Texas Supreme Court sides with GOP, says law allows arrest of absent lawmakers

The opinion itself can be found https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1452658/210667.pdf.

Basically, the district court judge in Travis County decided that the Texas Constitution doesn't mean what it says, and issued a temporary restraining order preventing the arrest of the absent Democrats. He did so without even notifying the Republicans or the Governor of the hearing, and the Texas Supreme Court slapped him down.

Jimmy Blacklock's opinion was a bit more forceful than NBC lets on, of course:

After examining the text and history of article III, section 10, together with the relevant judicial precedent, we conclude that the disputed provision means just what it says. The Texas Constitution empowers the House to “compel the attendance of absent members” and authorizes the House to do so “in such manner and under such penalties as [the] House may provide.” . . . Plaintiffs [the Democrat House members] proffer a novel understanding of article III, section 10 under which the House’s power to “compel the attendance of absent members” authorizes only persuasion and dialogue, rather than true compulsion. That is simply not what the constitution says.
The TRO suffers an additional deficiency as well. Even assuming that immediate and irreparable injury was imminent on August 8, it remained the responsibility of the TRO applicant and the court to notify and hear from the opposing party if at all possible. Because an adversarial process is always preferable when it is possible, even in emergencies, the rules of procedure require the district court to explain, in the TRO, “why the order was granted without notice” to the opposing party. TEX. R.CIV. P. 680. The only reason the order gives for why the defendants could not be notified is entirely unconvincing. The order states that, as government employees, the State’s lawyers could not have been expected to respond to a TRO application over the weekend. TRO at ¶ 2. As the district court should have been aware, this is simply not true. Like many other lawyers, the State’s lawyers frequently work nights and weekends to meet short deadlines and respond to emergency filings. Had Plaintiffs or the district court attempted to notify the State and solicit a response on short notice, there is no reason to doubt the State’s lawyers would have offered one. Yet neither Plaintiffs nor the district court even bothered to try. Instead, they assumed the State’s lawyers would rather not be bothered on a Sunday, and they forged ahead with an ex parte order on a sensitive matter of statewide importance. This was a very clear abuse of discretion by the district court.
Absent mandamus relief, a district court, through an ex parte TRO, would have essentially eliminated for the duration of the second special session the House’s explicit constitutional authority to “compel the attendance of absent members” in the manner of its choosing. Whatever one’s view of the politics of the situation, it should be clear that an ex parte proceeding where one side is totally shut out of the process was an improper way to resolve matters of such significance.

Between this and the ruling from earlier this week on mask mandates, it should be pretty clear that judicial elections are important. The courts of appeals in Houston, Dallas, and Austin were solidly Republican, but since 2018 have been flipped to majority Democrat. Democrats have swept Republicans out of the trial court benches in Harris County, and unqualified left-wing Democrats have successfully swept moderate (or at least competent) Democrats off those benches in Harris and Travis Counties.

Now, we have left-wing, partisan Democrats running the lower courts that cover 4 of the 5 largest counties in Texas, including its capital. All that stands between over 10 million Texans and renewed mask mandates is the governor and the Texas Supreme Court.

Alternatively, these delinquent legislators could be relieved of their offices by virtue of abandonment and replacements appointed by Governor Abbott.

Headline should read: Supreme Court sides with the LAW.....shouldn’t be any mention of the GOP.

That would be sweet, but wouldn't pass muster under the Texas Constitution. There's no provision to deem a legislator to have abandoned his seat. The constitutional mechanism to address absent members is to allow the house to compel their attendance.

Also, the constitution does not grant the Governor the power to appoint legislators to fill vacancies. All he can do is issue a writ to call a special election.

start fining them millions, bankrupt them all!

That would be a great idea, but the House would have had to have provided for such a penalty in its rules, and it’s probably too late to do that now. While it clearly has the constitutional authority to provide for fines for absent members, it would need a quorum to adopt such a rule.

At the least, the quorum rule should be reviewed and revised against abuses such is this. It was NEVER intended as a political tool against a majority.

The 2/3rds quorum requirement is in the Texas Constitution, so that will require a constitutional amendment. I expect the voters will pass it if it is proposed on the 2022 ballot, but we’ll see if that happens.

There are probably more than a few Republicans in the Legislature who anticipate that they might need to break quorum themselves in the future. The Republican majority is pretty narrow, and there is no guarantee that Republicans won’t be in the minority in the foreseeable future. Until very recently, despite the Republican majority, the Legislature was actually controlled by a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats.