Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) said Thursday the FBI is assisting in locating Democratic state lawmakers who fled the state to block a vote on a GOP-backed redistricting bill.
“Texas DPS and the FBI are tracking down the derelict Democrats. They will be taken directly to the Texas Capitol,” Abbott posted on X.
“Those who received benefits for skipping a vote face removal from office and potential bribery charges,” he added. “In Texas, there are consequences for your actions.”
Earlier that day, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the FBI had approved his request to help state law enforcement track down the absent legislators. The Democrats left over the weekend to prevent the passage of a new House map that would further solidify Republican control in the Texas Legislature.
Bringing in the FBI is a mistake — full stop.
This is a Texas matter, and it should stay that way. The moment Governor Abbott or other Texas officials invite federal authorities into what is plainly a state-level dispute, they surrender the core of their own argument: that this is an issue of state sovereignty. You cannot credibly claim the high ground of self-governance while simultaneously asking Washington to do your dirty work. It’s bad optics and even worse politics. Better to proceed with options to declare seats vacant than proceed down such a perilous precedential path.
Legally, Texas is on solid ground. The state constitution and election code require redistricting following each federal census, but they do not prohibit additional redistricting between censuses. That’s been litigated – and settled. In Bush v. Vera (1996) and again in LULAC v. Perry (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that mid-decade redistricting is not inherently unconstitutional. In fact, LULAC explicitly upheld Texas’s 2003 redistricting effort, which occurred just two years after the last census-based map.
So what’s changed? Nothing – except perhaps the political consequences of redistricting that some people dislike. So is life.
And by the way, Republicans are far from a guaranteed result.
“While the newly drafted district lines almost certainly assure Republicans at least some new seats, an analysis of the tentative redistricting plan suggests the GOP is far from guaranteed to gain all five seats,” wrote the Texas Tribune.
The real question is not whether frequent redistricting is good policy. It may not be. Primarily, the question is whether it’s legal. Unless Texas passes a law explicitly limiting redistricting to once per decade, then more frequent attempts are permissible under the law. Ignoring that legal reality is a greater threat to rule of law than redistricting itself – and ironically, it risks doing exactly what some claim to oppose: ignoring the courts.
Yes, gerrymandering is a legitimate concern. But conflating redistricting with gerrymandering is a rhetorical trap. If you insist all redistricting is inherently corrupt, you effectively argue against the very process the Constitution requires. You can already hear the pundits: “Sure, the Constitution calls for redistricting – but we just can’t allow it. The risk of gerrymandering is too high.”
Avoiding delay, Democrats should return to Texas, vote “no,” and let the legislative process play out. If voters don’t like the result, they can voice their dissatisfaction with those responsible at the ballot box and may likely do so. That’s how representative democracy works. Texas doesn’t need help from the FBI – or from California, Illinois, or West Virginia.
And if other states decide to redistrict and that is permissible under state law, so be it.
The sooner this ends, the better.