The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - April 14, 2023

Episode Date: April 14, 2023

Get a FREE “Fake News Stops Here” mug when you buy an annual subscription to The Texan: https://go.thetexan.news/mug-fake-news-stops-here-2022/?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=weekly_roundup The Texan’s Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion. Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email [e-mail] — they just might be answered on a future podcast. This week on The Texan’s Weekly Roundup, the team discusses: The Texas House adopting its 2024-2025 budget with $300 billion in spendingThe attorneys of Daniel Perry, convicted for murder, seeking a retrial as Gov. Greg Abbott seeks a pardonThe House committee hearing over school choice proposals, including education savings accountsA poll over different property tax reform plans drumming up controversy among Texas lawmakersSecurity Legislation Creating New ‘Illegal Entry’ Offense Advances in Texas SenateThe fight over a new tax abatement program to succeed the now-expired Chapter 313A House hearing over a bill to require voter approval for all local government spending projectsAn look at how the boards that oversee state agencies are appointed and confirmedContradictory rulings from Texas and Washington State over the abortion drug mifepristoneThe Texas Supreme Court staying contempt of court jail time for real estate developer Nate Paul

Happy Friday, folks. Senior Editor Mackenzie DeLulo here, and welcome back to the Texans' Weekly Roundup Podcast. This week, the team discusses the Texas House adopting its budget with $300 billion in spending, the attorneys of Daniel Perry convicted for murder, seeking a retrial as Governor Greg Abbott seeks a pardon, the House Committee hearing over school choice proposals, including education savings accounts. A poll over different property tax reform plans drumming up controversy among Texas lawmakers. Security legislation creating a new illegal entry offense advancing in the Texas Senate. The fight over a new tax abatement program to succeed the now-expired Chapter 313.

A House hearing over a bill to require voter approval for all local government spending projects, a look at how the boards that oversee state agencies are appointed and confirmed, contradictory rulings from Texas and Washington State over the abortion drug Mifepristone, and the Texas Supreme Court staying contempt of court jail time for real estate developer Nate Paul. As always, if you have questions for our team, DM us on Twitter or email us at editor at thetexan.news. We'd love to answer your questions on a future podcast. Thanks for listening and enjoy this episode.

Howdy, folks. Mackenzie here with Brad, with Matt, with Cameron, and with Hayden on another edition of our weekly Roundup podcast. Gentlemen, we were recording a little earlier today because, shocker, the ledge is doing stuff. Brad, what are you about to head over and watch this morning? There is about to be an interesting debate over House Bill 2, which is the House's priority appraisal reform property tax relief plan. And we'll talk about it in a second, but there's been quite a frenzy over that this week. Absolutely. Aiden, what else has been going on in the House? I know you've been watching a committee hearing pretty closely. Lots of exciting things, not in the House, not just in the House, but also outside the Capitol in committees.

A lot of familiar witness testimony and arguments, bills that are still being heard in committee. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, well, let's go ahead and jump into it as we're talking about the House. Brad, last week we spoke to you from the floor on House Budget Day. Tell us how all that shook out. Well, it was a long day, but not as long as it usually is. The Texas House finished deliberations on its 2024-25 budget before the clock hit 930. I think last session we ended closer to midnight. And then the one before that, if I recall correctly, was like 3 a.m. or something. So it was definitely so expedited was Representative Craig Goldman moved to move over half of the almost 400 amendments filed into Article 11 right off the bat.

And so rather than go through each one individually, they just got moved right off the bat. So that sped things up quite a bit. And like we said last week, Article 11 is basically where they stick amendments that are going to die. It's like the graveyard for amendments. They can keep them if they want, but more often than not, they're just dead. It's a holding tank essentially. That's a good way to put it. Yeah.

So overall, the budget amounts to $302 billion in spending. It includes $10.5 billion for new property tax rate compression. Overall, the House's property tax relief plan is roughly $17 billion. I think the other chunk of that is for previous levels of compression. Other items in the budget, $9.6 billion for various mental health services at various different entities, $6.8 billion to lower the foundation school program payments that are known as Robin Hood, $4.6 billion for continued border security financing, and $3.5 billion to provide a cost of living adjustment to retired teachers.

So it's about $13 billion larger than the $289 billion proposed version that we had originally. That's a lot of numbers to throw at you, but it is a substantial increase from that. I'll be interested to see how the Senate approaches this, especially with the cap in place, how they decide to approach that total dollar figure. It passed 136 to 10. Two Republicans, Representative Tony Tenderholt and Brian Harrison, joined eight Democrats

voting against the bill. Tenderholt voted against because he said it didn't provide enough tax relief. Harrison voted against because the school choice amendment that we talked about that I was priming up for as we were talking from the floor last week because that passed. And so still overwhelmingly lopsided in favor of passing it. But those were the reasons. Which is very normal. Yes.

Oftentimes there's one, maybe two no votes on a budget. And I think there's a lot, even in recent memory, I'm trying to remember exactly if it was last session or the session before, people voted yes all around. Like that can certainly happen as well. What were some of the other big themes of the day in terms of the policy fights? So I mentioned what Goldman did, how that sped things up. That definitely affected everything else. The featured amendment, as I said, was the school choice test vote by Representative Abel Herrero that banned budget dollars from going to school choice programs. It passed last session. He refiled the same

amendment this session, got it passed. Although with a different vote, still the same outcome. It passed 86 to 52 with 24 Republicans joining Democrats to pass the language. I have a breakdown of different categories of votes on the back mic from last week. So if you want to see that, you can check that out. There were 10 present not voting voters as well. And that's what does that indicate? Well, we'll vary from person to person, but basically on this essentially means they didn't want to take this vote on what is just a test, right? It's not a it's not on legislation.

And so rather than go one way or the other on it, they white lighted and punted until whenever we have the school choice vote, whenever that comes. White lighted also meaning because when you press the button to be present but not voting, the light on the board at the front of the house shows up white. You're not green for yes. You're not red for no. You're white. Okay.

Yep. And then right before that happened, I should say that this amendment will likely get stripped out in conference committee. I don't foresee the Senate allowing that to stay in like there. That's going to be a hill they're going to die on. Now, how that affects the ultimate school choice, whatever bill comes to the floor. We don't know. We'll find out. But this was just an initial gauge on where the House stands. Before the test vote, Chairman Brad Buckley chairs the Public Education Committee.

He is a very important voice on this issue this year because he controls that committee. He made a motion to table the amendments. That failed and his argument was that we're going to have school choice bills in front of the House Public Education Committee this week, which they did. I think Cameron wrote a piece on that. But the motion failed and something interesting happened. They did a division vote on that motion first before someone called for a record vote. And so members' votes went on the board. You could see it.

And then it got wiped out, reset for a record vote. And there were about 10 to 12 members whose votes did not register. Then it got wiped out, reset for a record vote. And there were about 10 to 12 members whose votes did not register. They were absent. Mark is absent for that. A technical glitch. I don't think it – well, if all those 12 members had voted for the motion table, it would have passed. Would that have happened?

I don't know. I don't think you can say that with a guarantee. But it definitely did have an effect on the final number that we saw on that. And had that happened, had that passed, you would not have had the test vote. So an interesting situation there. One more notable portion of the budget stuff. Representative Cody Vesute succeeded in passing an $80 million increase to the Alternatives to Abortion program. He said it was to compensate the program itself in a shortfall for the increased demand it has seen since Roe was overturned. Similarly, Representative Jeff Leach passed an amendment to the supplemental budget,

which is additions to the current biennium budget, $25 million to the Alternatives to Abortion Program for that same purpose. And so going forward, it has $80 million more in escrow over the course of the two years of the biennium. So you can read more in the article. There were a few more amendments of notes that I mentioned in there, but it didn't go as I expected it would. There you go. Brad, thanks for your coverage. Hayden, coming to you, a story you've been following for a little while now. A jury convicted Daniel Perry of murder last week, but the case is far from over seemingly. Tell us about the trial and last

week's verdict. This was arguably a historically significant proceeding in the Texas legal system because it was a bizarre case that was not your typical homicide trial, and it involved politics, self-defense, and other issues that are not normally implicated in a murder prosecution. The jury convicted Daniel Perry of fatally shooting Garrett Foster in downtown Austin in July 2020. 17 hours on Thursday and Friday of last week to convict him on one count of first degree murder, which carries a penalty of up to life in prison or a minimum of five years in prison. But they acquitted him of one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, wherein he was accused of using his vehicle to threaten another complaining witness at that intersection, but the jury was not convinced of that, so they found him not guilty. There were about 40 witnesses on both sides, and the jury heard from expert witnesses on the defense side. They heard from other demonstrators who were there.

The state also called the partner of Garrett Foster. There's disagreement or a lack of clarity about whether she was his girlfriend, fiance, or wife. She identified herself as his wife on the stand, but she had previously been referred to as his fiance. But there was emotional testimony from the state's witnesses. Some said that he had driven aggressively into the intersection and caused them to fear for their lives. Others contended that the protesters were the ones being aggressive, including other Uber drivers who were at that intersection. There were witnesses who admitted to pounding on his vehicle. There was one witness who even fired a weapon at his vehicle after the shooting, he said, in order to mark the vehicle for law enforcement, which the defense later contended could have constituted deadly conduct.

And then the defense called expert witnesses who testified to how quickly Garrett Foster could have shot Daniel Perry with the AK style rifle that he was carrying. And of course, the defense's case rested on the contention that Garrett Foster threatened Perry with an AK-style rifle before Perry chose to shoot him five times with the 357 Magnum revolver that Perry was carrying in the center console of his vehicle between the center console and the driver's side. So that's an overview, a very broad overview of some of the facts in this case. The state argued that Perry provoked and instigated the occurrence and therefore did not have the right to claim self-defense, but the jury did not see it that way and convicted him after 17 hours of deliberation. And I do want to say that Hayden was there all day. I mean,

he was there all day, every day for two weeks. And the jury began deliberations, forgive me, Hayden, if I get this wrong, on Thursday, I believe. And he was there at the courthouse waiting for until how, I don't know how late you were there on Thursday evening, but it was pretty late. And then woke up Friday morning. We all had the day off and we're chilling out and Hayden was down at the courthouse in Austin waiting for the verdict to come in. And I think it did so right at 5 p.m. or 4.30, somewhere in the evening. So Hayden, thanks for following that and making sure that our readers are informed about what's going on. The case is, you know, like we alluded to, far from over and has been more politically involved than a lot of other

criminal cases. What did Governor Greg Abbott have to say about it? The day after the verdict with less than 24 hours later, Governor Abbott said he would approve a pardon for Daniel Perry if it was recommended to him by the Texas Parole Board. He noted that unlike in federal cases with the president of the United States or with other states, the governor of Texas cannot unilaterally give someone a pardon. But the Texas Parole Board Board of Pardons and Paroles can recommend a pardon. And Governor Abbott then would have the opportunity to approve that. Abbott says it's a self-defense case, as the defense argued all along. And he also said that because that Texas has a strong self-defense law that cannot be nullified by a jury or a prosecution. Obviously, that's

up for debate whether that's what happened here. The state did argue that he provoked the killing. He provoked the series of events that led up to the killing. So District Attorney Jose Garza, who was elected in a progressive sweep of county elections in Travis County in 2020, brought the case against Perry. And he said that he would ask, or he sent a letter to the parole board asking them to hear some of the evidence that the jury convicted Perry on. But Abbott was adamant that the parole board, and he used the word expedite, the hearing for Perry's pardon and that he would approve it as soon as it hits his desk. Attorneys for Perry have filed documents asking for a new trial. What were the arguments they outlined in their motion?

There are a couple of issues that Daniel Perry's lawyers argued in this motion. First is the judge, they say, excluded evidence that Foster, Garrett Foster, could have been the first aggressor and that he was engaging in disruptive behavior elsewhere, that he caused another motorist in a different demonstration in June to fear for his life, such that that motorist also got out a handgun and fled to Austin Police Headquarters to take cover. He also argued, the attorneys also argued that Perry, forgive me, that Foster used his partner's wheelchair, Whitney Mitchell's wheelchair to block traffic. And of course, she is a quadruple amputee. So he was pushing her wheelchair

for much of the evening. But they said also that there was a juror, an alternate juror, according to an affidavit by one of the jurors who was not an alternate juror, according to an affidavit by one of the jurors who was not an alternate juror, and she was being passive aggressive and participating in deliberations with nonverbal communication. And this juror who signed an affidavit to that effect said that she was more or less being aggressive toward people who had reasonable doubt in the jury room, and that when the judge asked if the alternates had participated in deliberations, she did not realize that that could include nonverbal communication.

So there were other things discussed in that 26-page motion, but on those grounds, the defense asked for a new trial. But it could be practically moot, not legally, but it could be practically moot here pretty soon if the parole board does free Perry on Governor Abbott's approval of his pardon. Real quick before we move on to the next story, Hayden, I know being there at the courthouse, what was it like after the verdict was read? What was the like? Well, basically, you're sitting in a quiet lobby area at a courthouse just waiting and it's quiet. You aren't getting a ton of information. how did that change after the verdict was read there were obviously a lot of tears Perry wept profusely after he was convicted but the

family of Garrett Foster also cried the tears of joy and Garrett Foster's father told the media afterward that there are no winners in the case. And he, in fact, expressed sorrow for Perry's family as well. And there was just a lot of sadness in the courtroom because of what had happened and a lot of relief for friends and family of Foster that he was convicted. But I'm sure that that relief has faded given Governor Abbott's announcement. Absolutely. Thank you. Cameron, coming to you, the House has been the center of attention recently when it comes to school choice, particularly after that budget vote Brad talked about last week. Tell us about why that is and what happened at this committee hearing. Yeah, so Brad's had great coverage on this budget amendment that would prohibit the use of state dollars for a voucher or education savings account.

But the House has continued to hear school choice bills, and we had two big ones that came up this week, one by Rep. James Frank and one by Rep. Brian Harrison. The slight difference between the two is Frank's plan makes children eligible for what is a educational savings account. If they are enrolled in a public school or have been enrolled during the preceding year, children entering pre-K and kindergarten would also automatically qualify. With Harrison's plan, it is more of a universal school choice plan. It establishes that any student who is eligible to enroll in public schools is qualified for his program.

So what was some of the testimony like during the hearing? So the hearing lasted long into the night, well over 12 hours. Over 200 people signed up. Everyone from parents, from teachers, to advocates on both sides came out to voice their opinion on ESAs and school choice. So what was interesting is there was advocates of the Florida School Choice Program who helped implement that came out and gave testimony talking about some of the benefits that they've seen. National advocates of school choice like Cordy Angelus was there, and he answered a lot of questions, bringing up some studies that him and his organization have done on the benefits of school choice. And there was a lot of parents just testifying on behalf of themselves, advocating for school

choice, saying that this would provide opportunities for micro schooling or special education programs that they're interested in. So there were some concerns during the testimony about the accountability of the funding, who is going to oversee that, how is the funds going to be diverted from the general fund to the public schools, to private schools. So it was a good opportunity, if you're interested in school choice, to really see what were the details of these two house plans. So they were left pending in the committee. So more news to come. Absolutely.

And notable, too, in that the House is, even though the budget does have that little amendment on there that says no state dollars can go to school choice funding, interesting in that they're still moving forward, which indicates there is a high chance that this amendment, like Brad said, will get removed at some point during the process. It won't stick. So that's kind of the assumption that I think lawmakers are kind of operating under. And this is not the first time either we've seen a budget amendment like this previously that has actually been tacked onto a House budget. It's also symbolic because there's no current dollar section of the budget going towards any school choice program. So for the moment, at least, it's just a symbolic test vote.

Right. And so if people were turned off and discouraged by that amendment coming out, don't be discouraged. If you're still interested in school choice, there's a high possibility still that it could happen. And so continue paying attention to these things and we'll keep covering it. That's exactly right. Cameron, thank you. Brad, we're coming right back to you. The House and Senate fight over property taxes boiled over again this week. Shocker, what happened? So as we record this, as I mentioned earlier at the start, the House is set to consider its priority bill, HB2, that would, in addition to rate compression, lower the appraisal cap from 10 percent to five and expand it to all property, not just homesteads.

By the time this is released, we will have had the first vote on that bill in the House. Friday, they will take the second vote if it passes second reading. And so the Senate's version, which is increasing the homestead in business personal property tax exemptions and creating an inventory tax credit, has already passed unanimously by the upper chamber and awaits movement in the House. Earlier this week, a poll was released by the Texas Association of Property Tax Professionals gauging voters' preference between the two plans. It found the Senate's version was preferred to varying degrees based on how they asked the questions, at what point in the interview they asked the questions, all this. It all varied. But the poll itself caused a stir in the House. In its initial question, the Senate plan was favored by seven points. Neither was above 50 percent.

So pretty close run there. But as other details were added, that Delta grew. So they added estimated bill savings, various other components, trying to explain further the differences. I obtained some of the questions from the poll, and some of the later ones were quite loaded. For example, one read, this measure violates important protections in the text constitution that require property taxes to be fair and uniform. Under this measure, people who own similarly valued properties will pay dramatically different property taxes. And then it asked them to gauge whether that would make them more likely or less likely to support the House's plan. So that's an argument that those opposed to an appraisal cap increase in expansion have, along with various others.

This is a pretty heated debate with points on both sides being made. But a lot of people criticized the poll itself. You know, there was the initial more unbiased gauge that I mentioned, the 47 to 40. But then you got into these questions. And as Henny Polster would tell you, the way you shape a question can definitely influence the result you get. So the group also sent texts to voters in their members, in the members' districts, asking the voters to call their House rep and say, hey, please vote against HB2.

So that angered a number of representatives in the House and sparked a couple days long Twitter fight, essentially. And as I said, there are different arguments from each side about the other's plan. Ultimately, this is, while it's not an insignificant debate, this is about a small component of the overall property tax relief issue. The biggest part is the compression. And they're both generally aligned on that as the main component. So there's that.

But it's bleeding over to the vote today on Thursday. Yeah. And part of it is Senate wants credit for its plan. The House wants credit for its plan. They want to be the one that gets something for taxpayers across the finish line, especially in this political climate when there's a lot of social issues at play, this legislative session. They want something a little bit more fiscal to hang their hat on. Yeah, and they both think their blueprint is the correct one. Ardently.

Right, yes. So then what did the House have to say about this? So Representative Dustin Burroughs, a member of House leadership, told us, quote, we can debate the preference on the preferred method of property tax relief. But what TAPTP is doing, Robotex into members districts is over the top. And then he added, and you have to ask why are they concerned if taxpayers have less of a reason to protest valuations under HJR 1, then their members will lose money? A pretty firm and tense accusation, I would say there. That organization represents property tax professionals who assist with appraisal contests and things like that. And so he was – he and other members were very upset with how this was went about and who released the poll.

And so I expect quite a bit of passionate defense and disagreement in the House on Thursday. Before we jump into anything else, is there anything else we should know? Yeah. So the fight over, as I said, the fight over this appraisal portion is not insignificant, but it is a smaller component of this overall issue. Something else to keep in mind, especially on the House vote, H.J.R. 1, which is the constitutional amendment

that H.P. 2 is enabling legislation for, they need to hit 100. And so, if all Republicans vote for this bill, they'll still need 14 Democrats

because there's 86 Republicans in the House. Actually, probably 15 because depending on if the speaker votes or not. So they need to hit that. And if they don't, the constitutional amendment will not pass. And then all they'll have is the sentence version. So as you're watching this and as you're listening to this, they'll be voting third reading on Friday. They'll have to do it twice.

So it will be very interesting to follow. Thank you, Bradley. Matthew, coming to you, the Texas Senate gave preliminary approval to a new law that will be used by state law enforcement in the ongoing effort to secure the southern border. What are the details of this law and how does it work? Well, there are a number of ideas working their way through the Texas legislature right now relating to border security. And this one by Senator Brian Birdwell, a Republican senator from Granbury, would allow state law enforcement to arrest illegal aliens under the legal umbrella of criminal trespass. The reasoning for this law, as we heard on the floor discussion Wednesday, was that federal courts have ruled states cannot enforce immigration-type laws,

but trespass is a uniquely state power. Under the bill, an offense would be committed if an alien enters or attempts to enter the state from a foreign nation at any location other than a lawful point of entry, eludes examination or inspection by a United States immigration officer, or attempts to enter or obtain entry to the state from a foreign nation by intentionally false or misleading representation or the intentional concealment of a material fact. The law begins with providing a Class A misdemeanor, which is the highest level misdemeanor offense, and can escalate all the way to a second degree felony for repeat offenders and other circumstances that causes the offense to escalate.

Now, there was some pushback from Senate Democrats against the bill, but one Democrat, Roland Gutierrez, asked Birdwell if they could work on an amendment to clarify an exemption for DACA recipients, which he agreed to work with him on. The bill then passed along party lines on second reading, and we'll come back to the floor for final passage when and if they work out an amendment agreeable amendment language so we'll keep an eye on this bill as it moves forward through the process awesome thank you matthew brad we're back to you this week the house's chapter 313 replacement was heard in committee and we got some more details about its shape and scope chapter 313 of, being economic development back in the legislature. Tell us about it. So Representative Todd Hunter's committee substitute for HB5 was heard in the House Ways and Means Committee on Monday.

Chapter 313 is a property tax abatement, a reduction in the taxable value of a company's property that gets this agreement over the course of a decade. And so it died in 2021. Well, it wasn't renewed. It died at the end of 22. It sunsetted. And so the House especially wants a replacement. But they've tweaked it quite a bit. So this new committee sub that was released, we saw the first one released.

It was very short, seven pages. This committee substitute is much longer, much more detailed. So brief overview, it reinstates the now defunct abatement program, but gives the comptroller more authority to reject applications than it had under 313. Still overall an agreement between the school district and the company. But if the comptroller under this deems the agreements not good or lacking in any way, he can not give his approval. And then it can't move forward. So that's under this bill.

It also establishes a tiered job requirement, job creation requirement. We saw that in job requirement in 313. This one is more layered, has more qualifications. And the top level requires more jobs than 313 did. It's probably most notable is that it excludes renewables from those who can access the tax breaks. That was a big reason why 313 was killed by the legislature. There were some statistics in the piece about how many of them, how many of the 313 agreements were renewable companies.

The majority, in some cases, the vast majority. And so those are excluded. And that's been a non-starter from many members about reviving or replacing this, including Representative Charlie Garan. He was one that spoke out on that. Abbott as well. Dan Patrick has indicated that. So it seems like that's not going to get added. Another interesting portion part of this is that it doesn't include a sunset provision like 313 did. So if this passes, it's permanent unless the legislature decides to repeal it entirely. I'm interested to see if that changes,

if they put a sunset provision in there. And a sunset provision meaning when the bill is instated, usually agencies have like a 10-year, 5-year, whatever it is, period, that the legislature has to review it at that point and determine whether or not to renew it entirely. Well, that's the reason that 313 died. Its sunset was coming up and the legislature could not renew it in time.

And so it expired. You can read more about the bill and the debate at the committee and the story. Interestingly enough, one of the people that testified on this bill was dressed up like a vampire and so if that's not a poll for you to go read the story then I got nothing for you. Yeah we don't know what it is

Brad thank you. Hey listeners if you're enjoying our podcast and our up close and personal coverage of the 88th legislative session from the Capitol here in Austin subscribe to the Texan right now while you're listening. We're not funded by corporate interests or big donors, so we rely on the subscriptions of everyday Texans to keep doing our jobs. When you subscribe, you'll get access to all of our stories as soon as they're published

so that you can stay informed, up to speed, and ready to vote at the ballot box. A subscription is $9 monthly, but you can save by purchasing an annual subscription for $90, which comes out to just $7.50 per month. And as a reminder, new subscribers will get that free Fake News Stops Here mug. For more details, visit thetexan.news forward slash subscribe, or click the URL in the description of this podcast. Now let's jump back to your stories. Brad, we're coming right back to you. Last week, there was a hearing over Representative Ellen

Troxler's bill aimed at Austin's Project Connect and local government spending. How was it received? So Troxler's bill would subject all local government corporations to the voter approval standards already in place for municipalities. There were about four members who made their thoughts clear on this, two for, two against. The rest of it is kind of up in the air. Republicans do have a majority on the committee. The speaker also is behind the bill. I saw Ryan Otillo at the Statesman tweeted that he sent – the speaker sent lunch from – I forget the restaurant in Austin. But it's a restaurant that will get bulldozed if Project Connect is built because it's in the path.

So very clear message there. Some shades being thrown at the city of Austin. But the city of Austin is also working against the bill pretty hard, trying to get the members to kill it. So we'll see where it goes. There were also a couple of other interesting bills on local government spending and bond debt involved in that committee hearing. All the details are in the story. So if you want to read more, I recommend you check it out. But it's definitely a bill to watch. And in the never-ending fight between the state legislature and the city of Austin, this is another page.

We'll just have to write a book one day on all the disputes between the city of Austin and the legislature. Brad, thank you. Cameron, the conversation surrounding abortion drugs and access to those drugs has been a continued point of dispute. What happened with this ruling this week? Or last week, I guess it was Friday when this came out. Yeah. So we have some updates. We'll get into those.

So one U.S. judge in Texas and another in Washington state gave contradictory rulings on these abortion pills, specifically mifepristone. And just some brief background on mifepristone, it's one of the two abortion drugs that are usually administered. And this lawsuit originated in terms of attempting to determine if the FDA approval was done in the correct manner and if the FDA can approve the mailing of these drugs. This is all surrounding the Comstock Act, which has to do with medications being shipped through the mail. So in Texas, the federal judge here publishes stay order to the FDA in their approval of Mifepristone, meaning it would invalidate the approval of the Mifepristone abortion pill. And he gave seven days for the Fifth Circuit of Appeals to determine if his state order would remain in place. But on the same day, we also had a judge in Washington state ruled that the FDA must maintain the status quo on its approval of mifepristone. So the contradictory rulings left the FDA in a

very precarious situation. So what does this mean then for the FDA and mifepristone moving forward? So the FDA would have enforcement discretion, which means they would have the authority to determine an action against a drug distributor. And Mifepristone, that was first approved by the FDA in 2019. So they have given the ability to these drug distributors to administer Mifepristone and ship them. Well, with the Washington order not allowing the FDA to alter the status, and then the Texas ruling giving seven days for the Fifth Court of Appeals to judge on and give an order on the stay, meaning the FDA would remove their approval. So what we have now is a huge update, actually. And what happened today is the Fifth Circuit stayed on the approval during the appeal,

meaning that mifeprestone could temporarily remain available, but with some major restrictions. And we will wait to see what other judges are going to say because this is going to be appealed again. I don't have any further updates because this just got released as I was driving in this morning. So I haven't really gotten to read into the order. These were just some top line things that I saw. So we'll get some more information out and we'll keep reporting on it. Awesome. Cameron, thank you so much for your coverage. Hayden, we're coming back to you. The Texas Supreme Court stayed the jail sentence of Nate Paul, a name we've heard a lot around our office in the last few years, who was at the

center of the corruption case against Ken Paxton. Why was Paul sentenced to jail in the first place? We've talked about Nate Paul on this podcast before. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail in March on account of his contempt of court. He did not get convicted by a jury, but in contempt cases, usually the judge just makes a decision. And Judge Seufer in a civil courtroom here in Austin decided that he had violated her orders concerning a settlement of nearly $2 million against him in litigation with a nonprofit called the Mitty Foundation. He had been ordered to not exceed certain spending limits, and he had been required to give basically to keep a ledger of his and his company's expenses with the court. And the judge found that he had paid out sums of money to a

professional basketball player, and his companies had cut other checks that ran afoul of her orders. So she sentenced him to 10 days in jail. But the Court of Appeals, the Third Court of Appeals put a pause on that, gave him emergency relief. So he did not end up going to jail on March 15th, as was originally scheduled. But the Third Court of Appe appeals reinstated that sentence and he was supposed to go to jail this past Monday. But the Texas Supreme Court put a pause on that. Give us a little bit of background on this suit. was at one of the planks of the, well, not planks, but one of the bullet points in the corruption allegations against Attorney General Ken Paxton. It was said that Paxton had applied pressure in this lawsuit in order to essentially gum up a settlement and tried to help Nate Paul out by using the resources of the Office of the Attorney General. This lawsuit itself is separate from the whistleblower lawsuit that Ken Paxton is currently in the middle of and trying to settle.

But Nate Paul has been a familiar character in the saga of Ken Paxton's illegal woes. And he is still staring down the possibility of a 10-day jail sentence, although it has been upstayed indefinitely by the Texas Supreme Court. Thank you, Hayden, for your coverage. Matt, I really like this little lead that you wrote for me here. They say everything is bigger in Texas. And that saying rings true for its sizable share of administrative governing boards and commissions in charge of state agencies at both the statewide and regional levels. What are these positions and what is the

process involved for selecting these people? Well, thank you, Mackenzie. I try to be a little creative with my writing at times. So this was a fun story to write. I actually learned something and I don't learn something very often. So in Texas, we only have two boards and commissions, one board and one commission, I'll say it that way, that is actually elected by voters. That is the State Board of Education and the Railroad Commission of Texas, which has nothing to do with railroads. For those who don't know, it regulates the oil and gas industry. Outside of that, state agencies, bureaucracies, etc. are usually governed by multi-member boards and commissions that the general rule

of thumb is they are the members of each one of these entities are named or appointed by the governor. And also the general rule of thumb is that they are confirmed by the Senate. But unlike the process in the federal government, when the president nominates somebody, that person remains a nominee without power until they're actually confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In Texas, when the legislature is out of session most of the time, the governor gets interim appointees that immediately assume those positions until the legislature either comes into regular session or a special session is called. And then they're subject to confirmation by the Texas Senate, and it requires a two-thirds vote of the Texas Senate to approve a nominee. Now, the interesting thing that I learned in writing this story was just how many of these positions there are out there.

In the executive branch alone, the governor over the course of a four-year term will make roughly 1,500 appointments to various different boards and commissions. And the governor's appointments office lists some, I counted them, 257 boards and commissions governing 14 different subject areas of Texas government. That's everything from transportation, healthcare, occupational licensing, the works. If you can think it, if the state does it, there's probably a board pertaining to it somewhere. And a lot are created each legislative session too. Yes, they, we continue to get more and more. Now there are a few boards and commissions outside the regular scheme of things that, um, the governor also makes appointments to that do not require Senate approval,

such as the Texas Ethics Commission, which is a legislative branch agency that constitutionally sets the salary and per dim rate for lawmakers and statutorily it oversees campaign finance and lobbying laws. Another branch of the government that the governor will get to make appointments on that are also subject to Senate confirmation is the judiciary. But in this situation, he only gets to make nominations to fill vacancies. So if a judge or a district attorney resigns or passes away or something like that, causing the office to become vacant, the governor will make a nomination to fill that position. And just like with the executive branch agencies,

if it's in the interim, that person immediately assumes office and is subject to confirmation or in some sort of situations, if there's a popular election for that position right around the corner, then that person would have to then apply to run for election to the spot. So it was very interesting details to work through this story, and I think it provides a great primer on a little bit of how Texas government works and is structured. A great explainer for folks who are curious about this. Make sure to go to the texan.news and read all about it. Gentlemen, let's move on to the tweeter-y section of our podcast. Let me see. Who should we start with?

Brian, why don't we start with you? Well, because you stole mine. That's true. I had to scramble to find something else, but I found something more interesting. Stole yours and just picked it first. Yes. Yes. Just wanted to clarify.

But it's my tweet, so I feel like I have a right to it. I thought that you also would have appreciated the fact that instead of lambasting you needlessly on the podcast, which I do tend to do, instead I was going to shout you out and say Brad did a good job on this tweet, and I will talk about it. Oh, okay. We'll get to that, I guess. Okay, great. So what I found was something pretty bad that happened. A dairy farm up in the Panhandle exploded.

There was a very large explosion. It sounds like at least one casualty. Some other injuries. That casualty was a person, unfortunately. But there was also like 18,000 cows that died or were critically injured. And just a really, really bad situation but apparently the um the speculation about what's what happened is that uh something called a honey badger uh yeah which is a very odd name for something as yeah terrible as this yeah uh but it's a vacuum that sucks the manure and water out of the pens. And possibly that it got overheated and probably the methane ignited.

Methane and other gases ignited, causing the explosion. Cows produce a lot of methane. And I guess a spark caused, you know, caused this massive explosion. There's a huge cloud above the facility and just a really bad situation, but pretty shocking. Yeah, absolutely. Pretty wild to see some of like the footage of the explosion itself. Not necessarily the explosion. I haven't seen any footage of the actual moment everything exploded, but the cloud overhead and the damage that was done is unreal.

Yeah, I don't think they got video of the explosion happening, but the immediate after. I saw a picture of the mushroom cloud. It looked like a nuclear bomb going off. Yeah. Gosh. Bad. So bad.

Cameron, what did you find on Twitter this week? Well, so this week, I'm always coming across crazy stuff. So I try a study done trying to understand where in the country is the most infidelity occurring. Well, in this study, the top three cities are all here in Texas. So they dubbed it the Infidelity Index, and they tracked this across 200 major US cities. And they looked at things such as marriage status, divorce, separation rates. They also included life satisfaction, emotional and physical well-being, work environment, the community. And so the top three cities, Dallas, Texas, number two was Fort Worth, and number three was Houston. So, you know, I can't speak to why it's Texas. I haven't dug into the study, but it's happening across the country, though.

It's not just in big cities. It's happening in small cities that this data was exploring. So I just thought this was interesting. You know, the conversation about relationships is something that is routinely talked about online and why it seems as though marriage rates are falling and people aren't having as many kids. And so this is something I pay attention to, these things. And if people are interested, there's a really good researcher out there named David Buss. He's at University of Austin. And he does a lot of research into the sexual mating relationships between males and females, evolutionary psychology. And if people are interested and they're listening, go look for David Buss' research.

This reminds me of a George Strait song. Which one? All my exes live in Texas. That's why I hang my hat in Tennessee. My gosh. Well, on that really delightful note, Karen, thank you so much for this. No, it's fascinating. And I think, too, there's something, like like you said to be said for marriage rates as well. Like that would be interesting to kind of factor in is like, you know, part of the equation here. But not good. Texas is on the top three cities. I know. Never very good book about habits that I would recommend. And he tweeted April 4. When would that have been? That would have been last week sometime. He tweeted, doing it right is hard. Doing it over is harder. And I thought that was good. And it has application to journalism. It's

always better to get a story right and to get it, do it quickly and then have to go back and correct, which happens on occasion, but it's better to do your due diligence beforehand. Yeah. Yeah. I used to, for the listeners out there, uh, back in the day, I used to work as a health and wellness counselor. So I was helping people lose weight, get in shape, fix their dietary habits. And people would always come in like, what's the fix? Like, what do I have to do? Tell me this, tell me that. And and I said along the point Hayden was making the best diet you can follow is the one you're going to be most compliant to so the one you can repeat day after day after day and make it a habit yeah turn it into a lifestyle so just like with implementing

good habits into journalism like Hayden was talking about, goes into every aspect of your life. What are you going to be complying to that is bringing benefit to your life? So very important. Well, Hayden, thank you for your inspirational, I don't know why I could not say inspirational, but thank you for your inspirational quote.

Also, your twang really came out at the beginning of you introducing it, which made me a happy little camper. Matthew, what do you got? I am pointing to my own tweet. Yesterday, I was walking up to the Texas Capitol and I usually see rallies and stuff going on on the various different steps at the Texas Capitol and I usually stop and just see what's going on. And this particular one was, I think it was the State Workers Union or something like that.

And so anyway, I was standing at the back of the crowd, you know, just kind of listening for a little bit before I went in on my usual routine, and something caught my eye out of my peripheral vision. And it was this lady with a metal pole and she was swinging it around trying to clobber people. And she had just knocked somebody over the back of the head with it pretty good. That person went downended the lady and I spoke with one of the union members who said that that lady just kind of walked up and grabbed the metal pole off of a little trailer thingy that they were using to carry their signs and stuff and just

went to clobbering away at people my gosh so i tweeted a picture of her getting uh arrested by texas dps and carried off so yeah it was an exciting way to start the day to say the least oh my goodness um well brad had to head over to the capitol so now i can't um uh you know belabor the point that i chose his tweet to talk about this week but he did he tweeted um an interesting kind of uh data point of governor greg abbott's 11 legislative house gop runoff endorses so of those 11 endorses from the primary this year um or last year seven won and voted on last week's school choice test vote, the budget amendment that we were talking about earlier. Here's the breakdown. So those who voted for the amendment to ban state funding for school choice options, Kyle Casale and Glenn Rogers, those were two and they were

both endorsed by Governor Abbott. And against was Stephanie Click carl tepper um i believe this is caroline harris yes caroline harris and stan kitzman um present not voting um we had one there um and frederick frazier but why is this notable the governor has made school choice his big issue this legislative session that he's willing to throw a lot of his weight behind a lot of his time out in texas campaigning to parents, having parent empowerment nights, making this his big issue. And so it's notable in that some of his candidates that he chose to endorse in the primary last cycle are voting against his major issue. And who knows what this will look like come next primary season. Who knows if the governor will come out and kind of make school choice votes his litmus test for whether or not he does endorse.

I know Senator Ted Cruz has made it his top issue for the most part in terms of what he chooses to engage in at the state level in primaries or runoffs or whatever it may be. But notable in that a couple of these, you know, two out of the seven voted against the school choice. And those were just runoff nominees too. There's also a number of reps who voted for the budget amendment banning funds for school choice that Abbott had endorsed in primaries that went out right. Yeah, great point. One that I tweeted out a statement from was Representative Brooks Langrath in Odessa,

who's been endorsed by Governor Abbott. And he was one of them that voted for the Herrera Amendment. And he ended up posting an explanation online saying that he voted against it because it would have allowed for state funds to go to private schools, which seemed to be the sticking point for him. He also spoke about how, you know, this wasn't the final vote on the issue and that he didn't expect it to make it into the final budget and that he voted for the amendment to basically show support for public school teachers and public school students that I guess a school choice initiative would have rerouted money from or something like that.

In his mind. Yeah. And it doesn't depend on the proposal. There are different proposals that are at the forefront. And it was kind of vague the way it was worded to. It almost seemed like he was leaving the door open to concern to considering a proposal but i don't know you can read it both ways yeah absolutely well gentlemen i'm real quick want to introduce a fun topic for our week um this is making me think because last week hayden

called me from the courthouse and he was eating was it goldfish or cheese it's i can't remember it was cheese it's but he was eating from the vending machine that's kind of the extent to which he was snacking on stuff do y'all have when you see a vending machine like your favorite snack that you're like okay no i can't say no to this what's your go-to vending machine snack either salty sweet or neither there's a lot of variance in what's in a vending machine i've seen everything from a honey bun to which i like a good honey bun um is there anything you'd never get from a vending machine like vending machine sushi yeah or a sandwich have you ever seen vending machine sushi oh absolutely that suspect for sure well in japan they have all sorts of oh i get it in japan yeah 100 sign me up but you're talking like traditional

snickers bar it is a good one. Yeah, I'll go for Chips Ahoy. Yeah. Nutter Butters. I like Nutter Butters. Chips Ahoy, are you crunchy or chewy? I prefer the chewy, but I do really like the crunchy. I'm not usually a crunchy cookie gal, but I like Chips Ahoy.

If I'm going for a vending machine cookie, it's Nutter Butter. Also, there's those little uh vanilla sandwiches uh cookies yeah like the oreo it's like an oreo yeah but it's just like vanilla those are good aiden what about you nothing without sugar basically if i'm eating out of a vending machine it's going to be a fun snack yeah chocolate or fruity are you goingickers bar or are you going Skittles? I like both, frankly. I can't eat Skittles. I'm sorry.

Why? They're just too intense. Intense. I've never heard Skittles described as intense. Well, it's just like a pure little thing of sugar. Yeah. I mean, so is the Snickers bar, you know? Yeah, but at least it's like more interesting.

It's got nuts in it, so it's healthy. Exactly. It comes straight from the word in the mouth of a dietician. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Stamp that with a seal of approval. Well, gentlemen, great coverage this week. Thank you so much.

Listeners, thanks for listening, and we will catch you next week. Thank you to everyone for listening, and we will catch you next week. Send any questions for our team to our mailbag by DMing us on Twitter or shooting an email to editor at thetexan.news. We are funded entirely by readers and listeners like you. So thank you again for your support. Tune in next week for another episode of our weekly roundup. God bless you and God bless Texas.