Texas House showdown over walkouts reflects a deeper divide

We’ve all heard the cliché about a glass being half full or half empty. At the Texas Capitol, though, Republicans and Democrats aren’t even looking at the same glass. One side swears it’s a soup can, the other insists it’s a plastic jug. And instead of water, they argue whether it holds apple cider, prune juice or kerosene.

The latest proof came in last week’s late-night debate of proposed new House rules to stiffen fines for breaking quorum and strip future quorum breakers of their seniority in the chamber (and the perks that come with it). The floor fight had been brewing for nearly a month and finally came to a head in the final hours before the second legislative special session of the year was gaveled to a close.

Your complete digital subscription: 6 months for 99¢. Access news and more.

Your complete digital subscription: 6 months for 99¢. Access news and more.

ACT NOW

The House Chamber at the Capitol in Austin, Friday, Aug. 15, 2025, shortly before the session began. A quorum was not present after most Democratic state representatives left Texas to break quorum and block a vote on a Republican plan for Congressional redistricting.
Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman

We'll start with the Democrats because they're the ones who broke quorum in the House by flying off to Chicago in early August in a Hail Mary bid to derail a Republican-backed congressional redistricting bill designed to give the GOP more clout in Washington. The Democrats argued that they had not only the right, but the duty, to stop the House from advancing the measure on the grounds that it would disenfranchise Texans of color.

Their rationale was that because the Texas Constitution requires two-thirds of the members in each chamber to be present to act on legislation, the founders surely realized that the other one-third was free to simply not show up if they didn't like what the majority was about to do.

Republicans were buying none of that. They noted that the Constitution is pretty much silent on whether there's such a right, but it's loud and clear on the House's right to compel attendance during legislative sessions.

"We heard a lot about the constitutional right to break quorum. There is no constitutional right to break quorum," argued Republican Rep. Cody Vasut of Angleton, who authored the rule change. "You cannot have a constitutional right if in the same (section of the Constitution) there is a penalty for exercising it."

Democratic Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins of San Antonio, who chairs the House Black Caucus, took umbrage at the notion quorum-breakers could be punished at all. She said the punishment measures under consideration would treat her and her Democratic colleagues who remained out of state for 15 days as if they were children at best, and as "runaway slaves" at worst.

"Let America know that democracy is under attack," said Gervin-Hawkins, her voice rising as she addressed the House. And she scoffed at the notion that she and the other absent Democrats had been shirking their duty by leaving the state during a legislative session.

"We were working every day, and talking to our constituents," she said. "We were working every day trying to save democracy. We were working every day to make sure people saw what was happening in this Texas House under a rigged, gerrymandering map (drawing)."

Republican Rep. Brett Money of Greenville said that if any legislative work was being done, it should have been done in Texas.

"Every day you were working in Chicago or New York or California, or wherever, we were here as called by the governor, as required by the Constitution to do the will of the people of Texas," Money told Gervin-Hawins.

Vasut noted that the House first adopted quorum-breaking penalties after Democrats fled to Washington in 2021 as they tried to kill legislation governing procedures for casting ballots each election day. And, he noted, those penalties proved far too weak. He made little secret that his rule change, which was adopted later in the evening on a party line vote, was intended to take quorum-busting as a legislative tactic off the table once and for all.

The heftier penalties could give cover to members who are being pressured by "outside influences" — meaning political donors and Democratic insiders — to break quorum. Such members could simply say the personal or political cost would be too high.

"I think these penalties are reasonable," Vasut said. "I think they're strong to help deter a future quorum break. I hope that the availability of these penalties will give the members of both parties, in whatever circumstances they find themselves in, the ability to resist outside influences that would seek them to break quorum."

Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie, who lead the House Democrats during the 2021 quorum break, couldn't resist poking back at Vasut's reference to forces outside of Texas seeking to influence the actions of Texas' elected officials.

"Something really struck me when (Vasut) talked about how the purpose of the resolution was to protect the House against 'outside influences,'" Turner said. "May I remind Chairman Vasut, and all of you, this whole thing started because of an outside influence named Donald J. Trump. Lest you forget, President Trump picked up the phone. He called Governor Abbott, said, 'Governor, I need five new seats in Texas.'

"That's how this started. An outside influence."

Stories you won't want to miss, handpicked by Statesman editors.

Sep 7, 2025