“Abbott’s bid to expel the House Democratic leader goes to a court filled with his appointees” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Texas Democrats had been out of state for less than 48 hours when Gov. Greg Abbott moved to have their seats declared vacant.

The emergency legal filing represents an unprecedented escalation of Abbott’s effort to pass a new congressional map that adds additional GOP seats, as demanded by President Donald Trump. It flies in the face of Texas’ own founding documents, centuries of legal precedent and a recent Supreme Court of Texas ruling, legal experts say.

Even Attorney General Ken Paxton, a fellow Republican, threw cold water on Abbott’s strategy, filing his own brief saying that while he “appreciates the Governor’s passion,” he does not have the authority to bring this type of case.

But just because legal precedent is not on his side doesn’t mean Abbott’s case is doomed. The long-shot filing is before the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, where Abbott has appointed six of nine justices. Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock was Abbott’s former general counsel, as was Justice James Sullivan.

“They have their own independent authority, of course, but it does put them in a tough political position,” said Andrew Cates, an Austin-based attorney and expert on Texas ethics law. “They don’t want to be in the position of potentially biting the hand that initially fed them.”

Abbott’s petition specifically targets Rep. Gene Wu, the House Democratic leader, serving as a test case that could eventually allow him to remove every member who left the state. Abbott asked the court to rule by Thursday; the justices gave Wu until the end of the day Friday to respond.

It is hard to argue that leaving the state to deny the Legislature a quorum is equivalent to abandoning an office, legal experts say. Texas’ constitution sets an intentionally high threshold for quorum — two-thirds of the chamber, compared to half in most other states — in an effort to limit the majority’s complete authority. And centuries of quorum breaks, both in Texas and other states, have resulted in expulsion only once, during the colonial era, when members of the New Jersey assembly, upon regaining quorum, voted to remove their peers who stayed away.

“The law allows for consequences, like arrests and fines, to entice the members back,” said Charles “Rocky” Rhodes, a constitutional law expert at the University of Missouri law school. “If they wanted to say you lose your office, they could have put that in there, but they didn’t.”

Dereliction or duty?

Dozens of Democrats left the state Sunday afternoon, heading for Illinois, New York and Massachusetts, announcing their intent to deny the House the quorum it needs to pass legislation. A total of 57 Democrats were absent when the House gaveled in the next day, leaving the chamber shy of the 100-member threshold.

“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,” Wu said in a statement as the Democrats prepared to depart. “As of today, this corrupt special session is over.”

There have been just 15 legislative walkouts nationwide since 1924, almost all in the four states that require the presence of two-thirds of legislators to conduct business, according to Ballotpedia.

Texas is one of these high-threshold states. A two-thirds quorum has been required by the Texas Constitution since 1845, an uncontroversial proposal for a people who have “long been suspicious of their government and desirous of limiting its powers,” said Texas constitutional historian Bill Chriss.

The framers of the Texas Constitution imagined that there might come a day when members declined to attend in protest, writing that legislators were empowered to “compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.”

Democrats most recently decamped in 2021 to stop a GOP voting bill, nearly two decades after fleeing to block a similar mid-decade redistricting effort. In both cases, Republicans issued arrest warrants and sent state troopers to look for the missing lawmakers, although since they had left the state, these measures had little effect.

In 2021, when Democrats sued to challenge the arrest warrants, Blacklock authored an opinion affirming that the Texas Constitution explicitly “enables ‘quorum-breaking’ by a minority faction of the Legislature.”

The constitution also allows “quorum-forcing,” Blacklock said, adding that each chamber could decide for itself how to entice members back to work. The next session, the House voted to add a $500-a-day fine for unexcused absences.

Nowhere in that argument does it say that a quorum break constitutes the abandonment of office needed to remove them from their post, Rhodes said. But that’s exactly what the governor argued in his petition.

“Longstanding precedent recognizes that deliberate abandonment of office constitutes a forfeiture of that office,” Abbott wrote in the filing. “Indefinite removal to another state for purposes of avoiding the constitutional requirement that [legislators] ‘shall meet’ likewise vacates the office.”

For a legislator to have abandoned their office, they must have failed to perform their duties and expressed their intent to abandon the position. In the filing, Abbott said the court can infer from Wu’s conduct that he intended to relinquish his office.

“Wu has expressed his intention to abandon the office three times over — with no end in sight — by openly acknowledging his abandonment of his official duties, accepting compensation and other benefits to abandon those duties, and fleeing the sovereign territory he purports to represent,” Abbott wrote.

Jim Dunnam, a Waco attorney and former state lawmaker, said that was an outlandish interpretation of the law. Dunnam led the Democrats on their 2003 quorum break; Republicans called them chickens and sent the state troopers after them, but there was never any talk about declaring their seats vacant, he said.

“If the Supreme Court is going to follow the law, there’s no problem here, because these people have not abandoned their office,” Dunnam said. “They’re doing exactly what they were elected to do.”

Abbott, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and attorney general, should know that this argument stretches the law beyond the breaking point, Dunnam said.

“I would say this whole thing is a joke, but for the pressure we’ve seen that Trump has been able to exercise across the nation, and certainly among Texas Republicans,” he said.

On whose authority?

As the head of the executive branch, Abbott’s ability to remove a duly elected state representative is limited by the state Constitution’s separation of powers clause.

So he’s trying a unique legal mechanism, called a quo warranto petition, that allows state officials to try to oust an officeholder who has abandoned their office.

State law says this type of action must be filed in district court by the attorney general or a county or district attorney. Paxton alluded to this as a potential roadblock to removing quorum-breakers, telling conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that they’d have to file individual lawsuits in each member’s district, many of which are in counties where Democrats dominate the bench.

“We’d have to go through a court process, and we’d have to file that maybe in districts that are not friendly to Republicans,” Paxton said. “So it’s a challenge because every district would be different.”

Abbott’s petition seeks to sidestep all of that and go directly to the Texas Supreme Court. In a recent unrelated ruling, the high court said it had reviewed direct quo warranto petitions “on only a few occasions, always denying the writ when we have done so.”

Paxton weighed in Tuesday, sending a letter to the court saying only his office or a local prosecutor can bring this type of legal action. He has vowed to do so if the Democrats do not return to the chamber by Friday.

Abbott countered, saying he was bringing his petition under a different authority than Paxton’s and asking the court to rule before Friday. The justices have not yet weighed in on the petition or the infighting.

The nuances of the quo warranto petition may provide the justices with a procedural off-ramp, allowing them to dismiss the challenge on these technical grounds without getting into the more politically charged merits of the case, Cates said.

“But I don’t think we’ve ever had such exigent circumstances where the governor is the one that is asking, and there’s a ticking clock, a special session, congressional maps and all that,” he said. “So there’s maybe a first time for everything.”

If the Texas Supreme Court were to find that these members have abandoned their offices, Abbott would have to call a special election to fill the seats. They are likely to be replaced by similarly aligned candidates, considering the political makeup of those districts, which Abbott knows, Cates said.

“I think this is going to be a long, drawn-out court fight, and I think every side knows it,” Cates said. My guess is that this is more about a scare tactic to try and win a war of attrition to bring back scared members that were on the fence, and try to trickle their way into quorum.”

The lineup for The Texas Tribune Festival continues to grow! Be there when all-star leaders, innovators and newsmakers take the stage in downtown Austin, Nov. 13–15. The newest additions include comedian, actor and writer John Mulaney; Dallas mayor Eric Johnson; U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota; New York Media Editor-at-Large Kara Swisher; and U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso. Get your tickets today!

TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/07/greg-abbott-texas-democrats-quorum-break-supreme-court-removal/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The post Abbott appointed justices who will weigh House expulsion bid appeared first on feeds.texastribune.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The article presents a critical perspective on Governor Greg Abbott’s legal efforts to remove Democratic legislators who fled the state to break quorum. It emphasizes legal experts’ views that Abbott’s petition stretches constitutional interpretations and highlights internal Republican disagreements, including skepticism from Attorney General Ken Paxton. The tone frames the Democrats’ actions as a response to a “rigged system” while portraying Abbott’s moves as politically motivated and aligned with GOP interests, particularly those of former President Trump. Overall, the piece leans toward a center-left viewpoint by scrutinizing Republican actions more than Democratic ones, though it includes multiple viewpoints and factual context.

SUMMARY: The City of Austin is advancing Phase 2 of the Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center (ESB MACC) project, which began construction in August 2023 near Lady Bird Lake. Dedicated to preserving and promoting Mexican American and Latino arts and heritage, the center aims for substantial completion by late summer 2025, with a grand reopening planned for November 1. Progress includes installing classroom partitions, cabinetry, windows, and doors, with ongoing work on paving, landscaping, and lighting. Nearby, the Confluence project has increased traffic and trail detours around the center, prompting the city to advise caution in the area.

Read the full article

The post City provides update on construction of Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center appeared first on www.kxan.com

Just across the Texas border, in cities like Reynosa and Nuevo Laredo, criminal networks are strengthening their hold on drug routes despite increased enforcement efforts by the United States and Mexico. 

Rather than rely on individual smugglers crossing unmanned sections of the border, cartels specializing in fentanyl and other synthetic drugs use legal ports of entry, commercial vehicles, and digital payment systems to move drugs and launder profits with less risk, according to federal drug enforcement data and Texas Observer interviews with experts on cartel operations.

The tactics may be more modern, but the result is the same. Criminal networks are adapting faster than government policy. The drug war is less centered on tunnels or border fences and more on encrypted communication, synthetic chemicals, and financial systems that remain poorly regulated. Despite billions spent on enforcement, U.S. efforts often fail to match the pace of complexity of the trade, Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, co-director of the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TraCCC) at George Mason University told the Observer.

“To sell more products, you have to go online,” Correa-Cabrera said. “And you keep anonymity by going online.”

She emphasized that many dealers are not Mexican cartel bosses, but United States-based players using American platforms. “They specialize. Some people produce. Some transport. Others connect dealers with larger distributors. That’s what’s missing from the public’s understanding.”

In February 2025, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum deployed more than 10,000 soldiers to her country’s northern border under Operación Frontera Norte in response to tariff threats by the Trump administration. Officials announced a sweeping crackdown to stem the flow of fentanyl into the United States. By June, Mexican authorities had reported seizing nearly 70,000 pounds of drugs, including 392 pounds of fentanyl.

Sheinbaum hailed the operation’s success in recent press conferences. “The reduction of fentanyl, or the passage of fentanyl from Mexico to the United States has fallen in a very dramatic way. Since Trump entered government to the present, the reduction is about 40 percent,” she said in June. 

Administration officials at the Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failed to respond to requests for comment from the Medill News Service and the Texas Observer on those numbers.

But Correa-Cabrera questioned the effectiveness of such deployments. “We don’t really know if it’s really working,” she said. “When you use the military or police to enforce drug policy, they often become involved themselves.

In the past, large-scale narcotics enforcement focused on plant-based drugs like cocaine, heroin, and marijuana—substances that all require space, time, and risk to grow, dry, pack, and transport. Fentanyl changed that.

Just two milligrams of fentanyl can be fatal. One year’s supply of fentanyl for the entire U.S. market can fit in less than three pickup trucks. This makes fentanyl more difficult to track than other drugs.

Neither government is going after the roots of the synthetic drug problems, Correa-Cabrera said. “The U.S. and Mexican governments keep going after cartel members instead of dismantling the full networks—the financial flows, arms trafficking, addiction, corruption,” Correa-Cabrera added. “

In the Mexican state of Sinaloa, the historical epicenter of synthetic drug production, fragmentation of leadership within the Sinaloa Cartel has disrupted how the group functions. The sons of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, known as Los Chapitos, have come under pressure from rival factions and government raids. What was once a consolidated industrial drug empire is now fracturing into competing fiefdoms.

Border experts say this disruption has prompted a broader shift, as powerful groups take or retake control of key corridors and push out smaller traffickers through violence, extortion, or forced cooperation.

Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG)—Sinaloa’s top rival—has capitalized on the chaos. DEA reports indicate that CJNG now controls major seaports in Mexico and has built a robust supply chain into U.S. cities including Los Angeles, Houston, and Atlanta. At the same time, dozens of smaller groups have formed regional alliances or branched off to run micro-operations.

“The narrative has overly focused on cartels as these very solid structures,” said Victoria Dittmar, an investigative journalist with InSight Crime. “What we need to understand is that these structures are more fluid and very adaptable.”

Adam Isacson is director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, an organization that advocates for U.S. and regional policies that strengthen institutions’ ability to protect people facing insecurity, corruption, and violence, including those impacted by transnational criminal organizations and the illicit drug trade. While he knows about

about Mexico’s announcements about major drug seizures, he says those efforts haven’t really slowed the overall drug flow across the border.

“Looking at 2024 to now, we’re not seeing a major change in drug seizure patterns anywhere along the border,” Isacson said in an interview. Drug traffickers appear to have adapted, including in how they get drugs across the border, he added. “You don’t send a migrant who you don’t even know or trust with a backpack full of something very small and very high-value, like fentanyl.”

Instead, cartels rely on vehicles, and often U.S. citizens, to carry the product through official ports of entry. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, more than 80 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at vehicle crossings. That’s not the terrain where most Border Patrol officers are stationed. “That is more of a job not for Border Patrol, but for the guys in the blue uniforms who are sitting in the booths all day and inspect cars,” Isacson added.

Despite evidence that most smuggling happens through legal crossings, the Trump administration has responded with a sweeping political maneuver: a January 2025 executive order designating several Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.That move places them in the same legal category as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and it also authorizes broader surveillance, asset seizure, and use of military intelligence assets against major cartel groups.

The U.S. Coast Guard has already stepped up its operations at sea in response. “The Coast Guard has surged assets and tripled our operational presence to continue to secure America’s maritime borders, territorial integrity, and sovereignty,” said Lieutenant Commander Steve Roth, Chief of Media Relations for the U.S. Coast Guard in an email statement to the Observer and the Medill News Service.

Admiral Kevin Lunday, acting commandant of the Coast Guard, said in the same statement, “As illegal crossings and smuggling become harder across the southwest land border, cartels may try different routes.” He added, “Our message to the cartels is this: ‘We own the sea, not you. We will find you out there, and we will take you down before you reach our border.’”

But critics argue that the move to label cartels as terrorist organizations is inaccurate and dangerous.

Oswaldo Zavala, a professor of Latin American studies at the City University of New York and author of Drug Cartels Do Not Exist, sees the designation as a political branding exercise that risks deepening conflict without addressing root causes.

“We focus on Mexico because there’s a political motivator to do so,” he said. “It’s a vicious cycle that increases spending at the U.S.–Mexico border. It criminalizes just Mexico.”

He warned that the policy is already shaping discourse in Mexico, with unintended consequences. “This mobilizes new aggressive military policies,” Zavala said. “It has permitted the debate in Mexico because now we have people on the right in Mexico pushing for the same agenda of thinking of cartels as narco-terrorist organizations.”

Ultimately, Zavala argued, the most urgent failures are domestic. “If we’re really honest about understanding and fighting criminality at this level,” Zavala added, “the U.S. needs to look at its own institutions, its own corruption, and its own process for facilitating this.”

Some experts argue the real battle lies much farther south than the Texas-Mexico border. Isacson, for one, argues that whatever is done “at the northern border is too late,” Isacson said. “It’s all for show, to be seen in a visible way.”

“If you’re really trying to do interdiction, you’d be working on the [Mexican] ports of entry with the precursor chemicals coming in … and you’d be working on other road checkpoints and known corridors further south, closer to the labs, rather than just 20 miles from the [U.S.] border,” he said.

Much of the fentanyl production pipeline is far away from the U.S.-Mexico border. China plays a critical role as a supplier of precursor chemicals used by cartels to manufacture synthetic opioids.

According to a February 2025 White House proclamation, the Chinese Communist Party has “failed to meaningfully curb” the export of precursor chemicals despite years of international pressure. The United States has since imposed duties on certain Chinese goods to address what it describes as systemic support of this supply chain. In August 2024, ICE announced the indictment of Xuening Gao and two other senior leaders of Hubei Aoks Bio‑Tech Co., a Chinese chemical manufacturer.

The company was charged with knowingly producing and distributing the chemical building blocks used to manufacture fentanyl in Mexico. Investigators found that Hubei Aoks openly marketed its fentanyl precursors online and shipped mislabeled products to Mexico to evade law enforcement. ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations and the DEA linked the company directly to Mexican labs affiliated with transnational criminal networks.

Reporting by NPR has shown that Chinese chemical companies often exploit legal gray zones and loosely regulated supply chains to ship massive quantities of precursor materials across the Pacific. Once in Mexico, these chemicals are refined into fentanyl and distributed across the United States with relative ease.

This offshore manufacturing and transport network has made it difficult for both Mexican and U.S. authorities to contain production. It also underscores the limitations of policies that focus more on terrestrial border enforcement.

Meanwhile, overdoses continue. According to the CDC and DEA, nearly 75,000 people died of synthetic opioid overdoses in 2023. 

Jaime Puerta, a California-based Marine Corps veteran and founder of VOID (Victims of Illicit Drugs), lost his son Daniel in 2020 to a counterfeit pill sold on Snapchat. Daniel, who also lived in California, thought he was taking a pharmaceutical painkiller. It was laced with fentanyl. “Due to the drastic reduction of illicit fentanyl coming in a pill form through the border, the cartels are sending in the actual powder, and the pills are being produced here in the United States,” Puerta said.

Puerta and other advocates have pushed for tougher federal laws on precursor chemicals and greater liability for social media platforms used to advertise and sell fentanyl.

Once drugs are sold, proceeds must be moved, and cartels have adopted more sophisticated methods of hiding their assets. According to a June 2024 advisory from FinCEN, traffickers increasingly use Chinese underground banking networks, shell companies, and cryptocurrency platforms to hide revenue.

For example, a trafficker in McAllen can sell fentanyl pills locally, use a digital payment system to route funds through a fake import/export business, and have the money reappear in Mexico or China the next day. U.S. law enforcement rarely intercepts it.

The DEA has launched multiple operations targeting digital laundering, including Operation Last Mile in 2023, which identified over 1,100 social media-linked distribution networks operating across all 50 states. But it’s unclear if that effort has been sustained. 

And fentanyl isn’t everything. Xylazine, a veterinary sedative, now appears in over half of the fentanyl samples seized in U.S. cities, complicating overdose treatment and tracking efforts.

Isacson warns the U.S. is at risk of repeating its mistakes. “There was a shift between 2017 and 2018 from heroin and cocaine to fentanyl during the first Trump administration,” he said. “The DEA was not paying attention and had no motivation to get new machinery installed to detect the small doses of drugs.”

He fears something similar may now be happening with Xylazine. “They missed the mark then and could miss it again now by only focusing on fentanyl,” he said.

The post U.S.-Mexico Border Militarization Fails to Stop Modern Drug Smuggling Industry appeared first on www.texasobserver.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article presents a detailed critique of current U.S. and Mexican policies addressing fentanyl trafficking and drug enforcement. It highlights the limitations and failures of militarized and enforcement-heavy approaches, while emphasizing the complexity of the drug networks, including financial, technological, and systemic factors often overlooked by mainstream narratives. The piece is critical of right-leaning policies such as the Trump administration’s designation of cartels as terrorist organizations and points to broader institutional and societal issues, aligning with perspectives common in Center-Left discourse that favor nuanced, systemic analysis over punitive, militarized responses. The tone is investigative and policy-focused without strong partisan rhetoric, but the emphasis on criticizing conservative policy actions and calling for more comprehensive domestic and international solutions nudges it toward a Center-Left bias.