Abbott, Gregory W (1957- )

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares139 Views

    Texas Legislature Special Session Will Answer Questions About Redistricting, Floods

    by

    A special session of the Texas Legislature will address the deadly floods in Hill Country, but the fireworks will come from President Trump’s demand for a newly gerrymandered House map.A special legislative session in Texas, set to begin on Monday in the wake of the flood in Texas Hill Country, is shaping up to be an emotionally raw diversion into what Democrats say is the gerrymandering the state’s House districts.Lawmakers will also take up questions about the handling of the devastating July 4 floods, which killed more than 130 people, including at least 37 children. Nearly 100 Texans remain missing.But that bipartisan imperative will be complicated by a hard-edge partisan agenda for the session, dominated by President Trump’s push for the Legislature to redraw the state’s congressional district maps to be more favorable for Republicans. He wants his party to gain five seats in Texas in the 2026 midterm elections to help retain control of the U.S. House.Gov. Greg Abbott has asked lawmakers to also consider a dozen other items during the 30-day special session, including new hard-line conservative proposals to ban mail-order abortion pills, lower property taxes and regulate intoxicating hemp. And he wants lawmakers to consider a state constitutional amendment that would empower the state attorney general to prosecute election crimes.“It’s a wild situation,” said State Representative Jon Rosenthal, a Houston-area Democrat. “The past sessions I’ve been a part of have been of a very limited scope.”Most Texans’ attention will probably lie with the July 4 flood and what can be done to improve warning systems, such as placing outdoor sirens along flood-prone waterways like the Guadalupe River, where most of the deaths occurred.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares153 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Broach Potential Walkout to Block Texas Redistricting

      by

      Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, told Texas Democrats on a call on Tuesday that the moment required everyone to take extraordinary actions.National Democratic leaders are encouraging state Democrats in the Texas House to consider walking out of a special legislative session this month to block Republicans from redrawing the state’s congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.At the same time, President Trump held his own call on Tuesday with congressional Republicans in the state, urging them to carve out five new G.O.P. seats from those held by Democrats, according to a person briefed on that call, which was first reported by Punchbowl News.“Just spoke to our Great Congressmen and women of Texas,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media. He added, “I keep hearing about Texas ‘going Blue,’ but it is just another Democrat LIE.”The redistricting of House seats is supposed to come at the beginning of each decade, after new census data shifts populations and changes the number of seats granted to each state. Reapportionment in the middle of the decade is rare and almost always contentious, since it is driven by political considerations, not demographic shifts. In this case, Mr. Trump is openly trying to use new maps to stave off midterm Democratic gains that would potentially cost his party control of the narrowly divided House.“It is important that we fight back,” said U.S. Representative Lizzie Fletcher, a Democrat whose Houston district could be affected. “What is happening is absolutely an unacceptable betrayal of Texans.”During the Democratic call on Monday evening, which lasted for more than two hours, the Democratic leader in the U.S. House, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Ken Martin, spoke with about 40 Democrats in the Texas House.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares117 Views

      in Elections

      Can Democrats Find Their Way on Immigration?

      by

      The Democrats onstage saw themselves as morally courageous. American voters, it turned out, saw a group of politicians hopelessly out of touch.Standing side by side at a primary debate in June 2019, nine of the party’s candidates for president were asked to raise their hand if they wanted to decriminalize illegal border crossings. Only one of them held still.Six years later, the party remains haunted by that tableau. It stands both as a vivid demonstration of a leftward policy shift on immigration that many prominent Democratic lawmakers and strategists now say they deeply regret, and as a marker of how sharply the country was moving in the other direction.Last year, 55 percent of Americans told Gallup that they supported a decrease in immigration, nearly twice as many as in 2020, and the first time since 2005 that a majority had said so. The embrace of a more punitive approach to illegal immigration includes not only white voters but also working-class Latinos, whose support Democrats had long courted with liberal border policies.“When you have the most Latino district in the country outside of Puerto Rico vote for Trump, that should be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party,” said Representative Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, who saw Mr. Trump win every county in his district along the border with Mexico. “This is a Democratic district that’s been blue for over a century.”The Trump administration is pursuing the harshest crackdown on immigrants since World War II, an effort many Democrats see as a national crisis.Gabriel V. Cárdenas for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Again Blocks U.S. From Cutting Texas Border Wire Along Rio Grande

      by

      The injunction is the second time that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has sided with Texas in a yearlong dispute over barbed wire around the city of Eagle Pass.For the second time, a federal appeals court has limited the Biden administration’s authority to cut barbed wire that Texas authorities have erected along the country’s southern border to deter migrants from crossing into the United States.But the ruling, issued Wednesday, required something of Texas authorities as well. The court order would protect the state’s concertina wire so as long as federal agents had “necessary access” to both sides of it — including in Shelby Park, a local park in the border city of Eagle Pass that the state seized and kicked federal authorities out of this year.The ruling is the latest development in an ongoing clash between state and federal authorities for control over border enforcement, as Texas has repeatedly tried to effectively set its own immigration policy. Since 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott has been deploying state law enforcement and National Guard members along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of an initiative called Operation Lone Star. Texas’ efforts to arrest migrants under a new state law and to place floating barriers along the Rio Grande have also led to court battles.The legal dispute over barbed wire began in October 2023 when Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, sued the Biden administration, claiming that U.S. Border Patrol agents were illegally destroying the state’s concertina wire fencing. The state, Mr. Paxton said, had the right to curb what he called an “alien surge.”A district court judge declined to give Texas the injunction it requested, finding that the federal government was likely to win the ongoing case because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that can often shield state and federal governments from lawsuits. In December 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a temporary order limiting the Biden administration’s ability to remove the wire only in cases of medical emergencies. That ruling was vacated by the Supreme Court in January, sending the case back to the lower courts.Wednesday’s order, from the Fifth Circuit, rejected claims by the Biden administration that sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution meant that Texas couldn’t challenge federal actions along the border. Texas, the appeals court found, was seeking “not to ‘regulate’ Border Patrol, but only to safeguard its own property.”The Fifth Circuit has been hailed by some Trump-aligned Republicans as a model for the future of conservative jurisprudence. Three of its judges are often discussed as possible Supreme Court nominees during President-elect Donald J. Trump’s second term. One of those three, Stuart Kyle Duncan, wrote Wednesday’s ruling.In a post on X, Mr. Paxton called Wednesday’s ruling a “huge win,” and said that his office had “fought every step of the way for Texas sovereignty and security.”The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republican-Led States Push to Expand Power to Curb Immigration

      by

      Republicans’ latest efforts capitalize on the issue’s prominence in the 2024 election. But the fate of their proposals is still being litigated.Nearly a year since Texas adopted a law empowering state and local police officers to arrest undocumented migrants who cross into its territory, Republican lawmakers in at least 11 states have tried to adopt similar measures, capitalizing on the prominence of immigration in the 2024 presidential election.The fate of the proposals — six have been enacted or are under consideration, with Louisiana expected to sign its measure into law as early as next week — is still being litigated. In a case before a federal appeals court, Texas is defending its law by arguing that illegal immigration is a form of invasion, allowing it to expand its power to protect its borders. Federal courts have previously ruled that, from a constitutional perspective, the definition of the term invasion is limited to military attacks.States have tested the limits of their power over immigration before, but lawyers and legal scholars said the push this year was accompanied by what had amounted to a public-relations campaign.In campaign speeches, political ads and the halls of Congress, more Republicans are echoing former President Donald J. Trump by arguing that the rise of migration at the southern border is an “invasion.” President Biden, under pressure from both Republicans and Democrats to tackle the issues at the border, signed an executive order this month to curb asylum, and he could have more actions coming next week.The measure expected to be signed by Gov. Jeff Landry, Republican of Louisiana, includes provisions allowing Mr. Landry and his attorney general to establish a compact with Texas to address border security. Mr. Landry has already met with Gov. Greg Abbott, Republican of Texas, and dispatched Army National Guard soldiers from Louisiana to Texas’ border with Mexico.Valarie Hodges, the state senator in Louisiana who wrote the legislation, joined other Republicans in calling Mr. Biden’s recent action “too little, too late,” saying in an interview that state measures like hers were essential because the Biden administration had failed to enforce immigration laws.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Accepting N.R.A. Endorsement, Trump Pledges to Be Gun Owners’ Ardent Ally

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump, accepting the endorsement of the National Rifle Association on Saturday, cast himself as a powerful ally for gun owners and gun businesses, contending that under President Biden the right to bear arms was “under siege.”“If the Biden regime gets four more years, they are coming for your guns,” Mr. Trump said in Dallas, where he headlined the N.R.A.’s annual meeting.Mr. Trump addressed the group as he is on trial in Manhattan on criminal charges that he falsified business records related to a hush-money payment to a porn star. Onstage in Dallas, he contended that he knew “better than anybody” what it was like to have rights taken away.“In my second term, we will roll back every Biden attack on the Second Amendment,” he said to loud applause.The annual gun rights gathering appeared far more muted than the last time Mr. Trump attended it, in 2022, in Houston, just days after the mass shooting of 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Greg Abbott, the state’s governor, and John Cornyn, its senior senator, did not attend that year’s convention, citing other commitments. Several marquee musical performers pulled their participation out of respect, they said, for the victims and their families.The N.R.A., the nation’s most prominent gun rights group and once a potent political force, has found itself in a hobbled state. In recent years, it has shed members and been besieged by setbacks, defections and internal strife. In February, a Manhattan jury ruled that its leaders had engaged in a yearslong pattern of financial misconduct and corruption.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Talk of an Immigrant ‘Invasion’ Grows in Republican Ads and Speech

      by

      Once relegated to the margins of the national debate, the word is now part of the party’s mainstream message on immigration.A campaign ad from a Republican congressional candidate from Indiana sums up the arrival of migrants at the border with one word. He doesn’t call it a problem or a crisis.He calls it an “invasion.”The word invasion also appears in ads for two Republicans competing for a Senate seat in Michigan. And it shows up in an ad for a Republican congresswoman seeking re-election in central New York, and in one for a Missouri lieutenant governor running for the state’s governorship. In West Virginia, ads for a Republican representative facing an uphill climb for the Senate say President Biden “created this invasion” of migrants.It was not so long ago that the term invasion had been mostly relegated to the margins of the national immigration debate. Many candidates and political figures tended to avoid the word, which echoed demagoguery in previous centuries targeting Asian, Latino and European immigrants. Few mainstream Republicans dared use it.But now, the word has become a staple of Republican immigration rhetoric. Use of the term in television campaign ads in the current election cycle has already eclipsed the total from the previous one, data show, and the word appears in speeches, TV interviews and even in legislation proposed in Congress.The resurgence of the term exemplifies the shift in Republican rhetoric in the era of former President Donald J. Trump and his right-wing supporters. Language once considered hostile has become common, sometimes precisely because it runs counter to politically correct sensibilities. Immigration has also become more divisive, with even Democratic mayors complaining about the number of migrants in their cities.Democrats and advocates for migrants denounce the word and its recent turn from being taboo. Historians and analysts who study political rhetoric have long warned that the term dehumanizes those to whom it refers and could stoke violence, noting that it appeared in writings by perpetrators of deadly mass shootings in Pittsburgh, Pa.; El Paso, Texas; and Buffalo, N.Y., in recent years.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Campus Protests Over Gaza Intensify Amid Pushback by Universities and Police

      by

      There were dozens of new arrests as universities moved to prevent pro-Palestinian encampments from taking hold as they have at Columbia University.A wave of pro-Palestinian protests spread and intensified on Wednesday as students gathered on campuses around the country, in some cases facing off with the police, in a widening showdown over campus speech and the war in Gaza.University administrators from Texas to California moved to clear protesters and prevent encampments from taking hold on their own campuses as they have at Columbia University, deploying police in tense new confrontations that already have led to dozens of arrests.At the same time, new protests continued erupting in places like Pittsburgh and San Antonio. Students expressed solidarity with their fellow students at Columbia, and with a pro-Palestinian movement that appeared to be galvanized by the pushback on other campuses and the looming end of the academic year.Protesters on several campuses said their demands included divestment by their universities from companies connected to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, disclosure of those and other investments and a recognition of the continuing right to protest without punishment.The demonstrations spread overseas as well, with students on campuses in Cairo, Paris and Sydney, Australia, gathering to voice support for Palestinians and opposition to the war.As new protests were emerging, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, visited the Columbia campus in New York, where university officials were seeking to negotiate with protest leaders to end the encampment of around 80 tents still pitched on a central campus lawn.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Keeps Block on Texas Migrant Law

      by

      The decision in favor of the federal government left in place a trial court injunction while courts determine whether the measure is legal. A federal appeals court late Tuesday ruled against Texas in its bitter clash with the federal government, deciding that a law allowing the state to arrest and deport migrants could not be implemented while the courts wrestled with the question of whether it is legal.A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has a reputation for conservative rulings, sided in its 2-to-1 decision with lawyers for the Biden administration who have argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and decades of legal precedent.The panel’s 50-page majority opinion left in place an injunction imposed last month by a lower court in Austin, which found that the federal government was likely to succeed in its arguments against the law. The opinion was written by the Fifth Circuit’s chief judge, Priscilla Richman, a nominee of President George W. Bush, and was joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated to the bench by President Biden last year.Judge Richman found that Texas’ law conflicted with federal law and with Supreme Court precedent, particularly a 2012 immigration case, Arizona v. United States.“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission and removal of noncitizens — is exclusively a federal power,” she wrote. “Texas has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” she said after discussing how various arguments made by the state fell short.It was a setback for Gov. Greg Abbott but not an unexpected one: The governor has said that he anticipated the fight over the law’s constitutionality to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Mr. Abbott has said the law, which allows the state to arrest and deport migrants on its own, is necessary to deal with the record number of migrants crossing into Texas from Mexico. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More