Texas Is Why Parliamentary Privilege Exists

Dustin Burrows is a name that will one day have his own chapter in the Anthology of American Fascism. Burrows, the Speaker of the Texas state legislature, is the one who issued arrest warrants for Democrat representatives who left the state to prevent quorum to block the vote that would gerrymander five extra Republican congressmen in next year’s US midterms. When those Democrats finally did return, they were forced to sign pledges to appear for today’s vote — and be accompanied by State Troopers until then to ensure compliance.

State representative Nicole Collier refused to sign the statement and has been camped out at the state legislature for the past few days, unable to leave as a result of her refusal — and therefore present for the vote.

Either way, Speaker Burrows and the MAGA machine win.

August 19, 2025

Parliamentary privilege — outside of the United States at least — is the concept that nobody can interfere with a parliamentarian’s right to perform their duties. Key among those duties is voting on motions in the chamber.

In Canada’s parliament, a Parliamentary shuttle bus blocked by so much as a construction vehicle that prevents a Member of Parliament from casting a vote could constitute a breach of privilege and result in sanctions against those who allowed the situation to happen. Here, at least, we take the whole concept of parliamentary privilege very seriously.

The Speaker’s job, and the reason their role includes a Sergeant-At-Arms, is to defend and protect the rights of parliamentarians to perform their role. In Westminster parliaments, there is a tradition of pretending to force a newly elected speaker to take the Chair against their will because, historically, the performance of their duties in expressing the will of the legislature to the Crown had resulted in their beheading. Seven Westminster speakers met their ends in this manner. The word “Speaker” itself refers to their role in relaying the decisions of the people to the executive, not the other way around.

Parliamentary Privilege and Security

To see Texas Speaker Burrows use his role not only to infringe on the right of legislators to perform their duties as they see fit, but to do it on behalf of what has become the American Crown, flies in the face of the very purpose of a Speaker.

The role of Speaker as we know it today exists as its primary function to assert the power of the legislature over the executive. To use the role of Speaker to expressly assert the power of the executive over the legislature, including by the use of force, would have made medieval Kings proud as it rolls fundamental democratic principles back to the 14th century.

American Speakers are different from Westminster speakers, to be fair. They control the agenda and have immensely more power over the work of their legislatures than their counterparts in other parliamentary democracies. In Texas, the Speaker even has the right to vote on legislation, which, in Canada, would only be permitted in order to break a tie — and at that, generally to support the status quo.

That the Texas Speaker controls the debate, the schedule, and the agenda already makes him immensely powerful. The use of coercion to force an outcome on a legislative vote, however, is simply out of democratic bounds.

When he uses the threat of physical force and the application of state security services to force an outcome that directly undermines fair elections in Congress itself, through gerrymandering specifically designed to keep a dictator in power in the country, that is unadulterated fascism.