, or deny their eyes. There is no getting through the brainwashing.

    Lord help us if Democrats convince Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents to all act the same as they are. Burn down cities and riot if you like. Seize city blocks for your own, and keep out police and emergency services. Break quorum for months or years to force your view on the majority.

    1. Karen effuses,

      “I’ve laid out facts that utterly disprove their position. All they do is ignore it, change the subject, or deny their eyes. There is no getting through the brainwashing.”

      How come we never hear Turley speak so wildly? Is it because he is level-headed, calm and collected and not prone to hysterics?

      When I hear Turley ranting like this, I’ll listen up. Until then, give it a little rest.

      Jeff Silberman

        1. I am not defending or denouncing the filibuster. I am pointing out the hypocrisy.

          1. The filibuster is not the same as fleeing the state.

            A filibuster is a means to prolong debate, since there are no time limits.

            No one person could keep speaking, without cease, since early July.

            By leaving the state, no business can be concluded by the State Senate, at all. Democrats have hijacked the Senate because they couldn’t get their way.

            This is about forcing a minority view upon the majority.

            Should the Republicans and Libertarians do exactly the same?

            In addition, their entire premise is a falsehood. They have claimed to have “risked their lives” in order to “preserve voting rights.” But their lives are no more in jeopardy than any other politician in these contentious times, and nothing about the bill inhibited the voting rights of any legal voter. They just made it all up in order to appear like freedom fighters, appealing to voters who would either not do their homework, or who would dutifully ignore facts when presented to them.

            As for the filibuster, perhaps it would be in the best interests of the country to set a time limit for each speaker. Something generous, like 6 hours. If you can’t get your point across in 6 hours, then you can’t get your point across. Strom Thurmond filibustered the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957. If I recall correctly, another senator tried to get him to stop by leaving a pitcher of OJ near him, hoping he’d have to go to the bathroom. Someone took the OJ away.

            The House gets along fine without the filibuster. At the time the Previous Question Motion was so rarely used that it was dropped from the Senate. Woodrow Wilson was so pissed that filibuster interfered with his action against German U-Boats, that he got Rule 22 passed, or Cloture, requiring 2/3 vote to end debate. Then it was reduced to 3/5. As I understand it, cloture ends debate after 30 more hours. It was cloture that saved the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when Democrats once again filibustered. When Democrat Harry Reid deployed the nuclear option, he not only ended debate, but changed the requirement to a simple majority for Cabinet and judicial appointments. Republicans followed this example and applied it to the Supreme Court.

            There used to be public backlash against abusive filibusters, somewhat limiting their use. That’s out the window, as filibusters have become more common.

            I can see why abolishing the filibuster would allow Congress to get more done. Excessive delay does seem abusive at times. The criticism, as I understand it, is that getting rid of the filibuster also gets rid of the impetus to garner consensus. You would no longer need 60 votes for cloture if there were no filibuster. If all you need is a simple majority, then it doesn’t really matter what 49 senators think. It’s also been pointed out that more legislation will be overturned with a simple majority, creating both more efficiency, and more legislative churning every election cycle.

            It has also been pointed out that the 2 track system actually encouraged filibusters to happen more often, because they no longer ground Congress to a standstill.

            Personally, I think the filibuster has been abused and become too common.

              1. Thanks for sharing the link. The Patriot-Act-on-steroids-type additions to the “infrastructure” bill are quite alarming indeed, obviously of no inherent benefit except to extend the ability to control the teeming millions (us) to ever greater levels.

      2. 1 time use of the filibuster compared to 327 times the Democrats used it in 2020. Stop spreading lies. Who do you think you are?? CNN???

  14. I live in Texas and one of the plaintiffs is my representative. Let me tell you about this man. He goes around claiming to be a bigtime Christian but he went to jail because of illegal dealing in his law practice. As a representative, he’s worthless. He stays in office the same reason other Democrats do – because of the color of his skin. Fortunately, we are represented in Congress by a Republican but our Democratic representative along with other Democrats in office including our Indian county judge, DA and sheriff, both of whom are black, are worthless.

  15. Jonathan: Talk about the “free speech” rights of the Dems in Texas who are protesting Gov. Abbott’s attempt to push through his version of Black voter suppression laws, what about what is going on over at FoxNews? The conservative news outlet Newsmax has sent a reporter over to Fox to picket Fox because they have refused to air “My Pillow” CEO Mike Lindell’s ad promoting an upcoming voter-fraud symposium. Where is your outrage over Fox’s violation of Lindell’s “free speech” rights? Maybe it’s because you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you?

    1. Nonsensical attack on proposed legislation and on those who support it! BTW: what a broadcaster does is hardly similar to the TX Ds’ ever so transparent refusals to engage in the legislative process. Just as a child who fears losing a game or sporting event refuses to play … so, too, the TX Ds run away – and make much noise. Just noise, no reasonable or legal argument.

    2. Dennis – NO ONE has prevented the Dems in Texas from speaking their minds on the proposed Voting Law. You appear to somehow equate “Free Speech” rights with violating Texas state law (which is exactly what the “Runaway Dem Legislators” have done). Re, up on Article 1 of the U.S. Federal Constitution, as well as the Texas Statutes before putting your foot in your mouth. As to Fox News turning down Mike Lindell’s ad, I again refer you to Article 1 of our Constitution. Fox News (like any other news show or channel) has NO duty to accept ANY ad from ANY person or company. At the same time, Fox has good reason to be hesitant in airing this particular ad inasmuch as there is an active lawsuit against both Fox AND Lindell regarding their assertions that there was significant fraud committed in the 2020 Election (the subject of Lindell’s symposium). Inasmuch as Lindell’s “free speech” rights were hardly violated by Fox News, there is nothing for Prof. Turley to be outraged about other than your insulting insinuation about his integrity.

  17. I hope someone in this thing seeks sanctions. I am tired of politicians abusing the Court system (on the heels of Biden’s unconstitutional eviction moratorium extension knowing that it will take a while to wind through the Courts) for which there is no accountability.

  18. Oh the hypocrisy here of these blue pilled leftist demorat heathen is legend !!!!. I hope they run DNC coffers dry with their expensive vacation partisan antics.

  19. If Rule 3.1 was enforced half the lawyers in this country would be in trouble.

  20. Typical Lefties.

    Ignorant, emotional, and wrong.

    But they are being presented as poster children for the “Democrat resistance”.

    Great!

    If you folks want to be represented by these bozos, go for it.

    1. We live in serious times. We are being carefully watched by our enemies from every part of the world. There are many people hurting. This show of sophomoric irresponsibility is shameful. Serious times require sober and serious effort with fresh and responsible ideas.

      How embarrassing!! Go home and do your job. What would your parents or grandparents say about you avoiding your duties? What kind of example are you setting for your children and grandchildren. You look ridiculous!

Comments are closed.