Gov. Greg Abbott asks Texas Supreme Court to expel House Democratic leader who left state

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

---

Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the Texas Supreme Court to remove Houston Rep. Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, from office, an unprecedented escalation in Republicans’ efforts to resume business in the Legislature and advance new congressional maps.

At least 50 House Democrats have left the state to prevent the chamber from obtaining a quorum — the minimum number of members necessary to undertake legislative business — in an effort to delay the passage of new congressional lines that could net five more seats for Republicans. The unusual mid-decade redistricting effort comes at the behest of President Donald Trump and his political team, despite initial reluctance from Abbott and the majority of Texas’ GOP congressional delegation.

Democrats left the state Sunday afternoon, ahead of a Monday vote to advance the bill. Wu, as leader of the House Democrats, announced that “this corrupt special session is over” and vowed to stay out of the state long enough to allow the session's remaining two weeks to run out.

In his legal filing, Abbott argued that amounts to an abandonment of office and is sufficient grounds to have Wu’s seat vacated.

“What is at stake here? Nothing less than the future of Texas,” Abbott wrote. “If a small fraction of recalcitrant lawmakers choose to run out the clock today, they can do so for any, and every, Regular or Special Session, potentially bankrupting the State in an attempt to get their way.”

In a response filed with the court Friday, Wu said he had not abandoned his office and argued the entire lawsuit against him should be thrown out.

“To the contrary, he continues to carry out his legislative duties as his judgment dictates,” lawyers for Wu wrote in the filing. In asking for the case to be dismissed, they noted that Wu had not died, nor had he been expelled by the House by a two-thirds vote or voluntarily resigned — all of which would be grounds for removal from office under state law.

Attorney General Ken Paxton, who threatened to file similar legal actions earlier in the day against multiple House Democrats, followed Abbott's emergency petition by sending his own letter to the state Supreme Court hours later, in which he argued that Abbott lacked the authority to request the removal.

Paxton wrote that while he "appreciates the Governor’s passion" for restoring a quorum, state law permits only the attorney general or a local county or district attorney to bring what's known as a quo warranto proceeding, which seeks a member's removal on the grounds that they have abandoned their office.

In the letter, Paxton said he would take action against the absent legislators if the House continued to lack a quorum on Friday, the deadline set by House Speaker Dustin Burrows. He followed through on the threat, asking the Supreme Court Friday afternoon to expel 13 Democrats from the chamber while echoing Abbott's argument that the lawmakers had effectively abandoned their offices.

Abbott later clarified in a social media post that his filing sought quo warranto through a provision in the Texas Constitution and a separate portion of government code, which he said would give his office the proper authority. He also attached a letter addressed to the state Supreme Court in the post that stated "at least 500 years of common law" made it clear the governor's office could make the filing.

Paxton previously acknowledged that this would likely be a lengthy and complicated process, telling conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that his office would have to bring individual lawsuits in each member's district. But in Friday’s filing, he argued that the Texas Supreme Court has the right to rule directly on the matter, especially when there is a need to swiftly resolve the situation.

If a judge were to find that the seats were vacant, they would be filled through a special election.

The Supreme Court of Texas is entirely Republican, and Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, appointed in January, was formerly Abbott’s general counsel. When he appointed Blacklock to the bench in 2018, Abbott said he “wanted to make sure that the person I appointed was going to make decisions that I know how they are going to decide.” Blacklock has said that was more a reflection of their shared judicial philosophy.

In 2021, Blacklock authored an opinion for the court that said the Texas Constitution enables the possibility of a so-called “quorum break,” although it also allows for consequences to bring members back.

Legal experts say it would be difficult to argue that engaging in a quorum break qualifies as abandonment of office.

“I am aware of absolutely no authority that says breaking quorum is the same as the intent to abandon a seat,” said Charles “Rocky” Rhodes, a constitutional law expert at the University of Missouri law school. “That would require the courts extending the premise to the breaking point. It’s inconsistent with the very text of the Texas Constitution.”

Chad Dunn, a former attorney for the Texas Democratic Party who is now representing Wu, said proving abandonment of office would require showing that the member had failed to perform the duty of their office and intended to relinquish the seat, both of which he argues are not evident in a quorum break.

“It is not just an option, but one of the features of elected office to decide whether to appear and help establish quorum,” Dunn said, speaking generally about state law before the case was filed. “Each member as part of their duty of office must make that decision.”

In the filing, Abbott disagreed, reiterating the idea that leaving to deny the House the votes it needs to proceed is tantamount to relinquishing the office.

“It is no answer for Wu to say that he plans to continue serving as a representative,” Abbott wrote. “His own statements and actions show a refusal to actually serve as a representative in fact. That’s because what representatives do is represent their constituents in the legislative chamber. They appear for a quorum. They meet with other legislators in hearings. They speak with their constituents. They debate bills. And, in the end, they vote their district.”

Dunn condemned the lawsuit in Friday’s response, saying that the Supreme Court was not the proper venue, the governor was not the proper litigant and the entire suit is based on hearsay and speculation.

“Given that the Governor has included no proper statement of facts or record to respond to — itself a grave due process problem — Respondent generally disputes the factual allegations that are scattered throughout the petition, such as they are,” the filing says.

---

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.