🚨OMG - I didn't Quite Get it! Rachel just said the police person each Texas Dem is assigned is 🚨 24/7! WTF??!

[electric_blue68]

I thought and not good they were "just" taking them home.
NO, police minders, effers!

A friend of mine had one when they visited China!

[blogslug]

1. Yep

I think that TX Democratic House members should occupy the TX House. Take it over. Bring sleeping bags and pizza. Be there 24/7 when repubs arrive in the morning and when they leave at night. Live stream it. Blog it. That's what I think!

[LeftInTX]

18. Yes, Nicole Collier refused to sign for the guard and she's stuck there

You can watch her live however!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16znXfy5x1/

A bunch of them should tear up their waivers and bunk out on the floor.
Live footage would be dramatic.

People are watching her and are outraged!

[blogslug]

34. OMG! They're doing it! Live!

[LeftInTX]

35. She's got a pillow and Gene is still there.

I think she can sleep in her office, but hey this is bad optics for the GOP.

A few Democrats apparently stayed in Texas during the quorum break. One of them was an 80 year old woman. The GOP knew it would be bad optics to haul her in, so they didn't.

Thanks for the YouTube link!!!

[Lovie777]

2. Yep....

One female democrat refused police escort (basically forced) and she refused and the GQP locked her in her office probably with the police officer by the door to make sure she doesn’t escape,

This is not democracy.

[electric_blue68]

3. Yes, I saw that, too.

[electric_blue68]

6. You know the oft chant in many of protests ofclast bunch of years....

"This is what Democracy looks like!

Tomorrow Texans should be out there chanting either:

This is what Democracy doesn't look like!"
or
"This is what dictatorship looks like!

[LeftInTX]

20. She's on the house floor.

https://www.facebook.com/TXHDC/videos/775951781560072

I think she can go to her office, but I think the public needs to see this.

[malaise]

4. It's all madness

What’s keeping me sane is that I know Bestie Jeffrey will do him in one way or another.

[electric_blue68]

8. Yeah, Hopefullly!! Not going away so far.

[malaise]

11. Meanwhile the attempt to force elected Democrats to be escorted by police 24/7 is illegal

Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2025, 06:54 AM - Edit history (1)

This has to be stopped immediately.
Update - not illegal

[electric_blue68]

14. Absolutely!

[TommyT139]

16. With lead.

Meaning a pencil, as it is mightier than the sword.

Of course.

[FBaggins]

27. It's offensive - but it almost certainly isn't illegal

Similar language in other state constitutions (and the federal constitution) has been understood to mean that you can literally drag a legislator into the chamber and hold them there to compel a quorum.

In fact, the sergeant-at-arms position was originally created to chase down absent legislators and bring them to the floor.

[malaise]

37. Are you serious?

Rec

[FBaggins]

38. Yep

The state constitution mirrors that of many states that they can "compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as [the] House may provide"

That's why the strategy involves leaving the state.

[malaise]

41. Thank you

I always appreciate your input on all matters law😀

[allegorical oracle]

40. Beyond the pale. Can see where a law like that is useful, but it likely passed for

expediency and in an era before a tyrannical, Trump toadie governor like Abbott was ever imagined.

My question: Presumably, all the other TX Dems signed/agreed to the 24-hour police surveillance. How does that even work? Are male police officers following female lawmakers to public restrooms or the grocery store? Are they posted outside or inside their homes when they sleep? Do officers video what the legislators are doing, saying, or their phone calls?

Seems like an extreme violation of individual constitutional privacy.

[FBaggins]

43. As I understand it... they were given a choice

They could be detained in the building until the vote(s) or they could go home… but with an escort. One reported being followed down the hallway to the restroom… but with the guard waiting across the hall and they supposedly joked about it with her.

They don’t have to be too rigorous… because they only need a dozen of the 60+ democrats in order to make a quorum. They can operate on a pretty loose basis and only tighten up if some of them start to disappear

[a kennedy]

5. Absolutely insane, we are living through absolutely insane times.

and no Repubs have the balls to say enough is enough, just sicknicking. 🤬 🤬 🤬 🤬 🤬

[UTUSN]

7. Meidas video here. Legislator confined to office or arrested. Isn't that False Imprisonment?

[electric_blue68]

9. Ty

[malaise]

12. Yes

Madness

[Chemical Bill]

10. Rachel is covering this, right now!

[Baitball Blogger]

13. Lawsuit time?

[yellow dahlia]

15. This was the title of my post about the incident - OMG! Which dystopian script are we in the middle of right now?

[JoseBalow]

17. It's like a prison furlough

Like they sometimes allow inmates for a relative's funeral, for example. Basically it's an assigned prison guard.

[LeftInTX]

24. India has crazy prison furloughs. Bollywood actors are allowed to work.

Sanjay Dutt, who plays tough guys, was in jail for selling arms to terrorists. They let him out to make a movie.


Everyone was saying, "Terrorist in real life and terrorist in the movie". It was free publicity for the movie and it was a box office success.

&ab_channel=CoruscantT

[JoseBalow]

26. That's like a work-release program for terrorists?

Crazy!

Did he have an armed escort at all times?

[LeftInTX]

32. I have no idea. He seemed to be in a revolving door of prison for quite awhile.

In 2007, he was cleared of terrorism charges, but sentenced to five years hard time for firearms. He was released in 2016.
He made 69 movies during that time period!

Dutt was arrested under the TADA and the Arms Act in April 1993 and was convicted later for violation of Arms Act for possession of illegal weapons including AK-56 rifle(s) procured from other accused in the 1993 Bombay bombings. He was sentenced to five years in prison. He was granted bail several times during his sentence which is why he only completed his five-year jail sentence in 2016. He was granted bail in 1993, 1995, 2007, 2013, 2015, and 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Dutt

[JoseBalow]

33. Damn, that's an awful lot of movies

Especially for someone who's supposed to be incarcerated!

[Hornedfrog2000]

19. Isnt this stalking?

They have no right to do this...

[Mossfern]

21. Do they care?

I never, in my wildest dreams thought that the US would end up like this.

[B.See]

22. Which dystopian script? The SAME one

we've been in, even before the felon slinked back into the O Office - the one many SAW COMING all along: Trump's Fascist America.

I know some must've scoffed at that phrase every time I posted it. But here we are.

[mellow]

23. So ... kidnapping then?

[LeftInTX]

25. No! Just armed guards following you everywhere.

Nicole is stuck at work because she's refusing the armed guards. Not kidnapping, but ridiculous surveillance. Like a house arrest.

[allegorical oracle]

42. Rachel said the state charge declares Nicole to be a "political prisoner." nt

[Bayard]

28. I watched Rachel cover this

Does this mean all the other Dems signed their little permission slips?

[electric_blue68]

29. Seems so.

[eppur_se_muova]

30. HOW can the Speaker of the House POSSIBLY have the legal authority to do this ? I'm guessing he doesn't --

he just has permission from the Governor.

CHAPTER 20. KIDNAPPING, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT, AND SMUGGLING OF PERSONS

Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age;

(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and

(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

(1) a state jail felony if the person restrained was a child younger than 17 years of age;

(2) a felony of the third degree if:

(A) the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury;

(B) the actor restrains an individual the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; or

(C) the actor, while in custody or committed to a civil commitment facility, restrains any other person; or

(3) notwithstanding Subdivision (2)(B), a felony of the second degree if the actor restrains an individual the actor knows is a peace officer or judge while the officer or judge is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a peace officer or judge.

(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.

(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the person restrained was a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age;

(2) the actor does not restrain the child by force, intimidation, or deception; and

(3) the actor is not more than three years older than the child.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 707, Sec. 1(b), 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 524, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 440 (H.B. 2908), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 351 (S.B. 1179), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2023.


https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/pe.20.htm

"... in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant" clearly applies here. Time to issue an arrest warrant for the Speaker.

[electric_blue68]

31. Sure seems Illegal to me! Out of bounds!

[FBaggins]

39. Because the state constitution gives him that power

Sec. 10. QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE. Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.

As I mentioned above - it's a common provision in state constitutions (and the federal version). The role of "sergeant-at-arms" was literally created to track down absent legislators and (if necessary) drag them back to the floor.

[eppur_se_muova]

44. Thanks, I was afraid it might be something like that. There need to be limits on just what "such manner" may include.

Being elected to state office may carry obligations, but it shouldn't require you to give up your basic rights.

[berniesandersmittens]

36. Collier is keeping a cool head. That wouldn't be me...

There would be a whole lot of broken shit in that building if I were in that situation.

She's essentially jailed at her place of work. Unlawful, unconstitutional, unprofessional, and unAmerican.

This is tyranny.

[bluestarone]

45. If they have THIS power, why

Didn't they use it in the very beginning? They probably will with every future vote.