州长格雷格·艾伯特(Greg Abbott)周二晚上要求得克萨斯州最高法院解除得克萨斯州众议院民主党党团主席、州众议员吉恩·吴(Gene Wu)的职务，理由是吴逃离了该州，从而放弃了他的职位。
几位法律专家在接受美国广播公司采访时，质疑阿博特罢免议员的理由。
吴和其他民主党议员周日离开了该州，以推迟共和党对该州国会选区的重新划分，拒绝众议院足够的议员开展业务。
在一份要求签发逮捕令的紧急请愿书中，雅培声称吴逃离该州“丧失”了他的职位，从而造成了一个雅培有权填补的空缺。
纽约大学宪法学教授萨缪尔·伊萨卡罗夫告诉美国广播公司新闻说，保证是“一个可以说某人不恰当地担任职务并应该被免职的过程”。
他说，这一程序是内战后美国“最常用的”罢免前邦联军官的程序。
周二晚上，一些专家似乎对雅培申请解除吴职务的法律依据持怀疑态度——尽管一些专家表示，州最高法院仍有可能做出有利于州长的裁决。
德克萨斯州最高法院完全由共和党人组成，9名中有6名由阿博特任命。
“在德克萨斯州，最高法院是在党派初选中直接选举产生的，这意味着德克萨斯州最高法院法官将寻求避免做可能激怒共和党初选选民的事情，”莱斯大学政治学教授马克·琼斯告诉美国广播公司新闻。
密苏里大学宪法学教授查尔斯·罗兹(Charles Rhodes)表示，如果州最高法院发现一名议员的“职位被故意放弃或放弃，他们确实有权力和管辖权认定该职位空缺。”
然而，罗兹说，阿博特正在寻求一项“在美国法学中没有先例支持的”裁决。
“据我所知，我从未见过[quo warranto]在美国历史上被用于一个立法者打破法定人数的情况下，”罗兹告诉美国广播公司新闻。
休斯顿大学法律中心的助理教授大卫·弗鲁姆金认为，吴并没有在法律上放弃他的立法职位，制造了一个空缺。
根据弗鲁姆金的说法，雅培的请愿书引用的法律先例根据“官员放弃其职位的意图”来确定“放弃”，而吴没有表现出这样的意图。
“州长在这里所做的是质疑，挑战他的政治对手的合法性，只是因为他们反对他的立法议程，”Froomkin告诉美国广播公司新闻。
他补充说，立法部门有自己的罢免议员的补救措施，即众议院三分之二的投票可以驱逐议员，并且“行政或司法部门干预内部立法事务将违反分权。”
“拒绝州长法定人数不是放弃我的办公室;这是履行我的誓言，”吴在一份声明中写道。
州最高法院要求吴在周五下午之前对雅培的请求做出回应。
正在德克萨斯州竞选美国参议院席位的德克萨斯州司法部长肯·帕克斯顿(Ken Paxton)辩称，阿博特无权提交请愿书，并承诺如果民主党人拒绝返回特别会议，将在周五采取惩罚性行动。
艾伯特反驳说，他确实有这样的权利。
根据Froomkin的说法，Paxton作为司法部长的职位并没有给予他比州长更多的通过最高法院罢免民主党立法者的权力。
“它面临着同样的权力分立问题，”Froomkin说，因为罢免立法者是“立法部门要解决的问题”，而不是司法或行政部门。
如果罢免立法者的问题最终被上诉到美国最高法院，NYU大学教授伊萨卡罗夫表示，他们可以接受这一问题，因为如果其他州的立法机构被允许在十年中期重划选区时效仿得克萨斯州，这将是一个“火药桶”。
“如果德克萨斯州这样做，加利福尼亚州这样做，纽约州这样做，那么其他州也会采取报复行动，以此类推，”伊萨卡罗夫说。
伊萨卡罗夫将德克萨斯州的情况与2024年最高法院的特朗普诉安德森案进行了比较。在那项裁决中，法院阻止科罗拉多州将唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)总统作为共和党提名人从该州的选票中删除，并指出他们希望防止其他州将候选人踢出选票的螺旋上升。
与此同时，最高法院在2019年的一项决定中表示，关于党派划分不公的争议不应由联邦法官调解。
“联邦法官无权在两大政党之间重新分配政治权力，”首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在意见中写道。
Does Gov. Abbott have the power to remove Democratic lawmakers?
Gov. Greg Abbott asked the Texas Supreme Court Tuesday night to remove state Rep. Gene Wu, chairman of the Texas House Democratic caucus, from his seat, arguing that Wu abandoned his office by fleeing the state.
Several legal experts, in interviews with ABC News, questioned the strength of Abbott's case to remove lawmakers.
Wu, alongside other Democratic legislators, left the state on Sunday to delay a Republican redraw of the state's Congressional districts by denying the House enough legislators to conduct business.
In an emergency petition for writ of quo warranto, Abbott argued Wu "forfeited" his office by fleeing the state, creating a vacancy that Abbott would then have the authority to fill.
A quo warranto is "a process by which it can be said that somebody is improperly holding office and should be removed," New York University professor of constitutional law Samuel Issacharoff told ABC News.
The proceeding was "most heavily used" in the U.S. after the Civil War to remove former Confederate officers, he said.
Some experts appeared skeptical Tuesday night that Abbott's application of the proceeding to attempt to remove Wu from office had legal merit—though some said it's still possible the state Supreme Court would rule in the governor's favor.
The Texas Supreme Court is composed entirely of Republicans, with six of the nine appointed by Abbott.
"In Texas, the Supreme Court is directly elected in partisan primaries, meaning that Texas Supreme Court justices will seek to avoid doing things which might anger Republican primary voters," Rice University political science professor Mark Jones told ABC News.
Charles Rhodes, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri, said that if the state Supreme Court found that a legislator's "office has been intentionally abandoned or relinquished, they do have the authority and jurisdiction to hold that the office is vacated."
However, Rhodes said that Abbott is seeking a ruling "that has no past precedential support in American jurisprudence."
"I have never seen [quo warranto] used in the history of America, to my knowledge, in a situation in which you have a legislator who is breaking quorum," Rhodes told ABC News.
David Froomkin, assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, argued that Wu has not legally abandoned his legislative position and created a vacancy.
The legal precedent—which Abbott's petition cited—determines "abandonment" based on "the intent of the official to abandon their position," and Wu has shown no such intent, according to Froomkin.
"What the governor is doing here is questioning, is challenging the legitimacy of his political opponents just because they oppose his legislative agenda," Froomkin told ABC News.
He added that the legislative branch has its own remedy to remove members, a two-thirds vote of the chamber to expel lawmakers, and that "it would violate separation of powers for the executive or judiciary to intrude on an internal legislative matter."
"Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath," Wu wrote in a statement.
The state Supreme Court has asked Wu to respond to Abbott's petition by Friday afternoon.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, argued that Abbott did not have the authority to file the petition and promised to pursue punitive action Friday if Democrats refuse to return to the special session.
Abbott has pushed back, arguing he does have such a right.
According to Froomkin, Paxton's position as Attorney General does not give him more scope than the governor to remove Democratic legislators through the Supreme Court.
"It confronts the same separation of powers problems," Froomkin said, since removing legislators is "a matter for the legislative branch to resolve" rather than the judiciary or executive.
If the issue of removing legislators is eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Issacharoff, the NYU professor, said they could take it up, since it would be a "powder keg" if other states' legislatures were allowed to follow Texas in mid-decade redistricting.
"If Texas does it, California does it, and New York does it, then other states will do it in retaliation, so on and so forth," Issacharoff said.
Issacharoff compared Texas's situation to the 2024 Supreme Court case Trump v. Anderson. In that ruling, the court stopped Colorado from removing President Donald Trump from the state's ballot as Republican nominee, noting they hoped to prevent a spiral of other states kicking candidates off their ballots.
At the same time, the Supreme Court said in a 2019 decision that disputes over partisan gerrymandering should not be mediated by federal judges.
"Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion.
