The Texan Podcast - Beers, Barbecues, and Quorum Breaks: Smoke Filled Room Ep. 18

Episode Date: July 7, 2025

In this episode of Smoke Filled Room, Brad and McKenzie return with significant updates on Texas Senate races, campaign fundraising, and the intriguing dynamics between Governor Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Patrick. They delve into the recent veto showdown over SB3, the status of THC bans, and how these moves will shape upcoming special sessions. The discussion includes insights into the impact of potential congressional redistricting, and an analysis of strategic alliances within the Texas legislature. Listen to more Smoke Filled Room podcasts from our team wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you hear, subscribe and leave us a review.

Hello, Brad. Hi, Mackenzie. You never call me Mackenzie. It sounds so weird. Folks, we are back with another episode of Smoke-Filled Room. It's great to be back on this monthly podcast we tend to do on a monthly basis. We have a lot to talk about today and there's a lot we're not talking about. That we'll talk about in another episode.

Yes. A month from now, probably. And I think just because campaign seasons are ramping up so quickly, each episode, there are like a lot of updates we could be talking about and we will, but we have nine months. Yeah. And the fields aren't finalized yet. So exactly. The statewides we're going to kind of, which we've talked about the statewides Yeah. And the fields aren't finalized yet. So.

Exactly. The statewides are going to kind of, which we've talked about the statewides a lot on the weekly roundup. We've talked about them on this, on this podcast. So we're going to focus a little bit more on some district centric races and get into that today. Um, not to keep talking about the same things over and over again. But we have seen some fundraising numbers come out because the deadline to file was

yesterday we're recording on Tuesday deadline to file was yesterday. We're recording on Tuesday, deadline was yesterday, and so a few people have rolled out some some hauls so far. Top of the list I think that's notable so far is Aaron Wrights in the AG race announcing over 2 million raised in the what two three weeks that he's been in the race. That's a hefty number. Oh yeah. That's huge. That's quite a bit. now put it in context of who he's facing and you've got Mays Middleton Who's self funding at least ten million dollars can probably do a lot more And then you've got Joan Huffman who will see if she's got TLR backing her but they've got deep pockets So he's gonna have to raise a good amount of money, but this right off the bat in two weeks for someone who didn't raise anything in his house race, uh,

five years ago, it was a pretty good haul. And certainly he's in a very different place politically, right? After then he wasn't in that house race. That house race was the introduction to Aaron rights for a lot of the folks in the political sphere. And now he's built this resume that's entirely different from where we saw him. But regardless, it is still a very big number. And it was a huge question of, okay, yes, if he does enter this race, great.

He has this resume and he has these connections, but can he raise money? Yes. The answer is yes. Yeah. It was, it's twofold. Can he raise money and can he be disciplined enough on the campaign trail to actually do the work necessary? And you know, seeing him raise money we'll see the he's been on a non-stop media tour doing interviews and stuff so he's doing that and then we'll see the actual you know pounding the pavement in a campaign apparatus so yeah he's auditioning pretty well so far for it. So far so good. What else are you seeing? Another one that stuck out was Markle Hood, state representative from San Antonio, reported

$1.25 million raised in the couple weeks since the post-session moratorium. We cannot stress how big of a number that is for a state rep a couple weeks after the moratorium. That is a big number. It'll be fascinating to see when the report comes out who the donors are and I guarantee you this has a lot to do with the fact that Lahood was one of the biggest wrenches in the gears for TLR in getting what they wanted across the line policy-wise. He was considered the swing vote on the JCJ committee in the House regarding the nuclear

verdicts bills. He also was named in the post-session email that TLR put out. There's also since that been some shakeup at TLR. Dick Tribolsi, a co-founder, is out after decades of service with the organization. For what I'm told, he was going to retire at the end of the year anyway, but they basically, after that happened, moved it up. So my gut says that this fundraising hall for LaHood not only is because he's in a very competitive district and if Democrats do have a better cycle, he's gonna be a target, right? But also that he's probably being backed by the trial lawyers significantly because he stuck

with them and did not, you know, fold the TLR during the legislative session. I'm curious how many donors makes up the majority of that chunk, right? Yeah. Yeah. Good question. I don't think it was in the press release, but I don't know. So that stuck out.

And then one more that I got today, I'm sure we'll get a lot more between now and when this releases, but, um, Cheryl being raised 110 K and her primary campaign so far for HG 94, that's the Tinder hold seat. Um, you know, that's not as off striking as the hood, but it's, it's a good amount of money. It's a good number. Yeah, especially for being in the race for a few weeks, right, so we're gonna see a lot more of this. We'll have all the spreadsheet that lists out

all the fundraising numbers, but, and then comes the diving into who's donating to who, all the side packs, all this stuff. It'll be very interesting to see, but that's just kind of a, uh, the initial, uh, push that we've seen so far. Of course we're recording a little bit earlier this week, just because it is a holiday week and there's a lot of records we have to get done. So we will, um, be reporting on these as they come out.

Make sure to follow Brad on Twitter if you aren't, if you aren't, you're, you're behind. And, uh, I guess we should mention that this might be your last SFR for a little while. Yeah, I don't know why. Because you're getting fired. I just kind of wasn't feeling like it. We've been meaning to have this conversation.

Your performance is lacking. And therefore, you're getting the boot. Yeah, like I said, just wasn't feeling like it. And I think it's, that's really what should dictate a work day. You know, I was like, I'm just not feeling it today. You did say you were getting some senioritis. I kind of am, yeah.

So my due date is July 20th, which is coming very soon. And of course the special session starts the day after my due date. I've already told the team I'm going to need updates if, um, baby girl decides to make her arrival before special session starts, um, which Lord willing she will, but TBD. So while I am out on maternity leave for a little while, Brad will, um, have a different programming, uh, for SFR. So stay tuned for that.

It's gonna be fun. And obviously not as fun as when I'm here, but it will be fun regardless. Maybe I'll just put Winston up here in the chair and I'll talk to him. It's basically the same thing. Yeah. Winston is here making himself quite known.

I will note that he is laying next to me and not to you right now. That's true. That is true. Yeah. So folks stay tuned for that. Brad will be at the helm, making it all happen on SFR and otherwise at the Texan while I'm gone.

How do you feel about that? How are you doing with the impending situation? Oh, I'm very bitter towards you for this. Yeah, it's going to be horrible. And the, the ship might burn down. We'll just have a Viking funeral for the Texans. See nothing's going to burn down. I just think you're gonna be in an even worse mood than usual while I'm out because y'all are finally tuned machine here and we'll be absolutely fine without me.

But the I'm praying for the other people in the office while I'm gone. Specifically, while you're at the helm. Now we'll be fine. It'll be fun. Maybe not so much for me every minute of the day, but I'll ask Rob occasionally how much stomping was there through the office today? How much how much stomping did Brad? I don't stop. Brad, you are so unaware of yourself. You stomp so much.

You stomp. What are you talking about? Yesterday you were like, I'm not moody. And I was like, oh my gosh, we have. Okay. Picture you're illustrating here is me throwing a tantrum through the office like a child. That does not happen.

No. Oh my gosh. All right, let's move on. I'm done with this conversation. You're going to be great. It's going to be awesome. And Brad, thank you for holding down the four while I'm gone. Finally threw that in there.

I really appreciate it. Oh brother. Okay. Well, let's talk about some campaign updates. We teased it a little bit, but there are a lot of open Senate seats to the cycle and very different approach, very different focus, the cycle compared to last in terms of the Texas Senate. We'll talk through the three or excuse me, the four that are top of mind that have a lot of movement happening

right now. We'll talk about Senate district three, 9, 11, and 22 and walk through each of these. So why don't we start with Senate District 3? I guess we're going in numerical order then. Okay. So SD3 is the Robert Nichols seat. He announced as of this recording last week, as as of last week Robert Nichols announced his retirement this was something that had been talked about for a while it wasn't a surprise I would say although it wasn't a foregone conclusion that he was retiring there was a chance he decided to come back for another one another term but when he announced to your point it wasn't like oh that's so

surprising he was one of two two candidates that we've heard of potentially just flat-out retiring total now and we'll talk about the other one in a minute, but Robert Nichols been in the Senate for a long time. He actually came in in the same class as Dan Patrick in the Senate way back When that's interesting for many reasons. Yeah Nichols was you know, he considered more moderate, you know when Mark Jones puts out the rankings He was consistently most moderate of the Republican caucus Rule rule Republican, you know kind of a throwback senator and

he He differed from his party on various policies like taxpayer fund lobbying, how far that should the ban should extend on that. Did he vote against the school choice bill? I actually don't remember. Let me check. Yeah, check for that for me. But he just is a different kind of Republican. And clearly he's, he, he, um, he also voted to impeach, can to convict Ken Paxton in the trial. Um, but on like a select a few articles on some of the articles. Yes.

Not on all of them. Uh one did. Yeah, so he decided to hang it up and there was already a candidate in the race when he did. There was someone that jumped in to challenge him specifically. That's Rhonda Ward. She's an SREC member from the Senate District, from SD3. She's been running for a couple months now. And she rolled out some endorsements of late, reps Joanne Schoffner and Mitch Little, and then also David Covey, who, challenger to Dade Phelan, he lost narrowly by less than 400 votes and she's

clearly taking a few more grassroots conservative lane I would say and getting a lot of that support so far but the race is still wide open. Just after Robert Nichols announced his retirement we had someone we expected to jump in the race, had Nichols retired. Actually did, and that was Representative Trent Ashby, longtime rep from Lufkin. And he basically announced as hoping to continue the generally the way Nichols has represented that area focus on local services, you know, public education, that kind of thing. So that is something that was not surprising either. And I haven't heard of any other, um, names to jump in yet into that race. That one's been kind of quiet. I had heard David Covey's name suggested.

Obviously he's not doing that. He's backing Rhonda Ward. And, um, yeah, that one's that one I think is, is pretty wide open for now. Dan Patrick hasn't made an endorsement. Who knows what they're gonna do. But yeah, there's SD3. And the, or Nichols voted against the Education Savings Council.

Okay, I thought so. Yep. Yeah, it, that could be a lot more competitive of a race than we're typically used to in these Senate districts. Maybe not, but who knows. I think it is notable because we'll go through the others and a lot of the chips have already fallen in terms of endorsements and Dan Patrick, yes the heavy hitter in those races. This one is one where that is not the case and that could play a huge role and the potential

for other candidates to enter or where money might be funneled. So we'll keep an eye on that for sure. But this could be a very interesting race if more folks choose to enter. And even if they don't, it's still a very interesting one, regardless with two candidates that are very interesting, politically different. Should we want to, uh, Senate district nine? Yes. Uh, this one was...

Actually, I'm going to skip it. I'm going to go to Dennis to SD-11 real quick. That's less exciting so far. So SD-11, we've had a candidate in the race for a while, Dennis Paul. He's a state rep from Houston. I think he announced in late April. Basically, whenever Mays Middleton announced a run for AG Paul jumped in Interestingly enough he announced when we'll get to this in a minute he announced with Alan Blakemore as his consultant Blakemore of course his lieutenant governor Patrick's consultant Then you then there's the fact that

Greg Bonin who had been who had been running techs in SD11, but outside his house district touting his leadership on the budget and school choice and whatever and whatnot. He decided, Bonin decided not to run, at least so far. He could always jump in the Senate race, but he announced for re-election to his house seat. That was the name I was watching for another challenger against Paul. Briscoe Kane was eyeing the seat and however the conversations went, they didn't go his way and he has since announced for re-election. Small note on Briscoe, kind of the inside baseball

competition between consultants that we see. Briscoe switched his consultant from Jordan Berry to Ellie Griffin. A lot of that may stem from irritation at the speaker's race because Berry, Speaker Burroughs is one of his consultants and then Barry was split, a lot of his clients were split between the two sides but Briscoe who's been on the outs of leadership in the house this session has switched to Griffin. So that one, that district's more straightforward, less straightforward

are the remaining two, I'd say. Particularly after when Paul announced and had the Patrick endorsement, it was like, okay, it was instant. It was instant. There was was very coordinated, which is how this works, especially in the Senate races. Dan Patrick has a usually a very heavy hand in the races, very heavy hand in which candidates are supported.

He's vetting candidates himself. Yes. Conversations are happening behind closed doors, phone calls, also like there's a lot happening. I also think which we talked about previously, but Dennis Paul being the heir apparent was a very interesting name to have thrown out, especially with the other folks you mentioned. Bonin and Kane certainly have profiles of their own and we know that they were not just like floating around the idea that this was a very serious consideration for both of them.

And even in some cases, money was spent to try and like get ahead of the race a little bit. So it was very interesting when you see Paul, who was a very, in a lot of ways, low profile. House member. And somebody who's not at the front mic very often and who... Or especially the back mic. Or the back mic. He's kind of just there. And seeing his name come up for Senate was very interesting. Now, of course, we can, and we talked about this before, the lieutenant governor certainly wants folks in his chamber

who are members of his party who align with his agenda. And Paul could certainly be a candidate who falls very specifically in line with that. So well, and then you look at Briscoe and he's totally a maverick streak. You know, if he, he'll get a wild hair and want to blow something up. You know, the amount of, if you watch him on the floor, the amount of, uh, suggestions he's making or, or points of order he's handing to people, you can see it. Like he's, he's very well schooled now. Of course, the parliamentary stuff doesn't matter as much in the Senate. Right.

But there's still with that streak other ways to do different things that could potentially hurt the lieutenant governor. That's not to say Cain, if he had made the Senate, would have just gone in and been a Thorne and Patrick side. There's just a higher chance of it than with Dennis Paul. Absolutely. And Bonin was a very interesting character not looped into that conversation too. Yeah, well, I mean, yeah, the fact that who's Greg Bonin's brother, Dennis Bonin, who's a lobbyist, lobbyist consultant in the building.

Former speaker of the Texas House. Of course, yep, worked well with Patrick for the one session that he was there. Superbowl session. Superbowl session. The kumbaya session. Yeah, yeah, the greatest session in the history of sessions. Right, they all. Yeah, right.

I'm just waiting until we have an acceptable session. You know? You know? Just one that, you know, it's all right. If somebody comes out and says, we've had an acceptable session, I think they should just become president of the world. Not one that's neither the worst thing ever

or the greatest thing ever. Just like, hey, we passed some stuff. Yeah. We didn't pass some stuff. And you could decide. You're there for five months. Yeah. If you like it.

Great. If not, let me know. Yeah. I don't think that will happen. No. We don't live in that world. No. Let's do SC22 before we hit nine, which is going to be a much longer

conversation, I think. I did put them in numerical order. Obviously. So SC22, we alluded to the other long-term retirement I did put them in numerical order. You can obviously do it everywhere. So, SC22, we alluded to the other long-term retirement in the Senate and that's Brian Birdwell, Republican from Granbury. Birdwell is quite a figure in the building. His word goes a long way. Also, he has quite a story. He was in the Pentagon when the American Airlines flight hit it on 9-11.

He got severely burned. He lived with that for the rest of his life. He then became a statesman and passed a lot of stuff, but also made some interesting stands. Like first and foremost, I'd say the SB4 stand he took in the special session last, in 23, and he was the border security chair and he spoke against the bill that eventually passed, I

believe, creating a penalty for illegal entry into the United States from a foreign nation. So very notable as a Republican, very notable as the chairman of that committee, very notable with his background, very notable in that I think that's when, I'm curious if you'd agree, the rumors about potential retirement certainly started swirling in a much more aggressive capacity, specifically because of the lieutenant governor and how that all went down. So, yeah, very interesting. a very, there was a lot of respect for Birdwell in that building and as there is Nichols and two pillars of the institution are gonna be leaving and that just happens right like people have to retire at some point and they're going out as it seems on their own terms, but SD 22 this race It wasn't in a totally open seats and empty field for long we saw

David Cook Republican from Mansfield also notably who ran for speaker He jumped in the race shortly after Birdwell announced his retirement In a very competitive speakers's race, mind you. This is not just some random candidate who ran like we've seen in previous cycles. This was a contentious, open speaker race. We've talked about it. Go back to the other episodes. The most competitive we've seen ever, probably. First floor vote we've had for a speaker, at least competitive floor vote,

where we didn't know the result going in. Multiple ballots. The whole thing. Yeah. So caucus endorsement that at the time went entirely to to Cook and not to, which I mean, there's debate about how that all went down, right? That's half the battle is like, okay, was this a legitimate vote or not? But the caucus, the Republican caucus vote is what Cook ended up securing. Yeah.

That of course was after the chunk of them left, you know, all this. Regardless, Cook, he had a pretty good session, it seemed, despite being the head of the opposition for the speaker who won. He got a, I think it was a chairmanship of a subcommittee. Yeah, there's a lot of plain nice. Yeah after and You know, he wasn't causing problems. He was heavily involved in in the bail reform discussions. So he he didn't cause a ruckus no and Anyway, he he has been high in the seat for a while like you know if if I'm if I'm David Cook and I see a potential opening in the Senate race, Senate

district that I would like, and an opportunity to get my name out there more is to run for speaker and heck, if I win it, I win it, you know? He came close but he didn't and so now, you know, the plan for him now is to run for Senate. And not only did that give him a leg up in terms of name ID, gave him a leg up with the lieutenant governor, because he was the one that was opposing the speaker, the candidate that the lieutenant governor was then opposing. And first, like, Phelan, when Cook announced Phelan was in the race, when Cook won the, when Cook won the,

not the caucus, the barbecue meeting. The reform group nomination. Phelan was still in the race. And so, not only was Cook opposition to Burroughs, who of course now has a good relationship with Patrick, it all turned out fine for them, um, between the two, two of the big three there. Um, Cook was, was the guy that was there opposing and, you know, on Patrick's side of this fight, right? So I bet I'm sure that helped him

and Patrick never named cook he just said I'm supporting the person who received these well he eventually named cook it took a long time in the immediate aftermath of the caucus brouhaha he did not specifically name cook um or maybe it was, yeah, I don't know, it all runs together. Regardless, he eventually did name Cook and Burrows won. But anyway, Cook is now running for SD22. And he's been eyeing the Senate for a long time, even before he was a House member.

Yep. And he, well, he announced with who as his consultant. Hmm. Maybe Blakemore? Alan Blakemore. Interesting. So I mentioned Briscoe Cain switching consultants. Well this is a consultant switch too because Cook had Murphy Nasca as his consultant before he ran for speaker. Just before he jumped into the speakers race he dropped Murphy Nasca and hired Griffin Communications and then now he has listed Blakemore as the lead on the on his team so pattern is developing and so it's right now he's the he's got the inside track

not just because he is the only candidate in the race but because he has Blakemore which gives him an inside track to the Patrick endorsement. I mean it's it's probably coming right I'll be hard-pressed to believe Patrick does not endorse Cook for this. It just hasn't come yet as we're recording today. We'll talk about the order of how that probably goes down. Right? It's not necessarily in my mind that somebody goes to Blakemore and says, hey, can you,

I'd like to hire you. And it's not run by the lieutenant governor. It's not a coordinated effort. Like in my mind, that is like step three is the actual final hiring of Blakemore. It's a, it's a coordinated effort. And certainly, um, Blakemore's number one client is the Lieutenant governor and, um, that is who he is concerned with, um, being in line

with, not the other way around. Yep. Absolutely. Good. Would you like to go to SD9 then? Yes, let's do it. Let's talk Tarrant County. This was quite a string of events. Why could you possibly say that Bradley? Everything else was pretty straightforward that we just talked about but But this was not at all. And so we saw, first of all, what happened was initially Kelly Hancock resigned from the Senate, went to the Comptroller's office, became the chief

clerk, then announced his run for Comptroller in 2026. It's self a whole ball of constitutional question wax. Even though people still are asking questions. Right. Right. On paper. And maybe there's a lawsuit filed. There could be. Totally. But on paper it's it was supposed to have solved all these constitutional questions. Right. So we had a Hancock drop out. Then there was like a few days of who's gonna jump in. We haven't seen anybody. We knew Nate Schatzlein was eyeing it.

In fact, he told me that he was considering it a couple weeks before Hancock actually did the thing. A state house member from the from the area. So he was kind of seen as the the front runner for this and you know it's kind of his to lose right looking at the list of house members you know you had Gio Capriglione now I'm blanking on all of them that I was thinking about for this, but regardless, Shat's line was the most obvious. And vocal.

And vocal. He did jump in after a lengthy weekend where everyone was wondering what the heck's going to happen. He jumped in, got a bunch of endorsements, and then a day or two later dropped out. Very strange. The reason though was not that strange because Lee Wams Goms jumped in. She's the head of Patriot Mobile and that pack that they have run up in Tarrant County specifically, not just Tarrant County, but that's where they've been the most active, deep-pocketed, very active, conservative activist. When she announced she had Blakemore as her consultant, as

the point of contact on the press release. Immediately after that Dan Patrick endorses her. So now it's just long guns in the in the race and at least on the Republican side. Tim O'Hara did consider running in this race before Shatsline even jumped in. The Tarrant County Judge. So the executive of the county. Yes. He eventually decided not to and then Shatsline jumped in, formally. But now that Wams Gons is the candidate chosen by Patrick, we're waiting to see specifically what does Abbott do.

Because this is a seat formerly held by a huge Abbott ally in Hancock. When Hancock announced for Comptroller, Abbott came out immediately and endorsed him. That not only has something to do with how much he likes Hancock, but how much he hates Don Huffins, who's also running for Comptroller. So his statement was unreal. Yeah. In that,

where he was essentially saying, you know, Hancock has, uh, how did it go? How would I forget? I'm going to butcher it, but essentially saying that he wants to support candidates who win races. Yeah. He, he wants a Republican who hasn't lost to Democrat before. Immediately. I mean, that is a reference to Dona Fiennes, who was one of two Senate seats, including our founder, Connie Burton, that in the Beto wave of 2018 lost their seats in those kind of suburban urban areas. Yeah. So what does Abbott do here? Does he back a different candidate?

And of course this is all happening within the context of this massive fight over the THC bill between Patrick and Abbott. And they are going to war on this at least rhetorically so far, but that can turn into campaign fights. And this is a great candidate for that because this is a seat that was held by such a staunch Abbott ally and at times opponent of Dan Patrick in the Senate.

I mean, Kelly Hancock got put in time out after the repricing fight in 2021. So electricity repricing after the Urquhart grid collapse. The big freeze. Yeah. So question is what happens there. Now Abbott could also find an ally in a different district. Of course.

Right. But Hancock is symbolic, right? Yes, exactly. So there's two names to watch that I'm hearing. Both would be vying for the Abbott support. That's Armin Mazzani, Mayor of Keller. He put out a tweet saying he's considering it. John Huffman, former Mayor of Southlake. He also ran in the South Lake he also ran in the CD 26 race that Brandon Gill won I think it's 26 I think you're right yes and he finished I think third or fourth I can't remember but those two are considering it behind the scenes and you know we'll see which, if either of them jump in,

it's notable that those two are really good friends and have a history together, both being neighbors next to each other. So I would assume that we have, by the time this goes out, we'll have an answer on which one of them is going to jump in. If either of them. But

either of those candidates would be, you know, neither of them was a pushover for this seat. It would not be an easy race for Wams Gons and especially if one of them has Abbott's support or both of them maybe backs both of them I don't know. The other wrinkle to the seat though is the special election is November 4th and that will be a jungle primary basically.

There's no Democratic primary and Republican primary. It's everybody together. And so you'll still have the top two candidates go to a runoff. But there is a Democrat in the race. Taylor Remit, he's a union guy in town. He announced a week ago, shortly, I think before Hancock dropped out, the district is 55-45 for Ted Cruz. I think our TPI is like low 60s.

Yeah. So that's enough. For Republicans. That's a Republican, it's a guaranteed Republican seat in a regular general election. But if you have a special election that can throw the math off, right, depending on which voter base is more motivated to turn out. And, you know, we've seen some weird stuff happen in special elections, most of them elsewhere in the country but you can have a Democrat win a Republican seat we've seen more in Texas Republicans winning in special elections and seats that they're not expected to that's what's been more prevalent but it is not

impossible for a Democrat to have this email well an example on the flipside was Myra Flores winning that congressional seat before redistricting that was a Democratic seat. She won that in the special election. The first Republican Elon Musk voted for. Yep but then lost in the general the uh the 2022 election to Vincent and Gonzalez after the redistricting. So it can happen things have to break their the underdogs way but it can happen so remits in in the race that 45% though for for all red against Cruz that is a sizable enough contingent to get remit to the runoff. And so if you've got Wamsgun's Mazzani and Huffman in, it is very likely that you have Remit in as a one of the two runoff candidates. And then who the heck knows how that turns out in the special election? Obviously you give the better chances to the Republican, but

that's what's at stake here. And you know, maybe Remit flames out as a candidate, that's certainly possible, but there's no guarantee that that happens. And so Mazzani and Huffman, they don't have to, they can both run if they want, but from a Republican perspective, it's probably better that there's only two Republicans in the race. Not least because you won't have AVID support either split or picking one over the other. Right? So, jury's out on how those two handle it. I have a feeling that we'll probably know who's in and who's out by the time this podcast goes out,

which is unfortunate since we had to record so early, but it's going to be an interesting race. That's for sure. And I think the Senate being such a fluctuating body, this cycle makes it so, it makes it really fun because this was just not the case last cycle. And we're not even just dealing with well-funded challengers to incumbents. We're dealing with flat open seats, which is fun.

I mean, four seats and some, somebody can do the math, but four seats in a body of 31, that's a significant chunk. I mean, we're talking near 20%. Last cycle we had two, one was the general election, the other one was a primary. Yeah. So this is a lot more up in the air. A lot more at stake.

And I think the Senate too, just being a four year term for these seeds, being the kind of body that it is, it's a far more stable body in terms of turnover than say the house. So it makes it very, very interesting to watch when these kinds of things happen when there is an influx of open seats. And these can be big races, big spending, expensive races. And that brings us to the Blakemore of it all, which we've been talking about a little bit here and there. What? Your overuse of, of it all. Of it all. It's now I put it out. And so now it's like when glass shatters, glass shattering every time I hear it. That's how I feel when you say, right on a chalkboard, all of the, of it

all formats that you've used. I gave up doing that for you with as it were many years ago. But see that's, that's comedic. Even if I'm the only one that finds it funny, you're not trying to be funny. I could not roll my eyes more. You saying as it were is comedic. Yeah. I'm saying it ironically.

Are you saying of it all ironically? No, of course not. So then you don't have the same excuse. Whatever. Um, well let's talk about Alan Blakemore. Okay. The Alan Blakemore of it all. Um, obviously he, I mean, he is Dan Patrick's right hand.

He's the person making a lot of these things happen behind the scenes. When you spoke about that general election race last cycle that was so heated for the Senate seat, we're talking about Adam and house who, um, it was a in a host of versus La Montilla, Democrat versus Republican, in a seat that certainly was eyed by everyone. It was a big money race. And Blakemore, when you see Blakemore's name

on a press release for a candidate, it's significant because it means that, that likely comes paired with the Lieutenant Governor's support, endorsement, and money. And he's on the press releases, and he is the consultant for many of these candidates already in these open seats for the Texas Senate. Well, also with Hinojosa, also note that Brent Hagenbu, the other open Senate seat there last cycle, had Blake Moore as well as his consultant.

Which was a rare instance, at least in these days, where we saw a divide between the Lieutenant Governor and a lot of, at least in these days, where we saw a divide between the lieutenant governor and a lot of the Republican activists in the state. That was, we were at the convention, the Republican Party of Texas Convention, and I think he went to, what district is that? Why can't I remember? 30.

The lieutenant governor went to the Senate district, 30 caucus meeting, and was not well received at the time. There was J.C. Arbrow and there was Brent Haggenvue and this was certainly an instance in which the lieutenant governor and the kind of grassroot side of the Republican Party apparatus were very much at odds over this race. Yeah and you know that that might be... And it was heated and it was close even with the lieutenant governor's support well we might see that shift more this cycle depending on things you know like take the the pot stuff there's a there is a segment of

the conservative right that does not like that is that a motive motivating enough factor for them to turn on Dan Patrick who's been, at least as they've seen in the last few cycles, their biggest ally in the legislature. At least in terms of the big three, right? Does that or the conservative displeasure with the ESA legislation, because there that guess who by the way guess who signed on to the letter among conservatives condemning the ESA bill tell us Lee Wanskans interesting along with a bunch of other people like it was I just looked at the letter yesterday it was 65 pages long of people

signing yeah and obviously some of them are just like precinct chairs or whatnot, but there were also groups and pretty big activists involved in that. Um, so that's an interesting wrinkle by the way. Uh, especially, I think they're going to have to vote to continue the ESA program next session. Will they? I don't remember something about that. Yeah. At least appropriating money to it.

Yeah. The appropriation is going to be what's debated I believe. Because it'll just expand. Yeah. Anyway. Significantly. So that's an interesting theme to watch. Is there an actual break between the conservative rights and Dan Patrick? And if there is, does that flow downstream to these candidates that he is backing heavily for these Senate seats? I think the odds of all those dominoes falling is pretty low, but it's possible. Then so Then, so, okay, so Blakemore has had the two open seats last cycle. This cycle, we already went through who of the declared candidates that has them as their hasn't missed their consultant this time, Wams Gons, Paul and Cook. We've seen consultant switches.

Um, it's, it's just, it's pretty clear what's going on. And Blake Moore is kind of the key to at least the best chances you'll have of getting a silent seat. Explain to folks why the lieutenant governor has such a vested interest in who enters the chamber. Well he wants people who are not gonna cause problems. He wants people who are in line enough with him ideologically. So you can have a couple ways you can cause problems. One way is by being ideologically different. I'd argue that Robert Nichols fit that enough, or at least somewhat, though he and Patrick,

from what I'm told, have a very good relationship, even despite that. And then you have... Unlike previous dissenters in the Senate. Yeah, like, uh... Why can't I? Yes, there you go. First day I remember on this job was watching Kel Seliger. I was thinking about the The property tax wasn't property tax. Yeah

He was he was objecting to you to the threat of using the nuclear option of lowering the threshold in order to advance the To move I believe to move the blocker bill so that the property tax bill could come up the, to move, I believe to move the blocker bill so that the property tax bill could come up. That seems like so long ago, because it was, but. And I remember him, he didn't filibuster like Wendy Davis did for hours, but he was kind of filibustering and he made his, his point known. He was very much a thorn in the side of the lieutenant governor, whereas Nichols, though policy-wise may be more similar to Seliger than anybody else

in the chamber, has a very different approach. Yeah, he's not fighting with Patrick's top advisor like Seliger did with Sherri Sylvester. Oh my gosh, that's right. So definitely a different tact, and that's I'm sure why they have a good relationship despite disagreements on policy But Blakemore has those three candidates and you have to give them the The favorite status right now to win those seats not just because they're the only candidates in the race But even if you have other candidates jump in

I would think They have the leg up because they're the only candidates in the race. But even if you have other candidates jump in, I would think they have the leg up. But like I said, is that tested with some of these crosswinds that we've seen develop in terms of themes, displeasure with Lieutenant Governor from some corners. Also the fact that Patrick is closer to the end of his tenure as Lieutenant Governor than the beginning. There's constantly rumors about, oh, he's not going to run again, he's not going to run again. Well, he said constantly he's going to run again. So I think until we see otherwise, we have to take him at his word. And that doesn't mean he can't wake up tomorrow

and decide oh I'm not gonna run again that could happen but the the Blakemore of it all is you didn't register in your head it having him in your corner clearly gives you a leg up as a candidate to get to where you want to go under the current conditions of the Senate. And that's why we see so many candidates switching, you know, having to hire him or wanting to hire him in order to get where they want to go. And there's nothing like that in the house. Probably first and foremost because there's just a lot more people in the house, a lot more territory to cover and one firm can only have so many clients. But it's gonna be very big cycle for Blakemore though. This is like a very, yeah like yeah. Like I said,

these Senate races are very expensive. They're very big. And obviously there's a whole, like this will be, when you see Blakemore's name on a press release, it also indicates the Lieutenant governor is behind the scenes helping making a lot of these calls. There's I would say in a lot of the cases, it's for everyone, but. But specifically for these.

For example, Huffines is, and it has Blakemore as a consultant. Sorry, I should have specified the Senate seats. Okay. Yeah. Because you're right. I think that that is a very different. I don't see Patrick pulling things by the scenes for Don Huffines. Yes, absolutely.

But with the Senate seats specifically, I don't think there's a world in which Alan Blakemore takes on a candidate for a Senate seat that is not blessed in some way by the Lieutenant Governor. Yeah. Well, he also has Joan Huffman, who is running for AG. Based on my count from polling press release, finance reports, Blakemore has at least nine of the 20 Republicans. And if you add those next three, that's 12.

That is almost a supermajority of the body in terms of the Republican caucus. So that's a lot of influence, a lot of power. It's just impossible to ignore. And then you add the fact that Blackmore has a lot of power. It's just impossible to ignore. And then you add the fact that Blackmore has a lot of lobby clients as well. You know, there's always accusations left and right behind the scenes on that stuff. But,

yeah, it's a fascinating twist. Absolutely. And well, something we'll keep our eyes on for the entirety of the primary and general cycle. Okay, should we move on to vetoes? Yeah, I'd appreciate if you'd talk for a bit because my, since you did do the veto tracker, but also my voice is dying, so over to you.

Yes, absolutely. Um, okay. Well, I know I should have said you're gonna make the pregnant lady talk. That's what I should have said. Let's talk vetoes. So obviously we've, um, we have a veto tracker up on the website. It's really helpful in kind of just sealing down what each veto looks like, who the authors of each bill are in the House and the Senate,

the co-authors, the sponsors, et cetera. It's really helpful in bringing all that down. And most notably, we include the governor's reasoning behind each veto, the statement he includes, which is always very interesting to see the different approaches taken in explaining why he acts as a piece of legislation. So go check that out at the Texan.News. But I think what was specifically notable is that we had until the deadline, the veto deadline, we had two vetoes from the governor and ended with a couple dozen. So we were waiting, we knew they were coming, but it really was a question of, okay, what will be on the list and will SB3, will the THC ban be on that list that the lieutenant

governor has so forcefully backed for many months. And it was an issue that at the very beginning of the session, when the lieutenant governor did come forward with his priorities was like, not shocking, but very surprising that this was so top of mind for the lieutenant governor. And that has such a low bill number in the Senate. I mean, behind like school choice and the budget it was the THC band like SB1 the budget, SB2, ESAs, SB3, THC band. It came out of nowhere. It came out of yes it was very

surprising. So watching all of this go down and watching the governor issue these vetoes quite literally at like 1130 p.m. was super interesting and very notable and it did indicate a little bit of where this special session would go and immediately following midnight we got a special session issuance from the governor so we or immediately had information as to what would be on the call. But I think, you know, it would be remiss of us not to start with SB3 and talk through that. And Brad, you weren't here when we talked about the press conference between the lieutenant governor. I watched it. That was spicy. It was spicy. You were you were out golfing, hopefully. I don't know if you were golfing at the

time. I was golfing on the next day. Brad took so much needed vacation and was not able to chat with us on the weekly roundup about how unique and yes, absolutely. How unique and just fascinating the lieutenant governor's approach was in that press conference. We have never seen the lieutenant governor so adversarial toward the governor in a press conference. Usually he takes a very differential tone. He's very careful about what he says about the governor, very careful not to make any statements on the governor's behalf. He goes out of his way to do so. Now, will he do that for other folks? Like the speaker? No, he certainly kind of throws around his weight as the arguably most powerful elected

official in the state with with absolute readiness at any given time. But the governor is where typically that line stops for Dan Patrick. Well, and even here he kept saying, you know, we'll work I'll work with the governor well later after down the road, you know, while also saying explicitly that the governor wanted to legalize recreational marijuana. So that's what we're talking about here. This is He definitely still tried to have his dan patrick deference moments toward the governor How well that played out?

It did not play out. I don't think yeah, I don't think that that landed well with Eul governor Abbott. I'm thinking you're right and And it wasn't even that he, like those moments of deference came after 10 minutes, I'd say about, about 10 minutes of very ardent argument as to why this veto was disappointing. He was, the governor is obviously very emotional about this issue. And so he was convicted on it. These only deferential moments that you're talking about came after a lot of minutes of him lambasting the governor over this

decision. So yes, but also, but also absolutely not. And that was what was so notable. Like all of us were watching this press conference, just going, what is happening? Because it was not out of character for the lieutenant governor to go and play hardball at a press conference, but to do so when the opponent is the governor. And I think he'd argue with my term opponent, if he... On this, he's an opponent, yep.

On this, he's an opponent. But that's where the- Sample A, B that's where I'm taking pot shots on each other. But that's where those moments of deference still come in, right? Where I think you would be like, Oh, yeah. And in leading up to that, I think it is notable too, that the governor was very, very quiet on this issue. He was like, I have thousands of bells on my desk. I need to make decisions on. I'm not going to talk about SB3. And that alone was indicative to me of something not so good for this bill.

Also, the lieutenant governor leading up to this was asked repeatedly about his thoughts on where the governor would be on the THC ban. And I think what, and this shows you the emotion behind this issue for the lieutenant governor. He said something along the lines of, I trust the governor's heart is in the right place. That was the language he used. He said something along the lines of, I trust the governor's heart is in the right place. That was the language he used. Yeah, he said, I'm not worried about the governor and I trust that. Which is, that language alone is very interesting.

In the press conference, the part that made me, so I was watching this on the back deck of the house I was staying at with a beautiful lake in front of me. And for some reason I decided to disrupt that and watch this. Had Margarita in hand. But I'm glad I did,

because it was something. It was wild. And it's kind of one of those things too, you don't want to watch in hindsight, you want to watch it live. Yes, absolutely. But the part that made me go, oh crap, was

when he said he disclosed, according to him, conversations that he and the governor had where the governor told him don't worry about the bill. And then according to Patrick went back on whatever that meant as a word. We've never seen that happen between these two before. Yeah. So, oh boy. They are hopping mad at one another. I think that's an understatement. Which I also think it's worth noting that there have been,

I'm sure, plenty of moments where these two have been at very adversarial odds before. Yeah, they were at odds over power grid stuff. And even like- Repricing was one. Not even that. Compression, Homestead Exemption. But did that manifest publicly?

No. What was interesting in this press conference though was Patrick mentioned it. He mentioned the Homestead Exemption of it all. From, of it all. Dang it, darn you. From the last special session fight. Well, you know the differences

At least as we're to be to believe right now Patrick is On his own or no Patrick was on his own back then taking fire. He could turn the fire at the house The house passed what Patrick wanted and the speaker let it go and He could turn the fire at the House. The House passed what Patrick wanted, and the Speaker let it go. And you know, back when the first press conference happened on this SB3 thing, Charles Perry said that he had conversations with Burroughs leading up to the session before Burroughs was Speaker, and Burroughs said that he was in favor of banning it all. So perhaps the reason that Patrick is so forthrightly PO'd at Abbott is because he's the obstacle

to getting what he wants here. For sure. I mean obviously he is, but he doesn't have to direct fire at the House because it's the governor that's the one that's opposing this. But it still is so, you're totally right, but it is still so notable then instead of having backroom conversations and maybe a more passive aggressive press conference, he came out swinging the way he did. We've never seen that before. The House did back SB 3 as it was this time, but there have already been multiple House members who put out statements saying that they're glad the governor vetoed and that they can take a more measured approach at this in the special.

And members who've come out and said... Conservative Republicans. Yes, very conservative Republicans and members who've said I voted for SB 3 because I was told By the lieutenant governor that house bills were dead if this did not that was Drew Darby who said that said that out loud There are others who said that they got no such threat question is you know is a direct threat even necessary or is the possibility of a threat? The the insinuation of one it does that do the job for it?

This politics right like they're all leveraging one another and That's how it goes it would not be surprised at all if the insinuation was made if not a direct threat was made on that but Maybe maybe Drew Darby did have that threatened to him and then other members did not. So like there's no way Dan Patrick called everybody in, the entire house in and said all your stuff's dead if you don't pass this. Right. That just didn't happen. Right. Right. He's going to pick and choose the spots where to apply pressure, where to persuade, try and persuade.

Who can spread the message? Yeah. Who do I need to put explicit pressure on? On the other hand, you know, that Oliver, Tom Olliverson, when he was circulating the floor substitute to strike the entire Ken King bill and replace it with the SB 3. Ken King's bill being a little bit more regulatory more like potentially what Governor Abbott has in mind and replace it with the Senate's version essentially. Oliverson got 50 signatures in a day. He got the majority of the Republican caucus in a day. By far the majority. This thing is very complicated. There's a lot.

It depends on who you're talking to at any given moment. And just because all the Republicans voted one way, or not all of them, but almost all of them voted one way, doesn't mean that after a month of thought and consideration that they're not going to want a second go at it to try and in their mind make it better whichever way that goes right so then you add the court case the eighth court of appeals ruled on the Arkansas law this was something that Abbott in his veto declaration cited the the Arkansas THC ban law that similar but not not exactly the same as what Texas tried to pass and that had been hung up in the

courts well then like two days later you can't you can't make this up two days later the 8th Circuit puts out their opinion on the case that the governor cited and it goes at least in its overall ruling against what the governor is saying. Now he quibbled at the details on you know what the what the case itself was actually about whether the scenario in that case would apply to the Texas law and how that might be held up in court. So that came out and then we saw them actually take pot shots at each other on Twitter. Reminiscent of 2023 when we saw the Lieutenant Governor and the speaker, they'd feel and throw in pot shots at one another on Twitter. Oh, there were no memes.

No stupid. They got to step it up. But that means we're on a countdown to meme time. Right? Now we have the AI generated memes you can make. Yes. You don't just have to Photoshop. I could make so many jokes about the feeling bill

and the AI generated memes and disclosures. Yeah. I wonder whenever we come to a resolution on this, if the two do bury the hatchet, if someone's gonna make a- Abbott and Patrick. An Abbott and Patrick AI meme of like Lady and the Tramp. With the spaghetti. With the spaghetti. And the meatball. Yeah, in the Tramp with her spaghetti and the

meatball yeah in the back alley who's rolling the meatball oh I don't know who's offering over probably Patrick hmm a little deferential I really like that you answered that question he's not rolling it over with his nose though that would be that would be kind of weird. Yeah. Maybe just, just a fork. Yeah. Here, take this. Yeah. This is the important analysis you get on some footroom folks. Somebody will make that, that image. Regardless, I'm very curious to see in this special session, because this did, we'll,

we'll, we'll, we'll move on to the special now. Um, cause it relates to these vetoes. So directly, uh, I'm very curious to see what public messaging is like between these two on this issue, what the governor has in mind, who's tasked with taking this bill through the House, because that's where it will be, that's where the governor will likely push through the portions that he's looking for, right?

It will not originate in the Senate. So the House-filed version will be very interesting to keep an eye on. Well, then you go back to the specials from last time and you had, when the governor issued his special, the first special proclamation, and he said, I want only compression, the Senate made a big spectacle of arguing from the dais, Patrick Chief among them, that the governor doesn't get to decide what the legislature passes. He can call, he can decide a broad category of policy that needs to be addressed. He doesn't get to decide how they address it. And so that's

gonna be Patrick's argument again. Right. And this is why when you were talking about A and SD9 replacement for Hancock, that is a top of mind for this. This is the kind of utilitarian means we're talking about and saying the governor wants an ally in the Senate in that way, who could be potentially more loyal to him than the illusion of governor and offer amendments or offer direction or or just advocate pressure yes backroom pressure advocate for things on the governor's office now it won't matter because special elections not until November totally but if this gets pushed like

if nothing happens this session and they come back next session to try and do something on it. But that might be how this works, right? That's that's that's the use for somebody like Hancock in a situation like this. Would it even matter when there are so many people aligned with the lieutenant governor who want to be on his good side in the Senate? Well, that's a whole other conversation. But at least there is an advocate in the governor's minds in the Senate.

Well, and Abbott listed out all these criteria of things he their conversation, but at least there is an advocate in the governor's mind in the Senate. Well, and Abbott listed out all these criteria of things he wants or recommends to the body to consider in making a blueprint for this rather than just straight prohibition on it. So. Where do you think the speaker is on all this? Somewhere between Patrick and Abbott, which is not really a broad area to be in, right? You know, my sense throughout this, and this wasn't based on conversations I had with either with him or his people, he's not, if he was dead set opposed, like Dade Phelan is, he's been outspoken on this.

If he was dead set opposed to a straight ban, he would have applied that pressure in session. He didn't. There's a lot of talk about it being SB3 being held hostage and trade bait for HP2 or vice versa actually vice versa is the accusation. I don't see it that way. I think the trade bait for SB3 was the THC or not the

compassion teacup compassionate use program and That's the cover that enough House members needed and probably Senate members too To vote for this straight ban now get into the policy nitty-gritty There's a all kinds of arguments about the teacup expansion being insufficient or being too costly in the wrong run or it being perfect for what What is needed here in this case? Yes, but politically That was the cover necessary.

I don't have any indication that HB2 was trade bait for SB3, even though that's kind of how it's been done in the past, the big ticket items, one for one, right? And that tells me that Burroughs is a lot more friendly to the idea than the idea of banning the THC's, hemp stuff, hemp products, than Abbott is, at least in this case. And I don't think Abbott wants, listen, nobody wants the status quo. Nobody wants it to be like the way it is now, where you have these 8,000 shops everywhere, including next to schools.

Something's going to be done, whether it's this special session or next session, to clamp down on that. And a lot of the actors in the industry are calling for it because they're already established. Get back to the regulation side of things. The already established businesses want regulation. They welcome it because it cuts down on competition. Now that doesn't mean that their cases for it are wrong. There might be a problem and it seems like there is a problem.

In the industry, they're bad actors, but there's that selfish underlying reason all the time. Like get rid of the fluff. Yeah, get rid of the the one-off cake shops that are just selling it to anybody coming in. Right. Right. We want these much prettier upscale operations that aren't grungy and disgusting. So yeah, that fight is gonna be obviously the thing most people are watching. You got a couple other potentials, what else does it have to add? He mentioned some bills, some lower level bills, although some of those are very fascinating, including when I wrote about the cement kiln.

I was gonna say. That is, if you're interested in a very weird behind the scenes lobby fight, go look up the cement kiln piece on our site. It is just wild. Yeah. It's fascinating. But we're going to see something on that, at least as of what Abbott announced, there's various other lower level bills.

Question is, what else does he add? He hinted to the Harris County GOP at their Lincoln Reagan dinner that he might add a taxpayer-funded lobbying ban There's calls to Add I forget the number Mary Lee's has covered this a lot the the abortion Pill mailing ban from out of state. There's a huge ladder circulating with lots of signatures from members. Yep. So those are two of the bigger ones that I've seen.

I'm sure we'll see other stuff because that tends to be how it happens. But the biggest two that we're waiting for are the border money allotment from Congress in the bill. I refuse to call it that what they're all calling it stupid but the the funding bill that we're waiting to see finally pass and that includes 13.5 billion dollars at least as of now as of what passed the Senate Senator Cornyn and others managed to secure that in there reimbursement to the state we'll see if we get that tranche what it

is that state leaders want to allot it for whether it's property tax compression more infrastructure spending school finance or an increase to the ESA allotment like that could happen it's a lot of money it's a huge chunk. So that is something that provided it gets done fast enough in time for the special that will be on the call. Then the question is what do you pair that with? Redistricting. The thing that everyone's talking about waiting for congressional redistricting. And originally when I first heard about this, the position of those higher up was that It's the special is just gonna be

Read congressional redistricting and the Porter money And I think we talked about this on either the last as I think the last SFR it was Obviously things have changed not least because SP3 got vetoed, right? But the congressional redistricting is still there and I'm told it is going to happen have changed, not least because SB3 got vetoed, right? But the congressional redistricting is still there and I'm told it is going to happen. It's just gonna, and they need to get it in as early as possible before things ramp up for the next cycle. That way candidates can get set in districts.

The Trump administration is pushing hard to redistrict and it's not just Texas, it's other states too. For some reason they think they can get five new Republican seats in this state. Which, by the way, would require redrawing the entire map, not just a region. I don't see any way they can get five new seats. And even if they did get five seats in this cycle, that doesn't mean that you can keep them next cycle because what you would have to do rather than have a lot of really heavy Republican districts is make a bunch of purple districts and that's just harder to to maintain those

seats you're leaving more up to chance you have a good Democratic candidate in one district and they manage to catch lightning in a bottle and win it, right? So I don't I'm no redistricting expert There are gonna be people if they do this that are gonna be paid a lot of money to fly into Texas and Manage this operation to redraw the maps first. You got to get all the congressional members on board but five seats is a lot and you have to also like But five seats is a lot. And you have to also like, because the whole argument behind this redistricting effort, and it only being congressional is because the president is putting pressure on a lot

of states reportedly to put as many to try and maintain that Republican majority in the US House and to try and do that as solidly as possible. Is it possible even with all these redistricting efforts in different states? TBD, we'll see. But how much of an overhaul is a state like Texas willing to have with these maps for five seats? Or will they just say, hey, we'll give you, like, we can get a couple. We can make the effort.

We're going to do what we can. But five seats, when we jeopardize Future election cycles and have to go through the similar process when we're just reading it's not on the calendar for us for years like What can we do? I'll be very curious to see how aggressive of an approach they'll take in this Well, and I'll mention again whenever we talk about this that there's nothing in the constitution that says you cannot do mid-decade redistricting. You can do it whenever you want. You just have to do it the first session after the census is issued. So you have to do it at least once a decade. You can do it whenever you want. And it is flat out a power grab. It's not even bald-faced, like it's just out there.

You're not hiding it at all when you do this. Which is why there's been so much discussion about this border funding, this border money being part of this call, so that Democrats don't flee the state and we deal with another quorum best. Because they've shown that they're willing to do it previously, and this is an issue that even more so than that election integrity bill that came through the legislature a couple years ago would cause them to fling. Well, someone to watch in this is Jelana Jones. She's on the redistricting committee in the House.

She's also running for Congress. So the Senate can do what will do what the Senate wants. Unless all the Democrats leave I don't think they can keep a quorum from happening. Whereas in the House you only have to have 50 leave, right? In the House the redistricting committee chaired by Cody Vassut is going to be a center of intrigue for this. And someone on that committee is Jelena Jones, who's running for Congress. There's an incentive there to give her a very favorable district for herself to run for Congress in that Sylvester Turner seat in exchange for her vote, which then gives them bipartisan maps. Which if she votes with Republicans on this, that comes at a cost to her despite her getting potentially exactly what she needs and what she wants from a vote like that.

Yeah, because then she might go to, if she wins, she'll go to DC to a caucus that presumably just lost a couple seats because she voted, partially because she voted for it. At what cost? Yep. So then you also add all these border Democrats that are in Trump districts. And a couple that are, of course, rumored to want to switch parties. So, you know, there are a number of potential candidates for Democrats who are just not going to leave the state, just not going to do it. We saw some last time who just didn't do it. Ryan Gian was one. Well, guess what? He flipped parties.

He's also eyeing a congressional district this time around, right now 28, but who knows once the lines are redrawn. So Republicans have to figure out a way to keep enough Democrats in town. And one of the ways is to not read to just do congressional the other one is this border money I think it's pretty straightforward just question doesn't work yes does it is it enough of a cherry is it enough of a carrot yes keep them in town well Bradley we could have asked the look wins about this for a hot minute any other final thoughts this wasn't a

hot minute what constitutes a hot minute it Any other final thoughts? This wasn't a hot minute? What constitutes a hot minute? It goes either way. I'm very inconsistent with it. Okay. Yeah. Sometimes I'm saying it's a hot minute. Like it'll take me a hot minute, meaning it'll take a while. And sometimes when I say, man, that was a hot minute, I'm meaning that it's quick. You need to figure out definitions of the words that you say. Yeah, I'm kind of just having fun with it though. I don't really want to. Hmm. God knows if I said as much nonsense as you did on the podcast that I would get some angry emails. I don't know. I get my fair share. Okay. Whatever you say. No one's going to yell at the pregnant woman. Um, it's never, it hasn't stopped some people. I'll say that.

Um, well folks, thank you so much for listening. We appreciate you, um, tuning in to smoke filled a room. It's always fun for us. If you have questions for us, ping us on Twitter, ping us at editor at the Texan.news we'll do our best to answer your questions on a future episode. Um, and now you're piecing out. Probably. Yeah.

For three months. Yeah. Have fun, yeah. For three months. Yeah. Have fun, Bradley. So much fun. So much fun. Watch Baby Girl decide she's going to stick around for a hot minute, and I'll be back on the next episode. Oh, so now a hot minute is longer?

Yes. OK. Yeah. Can't keep track of this. Neither can I. Danyus. Folks, thanks for listening and Brad at the very least. We'll catch you next time.