Republicans, in their efforts to remove various officials from office, including a prominent Texas Democratic lawmaker, have embraced a “rarely used” writ with roots in 13th century England. This writ, if sanctioned by Texas’s Supreme Court, could result in political opponents losing their positions for fleeing to prevent a GOP-driven vote on a bill regarding congressional redistricting.

The redistricting issue intensified over the weekend when around 50 Texas Democrats broke quorum by leaving for Democratic strongholds in protest of a purportedly “unconstitutional, illegal, racial” gerrymander that could give Republicans additional seats.

State Rep. Gene Wu, the Texas House Democratic Caucus chairman, was subsequently targeted by Gov. Greg Abbott in an emergency petition to the Texas Supreme Court. The governor asserted he was invoking the “rarely used writ of quo warranto” to protect the “future of Texas.”

What is the Latinate writ of quo warranto and is it fair to say it is “rarely used” anymore?

As seen in situations such as U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s attempt to remove three Corporation for Public Broadcasting board members dismissed by President Trump, a quo warranto action is a legal strategy questioning a person’s authority to hold public office, paving the way for their removal. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has repeatedly invoked this writ to pressure Democratic officials, whether a sheriff, a treasurer, or former St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, to resign or face removal.

Currently, both Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton are pursuing, concurrently, the application of the same writ, contending that Wu’s departure from Texas signifies he “forfeited the office of state representative and created a vacancy.”

According to Abbott, the “small fraction of recalcitrant lawmakers” cannot merely — and without consequences — “run out the clock” and hold the state legislature “hostage until the whims of a small fraction of legislators is satisfied.”

“The rarely used writ of quo warranto exists to solve rare problems such as this,” the Tuesday petition said. “And this Court exists to solve cases with ramifications far beyond the individual parties to the case. So here too, the Court’s decision will determine if only one-third of the Legislature can dictate the outcome for 100% of Texans.”

“If representatives are free not to show up whenever they choose, then Texans simply do not have a representative government,” the filing later added. “In fact, they don’t have a functioning government at all. This Court should make clear that a legislator who does not wish to perform his duties will be stripped of them.”

Also on Tuesday, Paxton similarly proclaimed that he would seek “judicial orders declaring that runaway Democrats who fail to appear by the Speaker’s deadline have vacated their office,” noting that the Republican Texas Speaker of the House Dustin Burrows set a Friday deadline for absent Democrats to return.

“The people of Texas elected lawmakers, not jet-setting runaways looking for headlines. If you don’t show up to work, you get fired,” he continued.

Under Texas law, the “supreme court or a justice of the supreme court may issue writs […] of quo warranto” against “any officer of state government except the governor[.]”

Adding a wrinkle to the equation, however, Paxton’s office and Solicitor General William R. Peterson in a Tuesday letter to Supreme Court of Texas clerk Blake A. Hawthorne credited Abbott’s “passion” on the issue but said the governor did not properly bring the petition.

That, the letter said, is the job of an attorney general, district attorney, or county attorney, not the governor.

“I write regarding Governor Abbott’s emergency petition for a writ of quo warranto, filed this evening in this Court. While the Attorney General appreciates the Governor’s passion for ensuring that the Texas House reestablishes the quorum that is necessary to discharge the important business of the Legislature, this Court’s precedent is clear that a ‘quo warranto’ proceeding ‘can only be brought by the attorney general, a county attorney, or a district attorney,'” the letter said.

The letter further threatened that if Democrats do not return to the State Capitol on Friday they may face arrest or removal proceedings, and potentially even hefty fines.

“The Speaker of the House has issued arrest warrants for truant members of the Texas House who have absconded to other states in order to compel their attendance at the ongoing special session. The Speaker has set a Friday, August 8 deadline for those absent members to return to the Capitol,” the letter concluded. “If those absent members do not comply with the Speaker’s deadline, the Attorney General intends to pursue all available judicial remedies, including those available through a quo warranto proceeding to declare the truant Legislators’ offices vacant on grounds of abandonment.”

“As a result, the Court should not dismiss the Governor’s petition until the Speaker’s Friday deadline passes and the Attorney General can be heard on these weighty issues,” Peterson added.

In brief, while it was Abbott who attempted to initiate the quo warranto action, it is likely Paxton who will spearhead the effort from here.

In an appearance on CNN from Chicago, Wu responded to Abbott and said the quo warranto threat “is just purely insanity.”

“First of all, this is not my seat. And it’s sure as hell not Abbott’s seat. This seat belongs to the people of state of Texas. And I’ve taken multiple oaths to defend them and to protect them at any cost,” Wu said. “And what we’re looking it is a governor who is conspiring with a disgraced president to use unconstitutional, illegal, racial gerrymandering to destroy our communities.”

“I have a duty to respond to that. I have an obligation to do everything I can to stop that, using every legal means necessary,” he stated.