Texas Democratic lawmakers have fled to Democratic states in order to prevent a quorum necessary to pass legislation they oppose. While these tactics have existed in Texas politics for over a century, it seems like an egregious violation of the democratic process, where the will of the majority of voters is being silenced by the shenanigans of the few.
There is a little-used legal remedy known as quo warranto, which could theoretically be used to remove the lawmakers from office. However, there is strong opposition to the governor invoking the law in this way, as some legal experts warn it could set a dangerous precedent, allowing governors from majority parties to vacate the seats of lawmakers who oppose them. In this case, however, it would be used to remove lawmakers who fled the state to block a vote. The complication is that, under Texas law, lawmakers are permitted to break quorum by fleeing, making the legal basis for removal far from clear.
Texas House Democrats left the state on Sunday, August 3, 2025, to prevent a vote on a Republican-drawn congressional redistricting map that could create five additional GOP seats in the U.S. House ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. More than 50 of the 62 House Democrats fled to Democratic strongholds like Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts.
The Texas Constitution requires two-thirds of elected members to be present for the Legislature to conduct business – 100 of 150 House members and 21 of 31 Senate members. This is a higher threshold than the U.S. Congress, which only requires a simple majority.
The all-Republican Texas Supreme Court acknowledged in 2021 that the Texas Constitution allows for members to deprive the House or Senate of a quorum. Legal experts say “The founding fathers of Texas very intentionally wrote a constitution that gave a minority of legislators the ability to influence legislation in this way”.
Denying quorum has been part of Texas politics since 1870, with notable instances in 1979 (“Killer Bees”), 2003, and 2021. Other states including Oregon, Indiana, and Minnesota have also seen legislative walkouts in recent years.
House Republicans have voted to authorize civil arrest warrants for the absent Democrats, empowering the sergeant-at-arms and state troopers to arrest and bring them to the Capitol. However, these warrants are civil in nature – members are not charged with a crime but may be taken into custody and returned to the chamber. Moreover, these powers are largely symbolic once members have left the state.
Governor Abbott has threatened to remove lawmakers from office, citing a 2021 legal opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton that said it would be up to a court to decide whether a lawmaker who left the state to deny quorum had forfeited their office. However, legal experts say there would be no grounds for a judge to rule that participating in a quorum break warrants removal from office.
The long-shot trump card that Governor Abbott holds in reserve is quo warranto, a valid but rarely used legal procedure that could, in theory, be used to remove lawmakers from office. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 66.001(2), quo warranto allows “the attorney general or the county or district attorney of the proper county” to petition a district court to remove a public official who has allegedly forfeited their office. It applies when “a public officer does an act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office.”
The Texas Supreme Court has long recognized that a vacancy may result from resignation, death, expiration of term, abandonment, removal, or forfeiture, and that abandonment is considered a form of resignation. However, applying this to lawmakers who break quorum is unprecedented and legally controversial.
Attorney General Ken Paxton’s Opinion No. KP-0382, issued on August 24, 2021, concluded that whether a legislator has abandoned their office is a fact question for a court to decide and beyond the scope of an attorney general opinion. The opinion states that a district court may determine through a quo warranto action that a legislator has forfeited office due to abandonment, thereby creating a vacancy. However, proving abandonment requires “actual or imputed intention…to abandon and relinquish the office,” a high bar, especially in quorum-breaking cases.
Courts have historically ruled that breaking quorum is a legislative maneuver permitted under House rules and not a criminal offense. While quo warranto has been used in the past, for example, to challenge officials who fail residency requirements or hold incompatible offices, its application to quorum-breaking lacks precedent. Texas governors have tried legal and procedural tools to compel lawmakers back to the chamber, but no one has ever been removed from office solely for denying quorum.
At the end of the day, quo warranto exists and could theoretically be used to remove lawmakers for breaking quorum. The main objection is that it has never been applied in this context before. Legal scholars argue that no judge would go that far, and that there are no clear legal grounds for ruling that a quorum break constitutes forfeiture of office. However, because Republicans hold a majority on the Texas Supreme Court, the possibility, however slim, remains.
