The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - April 28, 2023

Episode Date: April 28, 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 beginning of early voting in the May elections for local officials and bondsThe $26.6 billion in local bonds on the May ballot, over 90 percent of which are from school districtsThe U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowing an abortion drug to remain on the market amid its legal caseA House committee considering eliminating franchise and business personal property taxesBorder numbers from March as Title 42 is still in effectThe Senate creating a new Office of School Safety and Security in response to school shootingsThe House passing a bill to to require armed guards on school campusesThe House formalizing the legislative redistricting maps drawn in 2021The Senate sending the House its plan for reforming the state’s ERCOT energy market in the wake of the 2021 blackoutsThe Senate passing priority legislation to end professor tenure at public universitiesA bill to increase online protections for children regarding content and user agreementsFree speech advocates accusing certain legal reforms of weakening free speech protectionsThe Senate passing a bill to make doctors who provide gender modification treatment liable for the lifetime health of their patients

Happy Friday, folks. Senior Editor Mackenzie DeLulo here and welcome back to the Texans Weekly Roundup podcast. This week, the team discusses the beginning of early voting in the May elections for local officials and bonds. The $26.6 billion in local bonds on the ballot, over 90% of which are from school districts. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowing an abortion drug to remain on the market amid its legal case. A House committee considering eliminating franchise and business personal property taxes. Order numbers from March as Title 42 is still in effect. The Senate creating a new Office of School Safety and Security in response to school shootings.

The House passing a bill to require armed guards on school campuses. The House formalizing the legislative redistricting maps drawn in 2021. The Senate sending the House its plan for reforming the state's ERCOT energy market in the wake of the 2021 blackouts. The Senate passing priority legislation to end professor tenure at public universities. A bill to increase online protections for children regarding content and user agreements. Free speech advocates accusing certain legal reforms of weakening free speech protections. And the Senate passing a bill to make doctors who provide gender modification treatment liable for the lifetime health of their patients. As always, if you have questions for our team, DM us on Twitter or email us at editor at the Texan dot news.

We'd love to answer your questions on a future podcast. And we answered some of those questions today. Thanks for listening and enjoy this episode. Well, howdy folks, Mackenzie here with Brad, Cameron, Matt, and Hayden. Gentlemen, I have a very important question for you. Okay. Meaning that it probably is not important at all, but I'm curious. Y'all were talking about how to tie your ties a few seconds ago and i saved this question to ask you while we were recording if you see a gentleman with a fancy tie knot like a double windsor which i think is a fancy tie knot is that a double windsor is a very basic one isn't that i know it's difficult double windsor knot yes okay it looks like oh no that's just the normal one

um regardless if you see somebody who's tied their tie and you can tell it's done fancily does that make you think man that's cool or are you like dude that's that's like unnecessary a sloppy tie definitely takes points away in my mind. Is my tie sloppy right now? No, not at all. If your tie is the wrong length or if it's clear that you didn't know how to tie it or that your wife tied it for you. Or if the tail is sticking out.

Or if the tail is sticking out. How can you tell if your wife has tied it for you? I don't know. It's something you can't put your thumb on but you can kind of tell. It's like the vibe of the person does not match the tie. It seems like they didn't do it or the person did not do it himself. So it would be better to wear no tie than to wear a tie and do it poorly.

That makes sense. Mac is showing me a picture of a hideous looking tie knot. I believe that is called the Eldridge knot. You're exactly right. That's what it said when I accidentally clicked on this YouTube video. Do not tie your knot in the Eldridge knot, people. That does not look good. Okay.

That's good to know. Doesn't look very professional. What do you think, Cameron? Well, I have to agree with Hayden that a fancy tie knot, not a huge effect on how I perceive the person. But if it's a messy tie, then of course, I'm like, what the heck has this person done? But we did have a certain former president, Donald Trump, who loved to tie his tie very long and it would hang well below his belt. Was that a pet peeve of yours? It was just something I noticed the big red tie,

big red tie, big red tie sales went up drastically while he was in the white house. Ideally, ideally your tie should go to the top of the belt buckle. Okay. I saw, and I'm not going to name any names, but yesterday on the house floor,

I saw a couple of lawmakers and I swear to you, his tie was so short that it was probably above his belly button. Wow. I thought it would have been better if you just left off the tie altogether. Yeah. The craziest tie on the house floor belongs to Matt Shaheen. If you've ever seen him, it looks really good from the front and clearly does a very good job tying it. And it never moves out of place.

It always stays in place. I don't know if he uses a ton of starch or something. But the amazing thing is, if you look at him from the side, the top of the tie, there's space. It's like floating. It's like anti-gravity. I noticed that before. And I have been wanting to ask Representativeaheen how the heck he does that because i just want to give it a try i don't know but i did i did notice that i think last session

in state affairs he turned to the side and i saw that he has that it's almost uh uh an arch on the inside of his tie where you you're right there's space between there and i don't even know how he does that so representative shaheen if you're listening by chance. Please let us know. Flag me down on the house floor next time you see me and please tell me. We want a tutorial on how you tie your tie. People are inquiring. There is a simple answer for this.

Magic. It's probably true. Okay, then shoes on the house floor. You know how some dress shoes now have white soles like sneaker soles. Yay or nay? I think it depends on the person wearing the shoe. Okay. Right. So if they have the outfit put together and they're kind of holding themselves in a certain way, then yeah, sure. White soles works, but there's a certain sort of presence you need to have to roll with the white souls. I got you.

That makes sense. I think that attire fits more appropriate for maybe like a California surfer type lawmaker and not so much a Texas. You're calling out some Texas lawmakers because a lot of white souls are on the House floor. One with ripped abs, maybe? Oh, I get it. Man, I am – The traditional Texas lawmaker footwear is, of course, the cowboy boots with the state seal. Yeah.

The Lucchesis that come in and get custom made. We have so many things we could talk about. As a matter of fact, Connie, that was a big thing that she would always put out on social media were her. Her stand for life boots. Yeah. At the very first day of her. Yeah, absolutely.

Okay, well, I could ask you many other questions. I'm always curious to pick the brains of gentlemen who wear more formal wear to know what they like to, or know what, I don't know, is appropriate or how they regard other people who wear those kinds of shoes. I have seen a lot of women wearing like pantsuits or more like sneakers on the floor, which I think is very interesting, which I think is kind of cool. But anyway, sneakers are not cool for guys to wear. I think women have more leeway. Yeah.

A hundred percent. A hundred percent. I'm not biased whatsoever to my gender. Okay, well, let's go ahead and jump into the news here. Matt, let's start with you. Polls are now open across Texas for the May local elections. We have details on what types of offices are on the ballot as well as other measures up for voters' consideration. Give us a quick rundown. Well, Mackenzie, this past Monday, early voting in the May 6th, 2023 election kicked off and continues now through May 2nd with polling locations across the state open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. According to the Texas Secretary of State, in the May election, we'll see a variety of local offices on the ballot, including positions on city council, school district trustees, local water boards, and other local special district, all kinds of different interesting local governments out there. In addition to local elected offices, bond elections are also being held. And we're going to hear a little bit from Brad here in a second about the over $26 billion and predominantly, I believe, school bonds. But there's also some other local governments that have some pretty significant bonds up for

voters to consider. So polls are open. You can go to your local elections office, find out more about where your local polling places are and what all you need to go vote on the Texas Secretary of State's website. So, definitely check it out. Absolutely. Brad, let's pivot to you. Talk to us about those bonds. So, as Matt said, the total fiscal notes on all of these bonds is 26.6 billion dollars quite a bit um about 92 and a half percent of that total is attributed to school districts which are proposing the vast vast majority of these bonds as they do every year because um school districts the way they're set up the way their taxation is set up rely more on property property taxes. Whereas a city could have, um, it could implement sales tax on a local level or other consumption

taxes. The, uh, school districts cannot. And so that's why they, um, tax so much, uh, on property values. So, um, the, interestingly, the school district total is a lot bigger than the school district total from years past. May 22, if I'm recalling the chart that I have in the piece correctly, was a substantial increase You can look at it. But also the full list of all of the the ballot props on these bonds on the on the ballot this May of note. When you're looking at that and comparing it with what's on your ballot, the numbers listed there provided by the bond review board might be different. If your school district is trying to pass or other entity is trying to pass a tax rate election. The bond review board does not track those. And so let's say you have one through four on this list for bonds. If there's a tax rate election on your ballot, those would be two through five because the tax rate election would be number one on the ballot, or at least that's generally how it is, how it's set up. So keep that in mind when you're comparing this list to whatever you see on your ballot.

But check it out. Thank you, Bradley. Cameron, we are coming to you. Mifepristone, an abortion drug, continues to be a topic of national conversation. Tell us about the latest developments. So an unsigned order from the Supreme Court issued a stay on a recent ruling from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which partially upheld a federal judge's ruling that the restrictions on Mifepristone access would be rolled back to the 2016 standards. The stay means Mifepristone will be allowed to remain on the market without restrictions,

such as being available by mail and without direct physician supervision, the same as before the federal judge handed out their ruling. And Justice Samuel Alito authored the order and argued his dissenting opinion that the government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it would choose to take enforcement action to which it has strong objections. So some strong warnings from Samuel Alito and the dissenting opinion on the order. And we're going to see what happens next. Yeah, tell us what happens next.

Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will now hear this FDA and Denco Labs appeal. Denco Labs is the distributor of the mifepristone drug. And it will appeal to the previous Texas ruling. And whoever loses that appeal will take the case to the Supreme Court, which will then decide whether or not to take the appeal to a full review. Thank you. Cameron Hayden, coming to you. The federal government reported an increase in illegal immigration in March. What were some of the border numbers that stood out in this report? In Texas sectors, there was a 15% in encounters with illegal immigrants. And I always like to remind people that these are encounters with people who were detected and apprehended. Many people cross the border illegally and are not detected or apprehended. Some are detected and still not arrested.

So for every illegal immigrant who is encountered, there could be two or three who are not encountered. But as far as those who were encountered in Texas sectors from El Paso to Brownsville, there was a 15% increase from February to March. In February, there were 75,878 encounters. And in March, there were 87,568 encounters, according to the federal statistics published. Last year in 2022, there was a 32% increase from February to March, so that seasonal increase is less than it was last year. In fact, CBP said in the southwest region of the U. In March of this year, there were 162,317 encounters, whereas in March of last year, there were 211,181 encounters. However, in Texas sectors, there was a 28% increase in family unit arrests in Texas sectors. So we're still seeing an increase in illegal

immigration per seasonal increase and other factors as well. And so far this fiscal year, there have been 1.5 million encounters that's both between ports of entry and those stopped at ports of entry, but over two-thirds of the 1.5 million encounters in the southwestern U.S. so far had been between ports of entry, people crossing the border illegally and then being arrested by border patrol as opposed to being turned away at a port of entry. So at those field offices in those ports, at the Laredo sector, there were 16,036 encounters. And at the El Paso field offices, there were 3,016 encounters. And then in San Diego, there were just over 8,600. And in Tucson, just over 1,900. So illegal immigration numbers still showing an increase

in illegal immigration. That is, according to the feds, usually expected a seasonal increase. But then there are those who also say that the policies of the current administration are contributing to an incentive to cross the border illegally. And there are plenty of critics of the way Biden has handled illegal immigration. So those are some of the key numbers that were published in March's report. One thing to take into consideration is more than three years after the pandemic, Title 42 is still in place. What did this last month's update say about Title 42? One of the lingering legal effects of the pandemic was the Title 42 public health order, and it has long outlasted most of the measures that were implemented to respond to the COVID-19 virus. 46% of the encounters in the southwestern U.S. ended with a Title 42 proceeding in March, according to CBP.

So even a month before or a couple months before this program is set to end on May 11, nearly half of the illegal immigrants encountered were expelled pursuant to Title 42. I will note 23% of those encounters were with repeat offenders. So the reason I speak in terms of encounters is you have people who are making multiple attempts across the border. And one of the problems that have been raised with Title 42 is the issue with people not having any long-term consequences for crossing the border illegally because there are not any legal ramifications outside of simply being expelled. Whereas if someone went through a proceeding under Title VIII, whereby they are adjudicated guilty of violating immigration laws, and then

there is a bar to reentry, under Title 42, they're just turned away, and some of them just come right back across. And 23% of the encounters in March were people just coming right back across the border. So it may be the case that once Title VIII enforcement resumes and Title 42 ceases to exist as a policy on May 11, that there will be fewer encounters because there will be fewer people coming across repeatedly. But then there are still concerns that the end of Title 42 will remove a tool that immigration police have used to keep the border situation under control. Troy Miller, the acting CBP commissioner who took over for Chris Magnus after he was forced out of his position due to unacceptably high illegal immigration numbers, commented on this reality. Miller said,

quote, CBP will continue to enforce our immigration laws and ramp up efforts to combat smuggler misinformation as we prepare to return to the expedited removal proceedings under Title VIII authorities, which carry stricter consequences like a five-year ban on reentry and potential criminal prosecution for unlawful entry, end quote. There you go. Hayden, thank you so much for your coverage as always. Brad, coming to you, a Texas House committee heard a couple of notable bills dealing with business taxes. Tell us about them. Yeah. So the first is by Representative Craig Goldman. It would eliminate the franchise tax entirely, a tax that collected $5.7 billion from businesses last year. Texas has a tiered and varied franchise tax structure. I mean, the different categories and sizes of businesses pay

either a different percentage on their margins or exempt entirely. Businesses that bring in less than $1.23 million per year pay no franchise tax. But there's been a lot of desire, especially among businesses, to eliminate this franchise tax. There is no explicit corporate tax in the state, as I understand it, and this is kind of a half measure towards that. But there's a lot of discussion about this. And Goldman told the committee, when you eliminate a burdensome, unfair tax on businesses, the economy actually benefits. Businesses hate this tax. He's justified the proposal by saying that this would incentivize more businesses to come to Texas than already are,

making it a more business-friendly state. He was questioned about the potential lost tax revenue, if the bill should be implemented. It has a $7.8 billion fiscal note. But he said that the franchise tax has been reduced. It was reduced by 25% in 2015. And he pointed to the record surplus that we have today as just because you cut the franchise tax it's not indicative of the financial health of the state down the road but it could also cut the other way where you know in a in a more economically down period if we enter a recession and all of a sudden where we had this massive surplus,

we now have a deficit or a projected deficit like we did two years ago. They quickly turned around, but that would cut into the state's finances. But you can also flip it on the other way with if we're in a recession, businesses would appreciate having to pay less taxes on their margins. So a lot of different arguments on this. Definitely something to watch. And it's it would be a pretty substantial reform to the tax code. Tell us about the other bill. So that one is representative Will Metcalf's bill and constitutional amendment pair that

would exempt tangible personal property from ad valorem taxation. That's property taxes. Tangible personal property is anything owned by a business that is not the land or the building in which the business operates. So think like a forklift for a warehouse or a fast food restaurant's grill. In addition to the actual inventory being sold, all of this is taxed. And obviously it's most often its value is far less than the property, the value of the property that you're, that the business operates on, but it's still a sizable amount of money. Um, and it can really cut into a business's margins. If you, if you, um, if you think about it, so this is another option that is being discussed. That one has a smaller fiscal note. I think it was like between three and four billion over the next biennium. But there has been for there was an interim hearing after the 2019 session on the business personal property tax. And so there's been a lot of appetite to do something on this. And I think something will happen, whether it's Metcalf's proposal or

what we have right now in the Senate. Not sure, but something will be done, I think. Yeah, for sure. And it's particularly watching these come in light of all the other fights about property taxes is very interesting as well. Where do you think this plays into the session's overall debate about property taxes? So the House's main plan would give businesses a big reprieve on the appraisal side of the equation, including them in a reduced appraisal cap where they currently are not included in any appraisal cap. So the tax they pay on their property fluctuates with the market value currently. So on the Senate side, on that plan, the House thinks this would give a lot of, exemption increase from $2,500 to $25,000. And they're kind of at loggerheads on this.

As we know, we've discussed with the appraisal fights that has now turned into a surfer body fight. And we keep mentioning this. We promise we'll get into it. We'll get there. We promise we'll get it. We'll get into it. We promise. It is my Twitter fun topic. Nobody stole it. I was going to do that.

Beat me to the punch. But, um, who knows how this is going to be hashed out, but it's, you know, both of these bills were authored by members of house leadership. So that indicates some level of support within the body. That doesn't mean they'll pass. That doesn't mean they'll pass out of committee. But I think it seems like a possible plan B of sorts if the House doesn't get what it wants. But we'll see where the chips fall. It's all kind of up in the air right now, Although something has to be done, something has to be settled on in the next 30 days.

Yeah. 30 days. That's as wild that we're at that point in session already. Brad, thank you so much for your coverage. Matt, we are coming to you. School security legislation passed the Senate recently. What are the major highlights of how this legislation works? Well, school security is a priority issue for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. legislation passed the Senate recently. What are the major highlights of how this legislation works? Well, school security is a priority issue for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and the Capitol in the wake of the mass shootings in public schools across the state, including Uvalde's Robb Elementary School in 2022 and the Santa Fe High School shooting in 2018. Senate Bill 11, one of the top 30 priorities for Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick in the Texas Senate by Senator Robert Nichols, works by first appropriating an increased funding to provide for enhanced security measures at every school campus across the state, establishing a floor of $15,000 per campus plus $10 per student per year. Next, a statewide department deemed the Office of School Safety and Security would be created within the Texas Education Agency to coordinate and monitor

school district safety and security requirements by creating guidelines for campus security and conducting audits to ensure districts comply with the state requirements. The bill also includes a number of other reforms, including reforming truancy laws and changes you can read about in our story. Now, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick issued a statement on the passage of Senate Bill 11 saying, it's a top priority of mine and all 31 senators because it represents a blueprint for our schools to use to harden their facilities moving forward. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Matt, for your coverage. 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. We're not funded by corporate interest 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 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 fake news stops here mug. For more details, visit the texan.news forward slash subscribe or click the URL in the description of this podcast. Hayden, we're coming to you. On a related note here to what Matt was just

talking about, Texas lawmakers have been considering bills in response to the very tragic Robb Elementary School massacre. What were two measures passed in the House this week? House Bill 3 and House Bill 13 both are designed to work together to increase security at public school facilities across the state. They were both approved overwhelmingly. House Bill 3, primarily sponsored by Representative Dustin Burroughs, was approved in a bipartisan vote of 119 to 25. And House Bill 13, primarily authored by Ken King, was approved by a vote of 125 to 21. And most votes in opposition to both bills were from Democrats who objected to some of the provisions. House Bill 3 would create a requirement for all campuses in the state of Texas to have an

armed guard at all times during business hours. And one of the criticisms of the response to the Uvalde shooting was the amount of time it took for someone, quote unquote, the good guy with the gun to get to the campus and respond to that shooting. And then even though there were hundreds of law enforcement officers there, ultimately it took 77 minutes before the gunman was killed. So this was only part of the solution. It wasn't presented as the end all beall to prevent school shootings and other tragic events, but Burroughs pitched this as one way the state can at least at the bare minimum ensure that everyone attending school in Texas has that armed guard at their campus to be available to respond to any threats that might occur. Another bill, House Bill 13 by Ken King, added training requirements for mental health first aid. It also is designed to increase coordination between law enforcement agencies and the school staff.

It requires semi-annual school security meetings with the sheriff, the local police department, any federal law enforcement agencies that are in the area for counties that have a population of fewer than 350,000 residents. And there are requirements in place that school staff and those law enforcement agencies either attend or send representatives on their behalf. Those are just some of the reforms in these bills. Both bills have a provision that amend the education code to increase the school safety allotment for public schools to $100 per student. And Burroughs' bill had that at $10 per student, but he accepted an amendment that increased it to $100 per student. One of the more controversial pieces of the bill was the $25,000 stipend installed for people who undergo a state-approved

training program to become what would ultimately be called a school sentinel. They originally called it a school guardian, but because we already have a program in place whereby teachers can be trained to be a school guardian, the author of the bill, Ken King, decided to introduce an amendment to change that to school sentinel to distinguish the two programs. So school sentinels would be able to meet that requirement in Burroughs' bill to have an armed campus guard, and they would receive a $25,000 stipend in addition to their compensation as school employees. That's an outline of some of the things that were included in the bills. You mentioned there was some opposition to these bills. What were some of the objections against the legislation were Democrats, although there were a few Republicans who voted against HB 13. Representative Vicki Goodwin and Representative Ana Maria Ramos were the more vocal opponents of these bills.

Goodwin said that she was concerned about putting the onus on teachers to arm themselves and be the first line of defense against any attacks. Particularly, she and others said that she didn't want teachers to be in a position of having to potentially shoot one of their students if a student became that threat. And Representative Ramis said she did not believe the bill focused enough on mental health. She proposed an unsuccessful amendment to require that an equal number of mental health professionals as guards and school sentinels be available on campus because there is so much of a problem with mental health in public schools. concerned about the $25,000 stipend becoming, he originally called it a bribe, though he walked back that characterization a bit. He said he was concerned that the stipend would pigeonhole people into participating in a program from a state approved vendor when there might be better programs available. They would forego those programs just to receive the $25,000 stipend. And James Tallarico said that he was concerned that amount of money could also be a perverse incentive. So it was a little

strange to see Schaefer and Tallarico, who are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, express concern about the same provision in a bill. But those were some of the objections raised. Ultimately, there were a few Republican votes against HB 13. But other than that, it was primarily a cohort of Democratic opposition. Could there be any Second Amendment implications from these proposals? These were not gun bills. And Burroughs said it was a false characterization or a misunderstanding of the bill that it's the arming teachers bill.

It is true that the bill allows school district employees and teachers to fulfill the requirement to be an armed campus guard. It doesn't require them to. However, that is a portion of the bill. So teachers could become more armed as a result of this legislation. However, it would not require them to do so. But by. However, it would not require them to do so. But by and large, these were not gun bills. These were primarily funding bills and bills to increase training for school personnel for emergency situations. And I don't think there would be any major Second Amendment implications for this legislation. Always the concern for Republicans, specifically when these kinds of issues are raised. So Hayden,

thanks for covering that for us. Okay, Hayden Briles, let's tag team a little bit here. Hayden, you wrote a piece this week and Brad jumped on and helped you. The House passed a bill to codify the 2021 redistricting maps passed during a special session the last time the legislature convened. Why was this move necessary two years later? The Texas Constitution arguably requires that redistricting take place during a regular session of the legislature. And I believe attorneys for the state of Texas agreed with that after there was some litigation against the redistricting maps passed in 2021. The pandemic really threw a wrench in the works

of the census data, which was not published until August of 2021, well after the legislature adjourned sine die. So redistricting couldn't take place until October of that year. And the lawmakers passed a map for the 2020 and for the 2022 elections, which were used last cycle. But they had this bill, HB 1000, to formalize what took place in October in order to avoid a possible constitutional violation. So that's why the move was necessary. It was largely a formality. On second reading, the bill is scheduled for third reading today, at which point it will head over to the Senate, and then the governor will have the opportunity to put redistricting to bed for the 2020 cycle. At least for the next maybe eight years, potentially.

There were some last-minute attempts to change several districts. What were those amendments? I'll ask Brad to speak on the South Texas piece of this in a little bit. But Yvonne Davis tried to introduce a couple of amendments that would have been last ditch attempts to add African-American majority districts. She said it wasn't anything personal, but she wanted to tinker with some East Texas districts. She said it wasn't anything personal, but she wanted to tinker with some East Texas districts. Jay Dean's district would have been morphed into a district that included racial minority populations in Smith County and Gregg County. And it would have adjusted Matt Schaefer's and Cole Hefner's district to accommodate that. And that was voted down on party lines.

Probably the least surprising thing that happened at the Capitol yesterday. Yeah, totally. And then another amendment also voted down on party lines. And that's what this is about. Redistricting is about political power, hands down. There's almost nothing more personal or political than redistricting. Right. And there's no getting around that.

Yeah. And it was, it was also voted down on party lines because at the end of the day, the party in power wants to draw the Democrat or Republican. I don't care who says otherwise, the party in power is going to draw the districts that, that, uh, favor their side. So that amendment was voted down on party lines. Another amendment would have redrawn, admittedly, a bizarrely shaped district in Bell County that Representative Ron Reynolds called an unconventional donut hole configuration. And he is correct that most districts are not drawn like that, where it's a circle around Killeen, Texas. And then you have the outskirts

of the county are another district. And Davis and Reynolds and the other Democrats wanted to move one of those districts to the western part of the county to create another district that is a majority racial minority voters. And then that was voted down on party lines. Davis said it was a missed opportunity. And in fact, she had some, she had some stronger words for lawmakers. She said that she, like I said, it was a missed opportunity, but she also said, quote, I want you to leave knowing you had the opportunity to do right and you did wrong, end quote. So some strong language from the front microphone from yvonne davis uh two republicans who voted down her amendments she was very active

yesterday too on the floor amending a lot of different i mean not a lot too very significant i believe just two bills that she was specifically looking at but and she took a lot of time to talk about them and the bill it was a very drawn out process you'd'd look up at the TV and it was Yvonne Davis again. Like she was up there. For something that we were all just expecting just to be rubber stamps basically. Check it off the list. But something that I found interesting

that was not taken up was the trio of districts down in South Texas, down in the Rio Grande Valley, in Willisee County, Cameron county in hidalgo county there are three districts um and now i'm trying to remember there are three districts in cameron county and it is a potential county line rule violation there was a couple challenges in court on that. The courts kind of dismissed it. In one of those, they ruled that MALC, Mexican American Legislative Caucus, I think is the acronym there, did not have standing to challenge that. but also the courts didn't really want to force the legislature to redraw the maps again

after they'd already passed them and after it had been such a lift. But Republicans had an opportunity to address that in their plan. They chose not to, basically just banking on the fact that the court doesn't really want to deal with it, which it may not, And it hasn't yet. So, you know, at least so far, it points in their direction. Another thing that they haven't done, they decided not to do, was try and shore up the congressional. I mean, we're talking about Texas house maps right now, but when the congressional maps come up, um, there, there's an op, there was an opportunity to try and make one of the South Texas, uh,

districts more competitive. One of the three down there that were big challenge challenges, two of them were heavily democratic. One was, uh, somewhat strong Republican. And that's how it played out in the elections. Republican won one, Democrats won two. So there's an opportunity to maybe make one of those more competitive, but they decided not to. So in all, it's been basically chalk. They're not changing anything, and they're just sticking with the maps they adopted. And for time efficiency, expediency, it's probably the right decision so yeah there you go thank you gentlemen for covering that for us bradley you wrote a piece this week on urquhart power grid reforms and pending legislation where do those pieces of legislation stand

so there are three big bills that have been sent from the senate to the house though there are a host of other bills on this issue itself, on this issue addressing many different sub-issues on the power grid reform. But these big three include SB6, which would create the Texas Energy Insurance Fund. And that is intended to subsidize the creation of 10,000 megawatts of natural gas generation. SB7, which is a lot more complicated, though a main part of it is creating this firming requirement, this allocation of reliability costs to generators responsible for unreliability of the grid. So like mainly that would be renewable resources that do not generate, especially wind in times of, in the peak summer heat, summer afternoon heat, wind tends to drop off more than other resources.

So it would be allocation of costs to that. And the final one is SB 2012. That is the one that has the only one that's made any progress so far in the house. That would green light the performance credit mechanism that the PUC has chosen as its preferred route for creating more thermal generation in their power grid. So SB 2012 was heard in committee recently. It creates guardrails for the PCM, including a $500 million cap. So there's a difference between the Senate version and the House version on this specifically, although there are others too. But the cap, that $500 million cap in the Senate version is total.

In the House version, it's a net cap so you would subtract uh costs from um profits um on this and then it would kind of meter out to once you get to 500 million that'd be it so this has a really interesting dynamic between generators and industrial users. Generators want the PCM. They see it as a necessary price signal for them to build generation and feel comfortable that they'll get a return on that investment. Users and organizations like Texas Association of Manufacturers or the Texas Oil and Gas Association, whose members are large industrial users of electricity, they want to see the cap. In fact, the cap is like a must for them. Without the cap, they do not support the PCM.

So the reason this is breaking down on both sides is generators would stand to make more money with higher costs costs higher costs being that allocated through the pcm and then users would be on the other side they'd have to pay the electricity costs for that so it's you know self-interest right you know they they don't want to have to pay as much money as uh as they could otherwise and so so, um, you have a kind of a counterbalance incentive there, how that's going to shuffle out. I'm not sure. But, um, the other two plans that I mentioned, neither of those have really, uh, gotten any movement in the house. In fact, SB six kind of seems to be a non-starter in the house that may change but um when the when sp6 was considered in the

senate committee only one person testified in favor of that plan and that was someone from berkshire hathaway and berkshire hathaway presented the state with a plan after the blackouts last session to basically do this to build um 8.1, I think it was a billion dollars worth of natural gas generation to create this like backup fleet of natural gas. And so the issue at the center of all this is how do you, how do you create an environment that would enable more investment in natural gas generation mainly that we haven't seen before. So that's kind of where it stands. Kind of got to see what the House does.

Yeah, very quickly. So on the PCM, the performance credit mechanism, where do the political dynamics sit? So it seems like the House is more amenable to this, namely because they gave it a hearing. Also, the governor is in favor of the PCM. The PUC, if the legislature doesn't adopt anything, the PUC would move forward with its own PCM plan. PUC being Public Utility Committee, which I think you said before, but just to make sure. So that's the regulatory agency for utilities.

And the reason this entire thing is even an issue is because we've seen large amounts of renewable generation coming online, largely because of $380 billion production tax credit from the federal government. Currently, there's 31,000 megawatts of solar and 5,000 megawatts of wind sitting in the ERCOT queue. The state legislature, the industry wants to try and provide a counterbalance to that federal incentive. Can it do that? I have no idea. That's a massive, massive incentive, but we shall see what they decide to do.

Thank you, Bradley. We're going to try and skirt through here and get to as many sources as we can. Cameron, ending tenure, university tenure has been one of Dan Patrick's crusades this session. Tell us the latest developments. Yeah, so the Senate endured a lengthy debate on the floor before passing on party lines. There was one Democratic vote for the bill, and that was from Senator Cesar Blanco. And he said in his defense of straying from the party lines with his vote that universities have a shameful track record of discrimination and racism. Now with DEI, I don't trust that universities will do any better by minorities. In good conscience, I can't and won't defend higher education and the status quo of tenure discrimination. So strong words there from Blanco. We also saw some celebration of the passage specifically from Patrick when he went on social media and called out some of these professors talking about how they're the only people in our society that have a guaranteed

job. He mentioned how it's become clear that some tenured faculty at Texas universities feel immune to oversight from the legislature. And as we know, this isn't new rhetoric from Patrick, as he has said many similar things, especially at the start of this year at our session kickoff event. Absolutely. And now this bill will head to the House and we'll see what happens. We have a lot of education issues like you've reported on that have been the big differing topics between the House and the Senate. So we'll see how they handle tenure. Thank you, Cameron, so much.

Bradley, coming back to you, the House passed its priority bill with digital protections for minors online. Give us those details. HB 18 by Representative Shelby Slauson passed with only one no vote this week on third reading. The bill prohibits digital service providers from forcing minors to sign terms of services services or user agreements without their parents approval lays out protocols for verifying an adult as a minor's registered parent as it pertains to that bill's prohibition and requires disclosure of the processes behind the use of an algorithm to decide what a minor user sees on the given platform. The bill is a chamber priority

and backed by the speaker. It was actually, the idea of it was something he mentioned in his speech when he won reappointment as House Speaker. And it's something that I don't foresee the Senate having much issue with, but the House got it through pretty quickly. Yeah, absolutely. How much opposition was there? Not much. As I said, only one no vote. I believe that was from Tony Tenderholt. Though Representative Harold Dutton inquired from the back mic about something stripped from the bill's committee substitute, that it lacked a private cause of action, he questioned how they would adequately enforce this if there was not that mechanism for citizens to challenge

specific instances in court. And Rosanna Slauson said that after conversations with people involved, stakeholders, they decided it's not necessary. And so I guess we'll kind of see if that's added back in in the Senate and if they have to hash it out in conference committee. Absolutely. Thank you, Bradley. Matthew, free speech rights and the right to a speedy trial seem to be colliding in a bill before the Texas legislature. What are the details of this controversy? So this is an interesting story to report on. I initially didn't really notice this legislation whenever it passed the Texas Senate, but we started getting a lot of input from free speech groups, that sort of thing. And so in a nutshell, what this bill does

is it reforms something called the Texas Citizens Participation Act. And what that is, is Texas's version of anti-SLAPP litigation laws. And SLAPP means strategic lawsuits against public participation. So think ordinary person speaks out against big powerful person and big powerful person sues little person to – for defamation or something like that to keep them from speaking out. And that was the source that prompted a lot of what are called anti-SLAPP laws across the country to keep people's First Amendment rights from being chilled through abuse of defamation type litigation. The way it works is, let's say you speak your mind about a public figure or somebody involved in public policy, et cetera, et cetera, and they try to sue you for defamation. That person can throw up a motion to dismiss

based on the statute, which stops the trial court proceedings from going on. So none of that very expensive discovery, filing responses and court briefs and depositions, all that sort of stuff that causes somebody to spend a lot of time and money has to occur. That all stops while the motion to dismiss is being reviewed. The trial court judge will make a ruling on that motion to dismiss. If they reject it, that rejection can be appealed to the appeals court. Now, while it's under appeals under existing law, once again, the trial court process stays stopped so that you're not having to fight litigation on two different fronts. Well, the reason that this reform came about was because a number of attorneys pointed out that in litigation they had that had nothing to do with a free speech issue.

As a matter of fact, this one attorney from Houston pointed out he had a client with a construction type litigation issue or a construction company they had hired that they say defaulted on a contract. They were suing to enforce the contract, etc. They would go through some 18 months of preparing for this trial. They're 30 days out from the trial. They've spent a million dollars, et cetera, getting ready for it. And the other side files one get this motion to dismiss, finally adjudicated, it's caused a long time of preparation, lots of money spent, everything like that, lots of harm done to them because the motion was abused. So it's prompted this legislation, which functions to say that if a motion to dismiss by the trial court judge is rejected based on a finding that the trial court judge believes that it was frivolous or that the issue didn't pertain to one of the primary First Amendment protected issues, et cetera, et cetera,

that they could appeal it, but while it's under appeal, the trial court process could continue. The free speech organizations, media organizations, First Amendment groups, et cetera, that object to the bill saying the bill as written doesn't successfully provide the same standard of protection that Texas' law currently does to prevent anti-SLAPP lawsuits in order to provide the protection to litigants who are seeking reforms to the law to prevent its abuse being used in non-free speech related or First Amendment type issues. So the legislation passed the Senate I believe last month and almost unnoticed. And then it came up for hearing this past week in the House of Representatives. Chairman Jeff Leach, who is the – of the Judiciary Committee, who is the House sponsor of it, held a hearing. Some 21 people showed up to testify on the bill. You had a lot of attorneys in there for and against. And Chairman Leach made it pretty well known that he was going to do whatever he could to try and find some language that both sides could agree upon. We saw some rather heated back

and forth between two litigators that were on both sides of the issue in there. And it was kind of funny. There was one moment where Chairman Leach said, I'm going to give you two guys my credit card. Y'all go to lunch, hash out your differences, come up with, you're both really smart guys. Y'all come up with some language. Yeah. And get back to us. Has it been voted out of committee yet? It has not. But it looks like that they are working with both sides, trying to find some ways that they can possibly change the language and find something that's agreeable to both sides. So it's it's interesting that, you know, a lot of the time whenever there's objections to the legislation, that sort of stuff, they just kind of try and keep pushing it through. But it really seems like they're trying to find something that's agreeable to both sides here. So we're

going to keep an eye on this issue as it goes forward. Awesome. Thank you, Matt. Okay, Cameron, real fast, we're going to hit your last topic here before we jump into the rest of the podcast. Banning the practice of administering gender modification treatments to children continues to be a theme for the legislature this session. Tell us about what is different about this particular bill you covered opposed to other bills we've seen. Yeah. So Senator Bob Hall authored this bill to make health coverage plans and doctors liable for the lifetime of the care of their patient who undergoes general treatments and opens

up these doctors and health care plans to malpractice claims from patients who experience negative consequences from the treatments. And the liability actually will extend to medical, mental health, and pharmaceutical costs endured by the patient, including costs associated with reversing a gender modification procedure. And in the bill itself and on the floor, Hall mentioned a video from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center where one administrator at the university's transgender clinic called these surgeries and medical treatments a huge moneymaker for the hospital. And another doctor on that staff at the medical center said that if you had objections to gender mod because of religious beliefs, they would face consequences. And so now

Hull's bill has passed on the Senate floor and it will now wait to be assigned to a committee in the House. Thank you, Cameron. Let's move on to our Twittery section. We're going to reserve this section for just one tweet this week, or two tweets rather, that go hand in hand. The Speaker and the lieutenant governor uh had some interesting words for each other they've been at odds largely this last uh i don't know the session but in the last month particularly they've really been at odds the speaker tweeted out um just out of nowhere we'll we'll get to the reasoning stoked for some tasty waves on the texas coast this summer after tech sledge hits its gnarly sine die now this comes after the lieutenant governor on the radio which was it

chatty steve that he went on i don't care no no this was just his it was like which spot was it it was on spectrum news that's right um and called the speaker californade, right? He went off calling him California Dade. While holding a couple. Yeah, flashing cash. Yeah, a lot of cash. A couple stacks of Benjamins. Yeah, exactly. And so the speaker responded, and these two photos he tweeted with them. I would encourage folks, like if you are, if you're doubting us, this is literally what he tweeted. One photo is him shirtless with a six pack between two surfboards.

Having the time of his life, it seems. And the other photo, I don't get the other photo. that was from the texas monthly article that was photoshopped okay but yeah he was speaker feeling showed that while shredding waves he's also shredded and folks immediately were like is this photoshopped is it not i don't think it is it looks pretty legit to me but i could oh i think it's real yeah yeah the other one's photoshopped that's from texas monthly but yeah yeah it's the joke and then the lieutenant governor came and followed suit a few hours after that tweet in tweeting from his official account glad to see california dade has a sense of humor gotta admit he's in better shape than me but But home-owning surfer dudes, especially those over 65 and their surfer buddies under 65, all know the Senate's homestead exemptions are the better wave to ride.

And he has like a hang loose sign and a surfing emoji. And the photo there is his face photoshopped on a surfer. Just paddling around. And this is how Texas public policy is. Yeah. And of course, people on Twitter and the legislature, you know, staff, lobbyists, reporters, they went ham over this. Like Twitter exploded in terms. There was a fake Twitter account, something like surfer bro date or something like that. That is now operating in tweeting. Yeah. And will for a while. I'm sure this will be a running joke for a long time oh my goodness no kidding so at the

center of it all is that uh battle over property taxes that we've talked so much about this legislative session but funny still to kind of see some levity brought to it yeah especially with how intense it's gotten yeah it was a pretty snipping back and forth it's it's been a lot yeah but go check out the the tweets it's pretty funny to see okay we have a couple listener questions i want to jump into for our fun topic this week so we have tamar t dear mckenzie et al i was wondering whether y'all could help a new texan understand a state government process question is theI bill mentioned in the below article, she references an article, now a Texas law,

or does it have to get passed by the Texas state representatives too? I don't think rewatching Schoolhouse Rocks, I'm Just a Bill will help me. So she's asking, okay, does a bill have to process through both legislatures, both chambers of the legislature in order to become law? Yes. So the bill will have to pass the house and we, they may put, they might may either do a committee sub or tack on amendments or both.

And if that happens and they pass it, they'll then have to go to conference committee between the two chambers and hash out the differences at that point. If they pass it, it will then go to the governor's desk. Brad, what a committee so explain what that means oh thank you um in commit in both chambers have the bills have to move through committees first before they move to the floor and the committees are divided by topics generally yeah and uh in that process legislators can introduce a different version of the bill that they're hearing, whether it's in that same chamber or something that the other chamber sent over.

And it can, as we're seeing with the Chapter 313 replacement, hint, hint, back mic tomorrow, the adopted committee sub by the committee is different than the committee sub that they heard in committee are you tracking hayden yeah okay it's a lot so yes i'm tracking yes i know what a committee sub is i thought we we better hash it out and another risk with committee subs is sometimes they adopt a committee sub that goes beyond the reach of the original bill and then it gets a point of order on the floor yep and then it has to go back to committee and they have to start all over because they made a parliamentary procedure snafu so committee subs are perilous perilous that is so true and then when it passes the house they have to get on their surfboard and

ride the wave over to the senate. And sorry, I'm just. Well, if it passes, it'll go over to the Senate and the Senate has the opportunity to concur with the House amendments and just adopt it outright. Or if they don't like the additions or changes, they will then trigger a conference committee. So basically, a bill starts in the House like a House bill starts in the House. It goes through committee, goes to the House floor if it gets approved by calendars. If it passes, it then goes over to the Senate. The Senate does the same process, committee, chamber. Then it is sent back over to the House. If it was amended by the Senate, the House then has the option to concur with those amendments. And then if the House concurs with those amendments, nothing happens. But if something happens where they do not concur with those amendments it goes to a conference committee attached on conference committee and it comes back to the floor again correct there yes and fun fact it has to be approved twice in the house and i think in the

senate too because it has to be read on two separate legislative days which is not the same as a calendar day and it has to be approved two times in order for it to go to the other chamber which is a sneak peek into a piece coming from hayden about parliamentary procedure and sometimes they can motion to suspend the constitutional uh three-day rule and and take it up and vote it through both times on the same day but they they have to. Which the Senate notoriously does more often. The Senate is, oh yes. The House never does. The House never does.

Yeah, and there is a point at session two where the House can no longer consider bills that originated in its chamber as new bills. They can only consider, yes, multiple deadlines. So Tamar, that is the simple or the complicated way of saying it's very complicated. Okay, we have another question. Jeff D., why do some bills have a constitutional amendment or an HJR, SJR, House Joint Resolution or Senate Joint Resolution that goes along with it? I think this is a very confusing part is that oftentimes there are kind of two bills that go together, but one is an amendment to the Constitution, which requires more support from the chamber, and one is just a bill. What's the

difference? When you see them paired, the bill is the enabling legislation for the Constitutional Amendment, which is the joint resolution. You can see Constitutional Amendments passed without enabling legislation. I think the casino

bill is that. Hayden, am I wrong on that? No, the casino bill needs enabling legislation like i think the casino bill is that hayden am i no the casino bill needs enabling legislation um well then strike what i just said there i ignore it it's actually a pretty long enabling bill because it has to set up all the regular the regulatory framework for casinos but i think you can have a constitutional amendment without you can't a bill tied to it yeah it just depends on how the constitutional amendment reads. Like typically the reason for enabling legislation is you'll have a constitutional amendment that says the legislature may enact laws providing for the regulation of the gambling industry or something like that. The constitution itself doesn't necessarily provide the specifics. It leaves that up to the legislature to then create

the statutes that put it into effect and just at a bare basics level an hjar and sjr when it passes is something that everybody votes on whereas just a regular bill everybody is in the whole state whereas just a regular bill that is passed only only the legislature votes on that. The public does not weigh in. And so if the J.R.'s have to pass both chambers with two thirds support. So last session we saw the the bail reform bill. The bill passed, but the constitutional amendment did not reach the two thirds support in the house and therefore did not go up for a vote on the statewide ballot but if it does if these jrs do these constitutional amendments must be approved by after the legislative process a statewide vote from voters and the reason for

that is the the state constitution which ours is unusually long, bars the legislature from doing certain things. And so if the legislature wants to do something, they're effectively asking the public's permission by amending the constitution. But other things like yesterday, they voted to amend the constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices. That doesn't require any enabling legislation, any other bills. They just need to amend the Constitution. So sometimes one does not necessarily need the other. But in essence, in order for the Constitution to be amended, the public has to vote. And there are some bills that can't be passed unless that happens. So that's why the HJR and SJRs are

sometimes necessary there you go gentlemen thank you so much for clearing that up we appreciate it and listeners thank you so much for sending those in we love answering those and we will do better when we get questions for you to remember to answer them on the pod so thank you so much for sending those in folks we appreciate

you listening to our blathering as usual and we will catch you next week thank you to everyone for listening if you enjoy our show appreciate you listening to our blathering as usual, and we will catch you next week. Thank you to everyone for listening. If you enjoy our show, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you want more of our stories, subscribe to The Texan at thetexan.news. Follow us on social media for the latest in Texas politics and send any questions for our team to our mailbag by DMing us on Twitter or shooting an email to editor at the texan.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.