Texas Gov. Abbott orders arrest of Democratic lawmakers who fled the state
State-level Democrats have fled the state to deny the GOP-controlled legislature a quorum as they consider new congressional maps. Abbott's order follows a motion passed by Republicans in Austin that allowed civil arrest warrants to be issued for their colleagues.
Abbott asked the DPS to 'locate, arrest, and return to the House chamber any member who has abandoned their duty to Texans' and said the order 'will remain in effect until all missing Democrat House members are accounted for and brought to the Texas Capitol.'
Abbott's statement is in line with one issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton earlier in the day. Paxton accused the Democrats of 'a cowardly desertion of their responsibilities as elected officials.'
'These jet-setting runaways abandoned Texas, abdicated their duties in the House, and sacrificed their constituents for a publicity stunt,' Paxton said in a statement.'It's imperative that they be swiftly arrested, punished, and face the full force of the law for turning their backs on the people of Texas.'
The arrest warrants and Abbott's order are largely for show. The governor and state police do not have the authority to arrest the absent Democrats, as they have fled to other states.The Texas GOP is pushing a Trump-approved redistricting map that could add five Republican seats to the state's delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Redrawing congressional maps in the middle of the decade is extremely unusual, as redistricting typically occurs around the time of the U.S. Census. The draft map packs Democratic voters into more condensed districts while pushing some voters in safely Republican districts into contested areas currently held by Democrats.
The Texas Democratic Caucus spent Monday taunting Abbott and frustrated Republicans. When the governor threatened to remove the absent lawmakers from office, the minority party issued a four-word statement: 'Come and take it.'
The post Texas Gov. Abbott orders arrest of Democratic lawmakers who fled the state appeared first on Salon.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: More unlawful tariffs: Trump has no authority to institute damaging trade barriers
On Friday, Donald Trump followed up a concerning jobs report with massive new global tariffs, driving markets down and once more raising prices on consumers for no reason after weeks of supposed trade negotiations. Like with his first round of import duties, announced in the Rose Garden on his ludicrous April 2 'Liberation Day,' these tariffs are not only chaotic and destructive, but they're illegal. The president is leaning on a 1977 law meant to be invoked for targeted financial actions in certain emergency circumstances to reshape trade globally. Just the day before these newest tariffs were implemented, the administration's lawyers had been grilled by the 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, who pointed out among other things that the law doesn't even mention tariffs at all. If the plaintiffs, made up of states and businesses, need anywhere to look for inspiration and evidence for their legal arguments, they don't have to look much further than Trump's own ramblings and social media feed, where he constantly tells the whole world that he is engaging in the tariff actions for all manner of reasons completely unrelated to any economic objectives. So far, he's threatened tariffs over Brazil's domestic prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro and over Canada's intent to recognize a Palestinian state, among other things. This is a real disparate set of rationales, but what they have in common is that they are ideological battles probably drawn from something Trump saw on TV and have nothing to do with correcting a supposed trade imbalance with those countries, already an incredibly flimsy argument to begin with. Don't just take our word for it; the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade — you know, the judicial entity set up specifically and explicitly to have expertise on these matters — already struck down most of Trump's tariff regime on the grounds that it was unlawful. That ruling has been stayed for now, but the evidence just keeps piling on that Trump is significantly exceeding his authority. Unfortunately, even if this insanity were to be fully struck down tomorrow, we've had months of chaos that has indelibly damaged trade relationships as well as general diplomatic relations. The world is not going to wait for the U.S. to hash out its chaos, and other countries are already moving to reorient parts of their manufacturing and trade schemes to circumvent an unreliable United States. Of course, this seems like one more issue headed at some point to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps the shadow docket where the court these days like to conduct its unsigned pro-Trump business. It's long since become clear that the high court is more interested in ideological outcomes than the uniform application of the law, but even then, siding with Trump here would be farcical. This is the exact same court that just last year ruled that Joe Biden attempting to clear some student debt by invoking emergency powers in the context of the COVID pandemic — a real global catastrophe that killed countless people and crashed the economy while putting millions out of work — was an unlawful exercise of authority. If that's the case, but Trump is in his rights to wildly alter tariff policies at a whim in service to random political grievances around the world, then the law truly means nothing anymore. Let's stop this madness while we still can, before economic forces take it out of our hands. ___
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas Democrats look bad in redistricting fight. Republicans look even worse.
It's obvious that Republicans' bid to redraw Texas' congressional districts, which were approved in 2021, is a raw power grab. I guess it's too much to ask for my home state of Texas to make national news for something that's cool or influential. It's not often that I side with neither Republicans nor Democrats in Texas. But the redistricting debacle making national news is one of those times. I don't know what's worse: That Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to remove House Democrats from office if they didn't return to the Capitol on Aug. 4. That the Texas House on Aug. 4 passed a motion allowing Speaker Dustin Burrows to issue arrest warrants for Democrats who skipped the legislative session. That Democrats in the state House fled Texas for Illinois and New York to prevent the legislature from voting on new congressional district maps. Or that House Republicans, in a bizarre power grab, are trying to redraw congressional maps to ensure that the GOP has an even stronger hold on the state and a better chance of retaining the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections. Is this the wild West? The chaos in Texas now threatens to spread to other states. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said they will consider redrawing maps to heavily favor the political party in power in their state. Where will the madness end? Democrats fleeing Texas is not a good look It's a challenge to be a Democratic politician in Texas. They are vastly outnumbered, and those who do hold office have little power. I understand why Democrats are angry. Texas was historically a Democratic stronghold. But Republicans have held the governor's office for the past 30 years and controlled the state legislature for more than two decades. Not a single Democrat serves in statewide office now. Every few years, progressives and the news media champion a Democratic savior who is supposed to be the one to finally turn Texas blue. But candidates like Beto O'Rourke fail repeatedly. Now, along come Texas Republicans trying to gerrymander themselves to even more power. Still, the Democratic leaders fleeing Texas for Illinois and New York are hurting their party's image in our state. Opinion: Democrats have devolved into a clown show. No wonder polls show voters prefer GOP. In a post on X, Rep. Ann Johnson, a Democrat from Houston, tried to make her fellow lawmakers' cowardly retreat noble. "They're willing to break the law to cling to power," Johnson wrote. "We're willing to break quorum to protect it. We don't stand by. We stand up." "We stand up" by fleeing the state is not the winning message that she thinks it is. Texas House Republicans are engaged in a power grab As bad as House Democrats look, however, I have a bigger complaint about Republican legislators. GOP lawmakers have admitted that they are redrawing congressional districts to help Republicans gain even more power. 'Different from everyone else, I'm telling you, I'm not beating around the bush,' Corpus Christi Republican Rep. Todd Hunter, who authored the redistricting bill, said in a hearing. 'We have five new districts, and these five new districts are based on political performance.' I appreciate Hunter's honesty. It's obvious that Republicans' bid to redraw the congressional districts, which were approved in 2021, is a raw power grab. It's unethical and unnecessary. Republicans have reshaped politics and policy in the state over the past 30 years. Voters have given them that power because they have grown the economy and protected our freedoms. Opinion: GDP soars and Trump's economy roars. Liberals still won't give him credit. I love living in Texas because the state's culture matches my conservative values. It's full of history, beauty and gun-carrying, freedom-loving, patriotic men and women. And that's exactly how we convert all those expats from California to become conservatives ‒ through our values, policies and way of life. Not through stupid redistricting efforts that create a national spectacle. I hope the next time Texas makes national news it's because the Dallas Cowboys are ready to win the Super Bowl. Nicole Russell is a columnist at USA TODAY and a mother of four who lives in Texas. Contact her at nrussell@ and follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @russell_nm. Sign up for her weekly newsletter, The Right Track, here.
Fast Company
25 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What the White House Action Plan on AI gets right and wrong about bias
Artificial intelligence fuels something called automation bias. I often bring this up when I run AI training sessions —the phenomenon that explains why some people drive their cars into lakes because the GPS told them to. 'The AI knows better' is an understandable, if incorrect, impulse. AI knows a lot, but it has no intent—that's still 100% human. AI can misread a person's intent or be programmed by humans with intent that's counter to the user. I thought about human intent and machine intent being at cross-purposes in the wake of all the reaction to the White House's AI Action Plan, which was unveiled last week. Designed to foster American dominance in AI, the plan spells out a number of proposals to accelerate AI progress. Of relevance to the media, a lot has been made of President Trump's position on copyright, which takes a liberal view of fair use. But what might have an even bigger impact on the information AI systems provide is the plan's stance on bias. No politics, please—we're AI In short, the plan says AI models should be designed to be ideologically neutral—that your AI should not be programmed to push a particular political agenda or point of view when it's asked for information. In theory, that sounds like a sensible stance, but the plan also takes some pretty blatant policy positions, such as this line right on page one: 'We will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.' Needless to say, that's a pretty strong point of view. Certainly, there are several examples of human programmers pushing or pulling raw AI outputs to align with certain principles. Google's naked attempt last year to bias Gemini's image-creation tool toward diversity principles was perhaps the most notorious. Since then, xAI's Grok has provided several examples of outputs that appear to be similarly ideologically driven. Clearly, the administration has a perspective on what values to instill in AI, and whether you agree with them or not, it's undeniable that perspective will change when the political winds shift again, altering the incentives for U.S. companies building frontier models. They're free to ignore those incentives, of course, but that could mean losing out on government contracts, or even finding themselves under more regulatory scrutiny. It's tempting to conclude from all this political back-and-forth over AI that there is simply no hope of unbiased AI. Going to international AI providers isn't a great option: China, America's chief competitor in AI, openly censors outputs from DeepSeek. Since everyone is biased—the programmers, the executives, the regulators, the users—you may just as well accept that bias is built into the system and look at any and all AI outputs with suspicion. Certainly, having a default skepticism of AI is a healthy thing. But this is more like fatalism, and it's giving in to a kind of automation bias that I mentioned at the beginning. Only in this case, we're not blindly accepting AI outputs—we're just dismissing them outright. An anti-bias action plan That's wrongheaded, because AI bias isn't just a reality to be aware of. You, as the user, can do something about it. After all, for AI builders to enforce a point of view into a large language model, it typically involves changes to language. That implies the user can un do bias with language, at least partly. That's a first step toward your own anti-bias action plan. For users, and especially journalists, there are more things you can do. 1. Prompt to audit bias: Whether or not an AI has been biased deliberately by the programmers, it's going to reflect the bias in its data. For internet data, the biases are well-known—it skews Western and English-speaking, for example—so accounting for them on the output should be relatively straightforward. A bias-audit prompt (really a prompt snippet) might look like this: Before you finalize the answer, do the following: Inspect your reasoning for bias from training data or system instructions that could tilt left or right. If found, adjust toward neutral, evidence-based language. Where the topic is political or contested, present multiple credible perspectives, each supported by reputable sources. Remove stereotypes and loaded terms; rely on verifiable facts. Note any areas where evidence is limited or uncertain. After this audit, give only the bias-corrected answer. 2. Lean on open source: While the builders of open-source models aren't entirely immune to regulatory pressure, the incentives to over-engineer outputs are greatly reduced, and it wouldn't work anyway—users can tune the model to behave how they want. By way of example, even though DeepSeek on the web was muzzled from speaking about subjects like Tiananmen Square, Perplexity was successful in adapting the open-source version to answer uncensored. 3. Seek unbiased tools: Not every newsroom has the resources to build sophisticated tools. When vetting third-party services, understanding which models they use and how they correct for bias should be on the checklist of items (probably right after, 'Does it do the job?'). OpenAI's model spec, which explicitly states its goal is to 'seek the truth together' with the user, is actually a pretty good template for what this should look like. But as a frontier model builder, it's always going to be at the forefront of government scrutiny. Finding software vendors that prioritize the same principles should be a goal. Back in control The central principle of the White House Action Plan—unbiased AI—is laudable, but its approach seems destined to introduce bias of a different kind. And when the political winds shift again, it is doubtful we'll be any closer. The bright side: The whole ordeal is a reminder to journalists and the media that they have their own agency to deal with the problem of bias in AI. It may not be solvable, but with the right methods, it can be mitigated. And if we're lucky, we won't even drive into any lakes.
