Replies

Any voter, or any legislator, may choose not to cast a vote on any given resolution, at any time. This should not invalidate the tally for or against any proposition. What has happened is that the Democrat Senators in the Texas legislature have arrogated upon themselves the right to a veto, by abstaining from voting.

Is it necessary to have a quorum present for the vote on any bill? Prudence would dictate that failing to have a quorum of at least 50% of the full body puts in great danger any legislation enacted under these circumstances, but rump legislatures have sat in parliaments and expressed their will in the past.

The Civil War was, among many other things, a boycott of the US Congress by the states which would have otherwise been represented in the House and Senate of the time. Did their absence make the acts of legislation during that period any less valid? Some were overturned or repealed later, but many more have stood as the law of the land, even to this day.

Presumedly, the current Texas Senate may reconsider the rules it has adopted in the past, and alter their application to the matter at hand, defining both a quorum if not otherwise defined in the Texas state constitution, and the rules for declaring a bill passed.

The Texas Democrat state Senators may or may not want to be present for that.