Democrats leave Texas to prevent Republicans redistricting map backed by Trump
The Texas Republicans unveiled the new congressional map earlier this week which had the districts of the state redrawn in order to help the Republicans preserve the party's slim majority in the US House of Representatives.
The 150-member Texas House requires at least two-thirds of the members to be present in order to conduct the voting. However, 51 Democratic leaders left for Chicago, denying Republicans the required number for the quorum to hold a vote.
The Democratic lawmakers have reportedly said they would steer away from the state for at least two weeks until the end of a special legislative session convened by Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott for the voting.
Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.
We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law.
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) August 3, 2025
The redistricting of the Texas state legislature, if passed, would potentially remove five Democratic seats in the House of Representatives ahead of the mid term elections in 2026, which could aid the Republicans to hold on to their slim majority in the house.
Texas state legislator and chairman of the Democratic caucus Gene Wu criticised the move by Republicans to hold a vote on redistricting and said 'We're not walking out on our responsibilities. We're walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent,' BBC reported.
Texas' attorney general and a potential candidate for US Senate, Ken Paxton, said on Sunday evening that 'Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.'
Texas Republicans, while defending their move, have argued that redistricting is required over concerns that the current maps unconstitutional and racially gerrymandered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
3 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
Synopsis Donald Trump claimed significant drug price cuts, even up to 1500%. Experts refute this, stating such cuts are impossible. They suggest it would mean people are paid to take medicine. The White House defended Trump, citing price differences with other nations. Trump also mentioned future price drops. Some drugmakers are open to cuts. AP Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a "most favored nation" pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: "You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 - 1,500%." THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim "total fiction" made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. "I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter," said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is "really hard to follow." Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: "It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people." The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. "So we'll be dropping drug prices," he said. "It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%." Prices for most prescription drugs - unbranded generics are the exception - are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what - if any - impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. "My expectation would be that they would make announcements - public announcements - and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect," she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. "Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever," he said. "And let alone 1,500."
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
Global markets today: Nikkei 225, Kospi rises after Trump increases tariffs on Indian exports
Global markets today: Asian markets moved higher after U.S. President Donald Trump revealed intentions to sharply increase tariffs on Indian exports to the U.S. Trump announced on Monday that he plans to significantly increase tariffs on Indian goods in response to India's imports of Russian oil. In turn, New Delhi described the U.S. president's move as 'unjustified' and stated it would take steps to protect its interests. 'India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits,' Trump wrote on the social media platform Truth Social. Japan's Nikkei 225 advanced by 0.54 per cent, and the Topix edged up 0.45 per cent. South Korea's Kospi climbed 1.77 per cent, while the Kosdaq, focused on small-cap stocks, rose 1.83 per cent. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 also registered a gain of 0.84 per cent. On Monday, all three major U.S. stock indexes posted their biggest single-day percentage gains since May 27, as investors looked for buying opportunities following the previous session's selloff and increased expectations of a September interest rate cut due to weaker-than-anticipated jobs data released on Friday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by 585.06 points, or 1.34 per cent, to close at 44,173.64. The S&P 500 advanced 91.93 points, or 1.47 per cent, to 6,329.94, while the Nasdaq Composite surged 403.45 points, or 1.95 per cent, finishing at 21,053.58. The second-quarter U.S. earnings season is nearing its end, but investors are still anticipating key reports this week from companies such as Walt Disney, opens new tab. Tesla shares climbed 2.2 per cent after the electric car company awarded CEO Elon Musk 96 million shares, valued at approximately $29 billion. (With inputs from agencies) Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, not Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Time of India
5 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump says he doesn't trust the jobs data, but Wall Street and economists do
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were "RIGGED" to make him and other Republicans "look bad." Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large - the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the that hasn't led most economists to doubt them."The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable," Omair Sharif , founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this Boushey , a top economic adviser in the Biden White House , noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy."We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. "Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market."Here are some things to know about the jobs report:Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says "it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid."The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers - when they are are the figures Trump is attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to "boost" Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory," yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately).Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations - including multiple locations for the same business - covering about one-third of all the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest - outside recessions - since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC 's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and said, "What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers."Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: "When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed."Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation.U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association "We are at an inflection point," the report said. "To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future.
