The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - August 6, 2021

Episode Date: August 6, 2021

This week on The Texan’s “Weekly Roundup,” the team talks about Governor Abbott's new agenda for another special session, critical race theory bans proposed in the legislature, a border related executive order from Governor Abbott blocked by a federal judge, the financial impact of UT leaving the Big 12, the influence of a Trump endorsement in the aftermath of 2020, new squabbles in the political rivalry between Ken Paxton and George P. Bush, developments in the James Younger case, a Dallas County commissioner suing county Judge Clay Jenkins over a mask mandate, the City of Austin’s packed August agenda, accusations leveled against Travis County’s district attorney, an impending legal fight for a Texas suppressor bill passed this year, actions taken in Hidalgo County in response to the release of asylum seekers, and more.

Howdy folks, Senior Editor Mackenzie Taylor here on the Texans Weekly Roundup. This week, our team talks about the governor setting the agenda for another special session. Comparisons of critical race theory bans proposed in the legislature. A border-related executive order from Governor Abbott blocked by a federal judge. Lawmakers studying the financial impact of UT leaving the Big 12. The influence of a Trump endorsement in the aftermath of 2020, new squabbles in the political rivalry between Ken Paxton and George P. Bush, developments in the James Younger case, a Dallas County Commissioner suing County Judge Clay

Jenkins over a mask mandate, the City of Austin's packed August agenda, accusations leveled against Travis County's District Attorney, an impending legal fight for a Texas suppressor bill passed this year, actions taken in Hidalgo County in response to the release of asylum seekers, and in another installment of our Today in Texas History series, we chat about the opening gun of the Texas Revolution. Thanks for listening in. We hope you enjoy this week's edition. Howdy, folks. McK taylor here with daniel friend hayden sparks isaiah mitchell and brad johnson y'all always sit in the same order which makes it easy i will never have to look around but i still do because i think at some point i'll forget

one of your names when i'm going around the room so well now that you say that i think next time i'm going to change seats oh you know you might as well you but then you'll have to forego the fuzzy mic, which would be a big bummer. Daniel's mic, for those who can't see him, which are all of you, is very fuzzy. Yes. There's a dead cat on it. That's actually what they're called, isn't it? Yeah. Look at that.

Technical terms. We're teaching. Google it. Well, don't Google it. Depends on what you're, you you know how confident you are you'll find the result well we have delayed this podcast for a little while this morning um this is thursday and that's because a lot of news has been happening so daniel and brad we're going to start with you we're going to get right into the news but the governor just sent out an advisory telling

us hey the special session uh numero dos is coming right up this saturday walk us through the announcement what's new and essentially just what is added on to the to the call that has already existed so the next special special session we'll call it the august special session will begin saturday august 7th at noon and that comes after this previous session was basically a wash because democrats spent most of it breaking quorum in dc and so on this next special includes all of the items that were on the first one um you know notable ones include bail reform election reform border security social media censorship uh that kind of thing but then he went on to add six more um a couple incredibly notable ones first and foremost the appropriation of the federal arpa funding that was

all indications were that that would be included with the redistricting special funding is it's the federal coronavirus aid that congress passed it's roughly 16 billion dollars that the state has to distribute out to whatever it wants to do essentially and that was originally it seemed to be paired with the redistricting that would have happened in october or november but no longer that is on this i don't a session uh agenda um we also have... Well, alongside that, I think another thing that caught my attention along with the ARPA funding was also he added the primary elections on there so that lawmakers can choose to modify the filing periods and primary election dates for the 2022 elections, which is also

something that you would more expect in a redistricting session. It could be that redistricting doesn't actually happen in a special session uh it is possible that it could move to legislative redistricting board which you mentioned earlier would only affect though the state yes seats so the legislative redistricting board if the legislature does not pass maps in the first special session after the redistricting data is received, which is really complicated this session because of the Census Bureau's mess of the whole census thing. And that data is supposed to be received, I think, mid-month in August, right? If I remember correctly. Yeah, it's supposed to be received sometime soon in the fall it was not traditionally it's arrived in like march february march and that's when lawmakers do it since it got delayed now things are a little bit up in the air it could move to the legislative redistricting board potentially and who's on that

so that would include the governor lieutenant governor attorney general, comptroller, and land commissioner, I believe, and maybe the speaker too. So all Republican officials in the state would have basically authority to draw state maps. So that's the state house, state senate maps. I think the state board of education seats as well, maybe. And then congressional maps, though, they don't really have authority over so i'm not exactly sure what would happen with that it would probably end up in the courts it's all this is all conjecture at this point too we don't know for sure it seems there could be some possibility of that particularly after the announcement um but what other additions to the to the call do we have uh one kind of obscure one is radioactive waste storage and transportation

i am not entirely sure what that has to do with but um i know there's been some talk about it out in the permian basin i think there's some uh concern out there with some stuff okay heard about not not a big it's not a big state it's not really been a big theme correct and so that's why it's kind of an obscure addition but um another one that avid added is preemption of local employment ordinances um i've written about this some especially in austin but it's these localities that kind of get in between um employers and their employees and what requirements those employers must provide to their employees in order to operate within the jurisdiction of the city. And so there was a bill actually to pass something like this during the regular session, and it failed on the final day because of the first quorum break when the Democrats walked out

in order to kill the election bill. So that was also one of the first quorum break when the Democrats walked out in order to kill the election bill. So that was also one of the fatalities. And then the last one of the new additions is legislative quorum requirements. I can't imagine what has spurred that. But there's already been multiple bills filed dealing with that issue itself. One by Representative Maize Middleton that would, after 14 days of unexcused absences would vacate the seat for a member and so and he filed that a few days ago that's largely a political gesture to say hey let's start talking about this and then it's interesting the governor then followed up now it can actually be dealt with during a

during the august session because um it's on the call rather than having to wait until the next regular session absolutely and then the other there's one other thing that was on there for education related to COVID-19 policies. So there was a bill that I believe Senator Kohlhorst and some House member, I'm blanking right now, but they filed a bill that would prohibit COVID-19 vaccinations mandates in school so that it's still voluntary. And Abbott also includes making sure that the wearing of face coverings is not mandatory and in-person learning, making sure that's available.

And in the release, Abbott reiterated basically the message that he has been saying for a month now that I will continue to call special session after special session to reform our broken bail system, uphold election integrity, and pass important items that texans demand and deserve so i think there was a fox news article that had that scoop as an exclusive yeah they really got on it last night after he's been saying that for a month so election reform social media censorship um article 10 funding the funding of the legislature uh a critical race theory, all those kinds of items that were big talking points. They were added to the call again. These are all the same items that were added with it, you know, in addition to many others.

But at this point, how many total items do we have? We have six new and 11. So 17 or like 19. We're doing the math on the fly we're literally doing the math on the fly um one of y'all count as we go into this next segment but let's talk this is technically the last week of the first special session of the july special session democrats have been gone for how long now three and a half weeks three and a half weeks um so what does this week look like in terms of the legislature well a lot of the same nothing has been done and uh the the house has convened i think every day this week for a very short period and then adjourned because they they don't have a quorum and i'm not sure exactly where the attendance numbers stand at the moment

but as of last week they were at above 90 and they needed 100 to have a quorum. And so they're close, but they weren't going to get what they needed. And that was pretty clear from the beginning that Democrats were going to outlast this. Now we'll see what that entails going forward. Can they continue to do that? I don't know. Yeah. Well, even in terms of movement in D.C. for the people act i mean we're coming up upon recesses here so it's

not like those legislators in dc can do as much as they would have you know earlier on yeah there's been talk about the senate potentially the u.s senate potentially voting on something i don't know if anything will actually come of that, but there's some rumors going around. Yeah, and that's what the Texas Democrats have spent most of their time in D.C. doing is trying to push Congress to approve this federal election reform law that would supersede anything the states do and in large part nullify whatever the Texas Republicans managed to pass. And so they've kind of put all their eggs in that basket. And so far they've been unable to because the Republicans have filibustered successfully that legislation. The Senate's already passed the House. But two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, have refused to get rid

of this filibuster. And so that's kind of where it's at right now. We'll see if anything develops further. And that would make it harder for Texas Democrats to remain in DC and have the same excuse they've had this entire time, right? It's, Hey,

we're on the Hill. We're lobbying for this bill that we think would help, you know, solve the problem we see here in Texas in terms of the GOP backed election reform. So we'll see how this August, uh, special session,

what, what will happen in that regard and you know as we've said this whole time legislators here have jobs families how long can they actually stay away from texas feasibly good stuff well thank you guys isaiah we're going to come to you let's talk about critical race theory we talked about it a lot during the regular session and now during special again it's on it was on the call for the first special it's on the call for the second special. It's on the call for the second special. But first of all, remind us what the bill does, and then we'll walk through the differences between the two proposals. So the one that passed during the regular session was HB 3979 by Representative Steve Hill.

And the one that is meant to replace it is Senate Bill 3 in the special session, which, as Brad just pointed out, is going nowhere, like all the special session bills. But both of them are, I mean, they're very similar because one is meant to replace the other. And the idea is to curb, stem, ban, whatever, the inculcation of critical race theory in the classroom. And I use the word inculcation because that's from the bill. Yeah, absolutely. Now, what has changed from the regular session until now? Well, it was interesting because we all remember how on the House floor, Toth brought up HB 3979 in the regular session and accepted a lot of amendments almost entirely from Democrats

to expand the required reading list. And so strictly speaking, I would hear from some people, I heard this bill made a lot of concessions or it was watered down. And strictly speaking, most of the amendments were from the opposing party, from the party that authored the bill. But with SB3, this replacement that's not going anywhere, Arguably, it makes more concessions than HB 3979. Interesting. And so the biggest change between the two is that this replacement bill adds a civics education program for teachers. There were a lot of teachers unions that testified

in committee that passing HB 3979 would require more professional development, more training for teachers and admins to figure out how to work around it without breaking the law. And so they added in this training program in the replacement SB3 to kind of address those concerns of teachers unions, which are not traditionally bulwarks of the Republican Party. Certainly, yes. So that's kind of a bipartisan part of the bill.

And there's another little snippet in there that also has to do with source culling. Around that same part of the bill in this training program, teachers will learn how to identify themselves and teach students how to identify good sources of information for current events and things like that, which again comes from another Democratic bill. Now, a lot of the Democrat amendments, I mean, there was huge contention during the regular session over these amendments and over these additions. And now that some of them have been removed, how has the bill author justified that? So Senator Hughes is the one carrying SB3. And the way he's justified it is by pointing out that most of the Democratic amendments that were offered, pretty much all of the big ones that had to do with, just to pull some examples out of a hat, Cesar Chavez, women's suffrage movement, the Chicano movement, all of these things already exist as requirements for high school students to

learn in the TEKS, the existing state curriculum. So by eliminating those amendments, they're not actually being taken out of the state curriculum. They're just not being put into the Texas Education Code, which if you read it, doesn't have this kind of subject matter in it. That's usually reserved for the teaks that the state board decides. So it's rare in the first place for the ledge to actually weigh in on this kind of concrete material in the curriculum of documents and historical figures that kids should learn about. But it's not unheard of for the ledge to amend the education code to say that certain values should be prioritized. Like patriotism has already been in the Texas Education Code as what's called a primary purpose of Texas education for some time now. So Hughes has justified stripping these amendments away by saying that they're already in the teaks.

And so there's not really a big change being made. They're not being removed from the classroom. Right. It's already there and part of the standard. Well, thank you, Isaiah. Hayden, we're going to come to you. This week we saw an executive order, a border-related executive order from the governor blocked. Remind us what the executive order is and what it would do. Well, this executive order was issued on July 28, And it would do three things or it was going to do

three things. First, it would prohibit ground transportation for groups, the word the order uses is migrants. So that's the word I'm going to use here for this limited purpose. But the the order prohibited transporting groups of migrants who had been detained by Customs and Border Protection for illegally entering the United States, or individuals who would have been subject to deportation under Title 42, the special coronavirus rules that were implemented under Trump. So it would prohibit ground transportation. Second, it would order the Texas Department of Public Safety to stop a vehicle with if they have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was being used to transport these groups of illegal aliens.

And it would instruct the DPS officers to return that vehicle back to its point of origin. And finally, it would authorize DPS to impound a vehicle that was being used to violate this executive order. So those are the parameters of what Abbott ordered on July 28th. What did the federal judge decide? This federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to block the implementation of this executive action until at least August 13th. It's only a temporary restraining order, so the case will still have to be resolved through whatever process this judge decides is going to be resolved. And this order arises from a suit that the Biden administration initiated last week on the grounds that it is a violation of the supremacy clause to implement this executive order and that Abbott is impinging on the federal government's ability to carry out

lawful actions within the state of Texas as it has the prerogative to do. So she has put the brakes on this executive order until at least next week. Now, what will the governor's office potentially say in court, right? This is not the final straw. Where could this go? Well, the basis for this order, or the supposed basis is that it is necessary to prevent COVID-19 infections from spreading in the state of Texas. And Abbott does have, will have a body of evidence that he can present to support that.

For instance, there have been bipartisan expressions of concern over COVID-19 spreading due to the volume of illegal immigration. Most recently, and we'll talk about this in a little bit, I think, but Hidalgo County instituted a state of disaster because of the number of asylum seekers who have tested positive for COVID-19 being released by Border Patrol into the area. And the governor will all but certainly make an argument in court that this lawsuit is the broader issue, and that is that the state of Texas asserts that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility to prevent illegal immigration, and that's why we're facing a 20-plus year high of illegal crossings. And now the state is trying to step up, or they say they are asserting that they need to step up to prevent COVID-19 infections. And that is likely to be the basis for their argument in court. Thank you, Hayden, for that. Isaiah, now we're going to come to you. More on this Big 12 UT scuttlebutt. But this week, a new committee had its first hearing

in the Texas Senate. There are members of the other chamber as well present for this hearing. But give us a little bit of background about what this was all about and what, you know, the lawmakers spoke about and to the entire time. Sure. So Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick formed the Select Committee on the Future of College Sports in Texas after UT decided to bolt the Big 12. And it's in the Senate, but they invited some House members to come sit in as well for their first meeting. And everybody cares, I think, probably more passionately in the sports world about the conference realignment's effect on rivalries and things like that. But in this committee meeting, there are some interesting resentments

that were dredged up between i mean the classic one would be east and west like lubbock and austin especially right and um between schools that benefit from something called the permanent university fund and schools that don't so the puff permanent university fund is old old old old do they call it the puff yeah whitmire calls it the puff that's amazing i won't do my whitmire impression but he's got a very characteristic voice. He calls it the puff. It's come from purchases of West Texas land made in the 19th century, real old. And to this day, it still only funds UT and A&M, the state's two big flagship public universities, but not the only public universities in Texas, right? And so Whitmire was pretty gentle in his comments and said that we shouldn't let football decisions

impact our budget decisions, but alluded to openness on changing how the puff is distributed since the University of Houston is in its district. The most outspoken critics of the puff at this meeting were Charles Perry, the senator from Lubbock, and Dustin Burroughs, a Lubbock representative. And the committee chair, Jane Nelson, tried from the outset to quash all discussion of Puff redistribution. She said, that's not the subject of this meeting.

We're not going to talk about it. And, you know, kind of brought the gavel down on that. But it was still a big elephant in the room because UT leaving the Big 12 will mean that Texas Tech is going to lose a lot of money. They're not going to be playing this big school anymore. And on top of that, the media rights money that comes into the conference is now going to be appreciably diminished now that UT is gone. And so some of that is the Texas Tech slice. And so Perry and Burroughs are mad, like everybody in the Big 12 is mad, that represents some of these schools because that's money that's leaving their hands. And it's money that these schools rely on to finance not only their football programs,

but all of their athletics programs. Exactly. Because their football program does not bring in even close to the amount that UT's does. Right. And at any given school in Texas, football is going to be the most profitable sport. But on top of that, Perry and Burroughs especially have an ax to grind because it's West Texas land from their area that it's funding the Puff that's going to this Austin school that's now leaving the Big 12 and kind of leaving them holding the bag. And so this committee meeting kind of revived calls that are not new, really, to reform the puff and distribute it not exclusively to UT and A&M. Now, I do want to zero in on one piece of this hearing. It was the so the chair of this hearing was. Jane Nelson.

Yes. Senator Jane Nelson from Flower Mound, I believe. And she directly had some some comments that were made about the puff and basically just said, okay, well, this is where I actually want to be focusing a lot of our discussion, is that she said at the very beginning, and you can correct me on any portion of this, but essentially said, okay, we're not going to talk about that as in-depth as, you know, maybe some of you on this committee would like, but conversation still ended up centering around this fund. Exactly. Yeah.

Whitmire said, we're not going to allow what happens on the football field to affect our state budget. And she kind of interposed herself and said, we're not going to do that. And quite literally wagged her finger. I remember it distinctly. And there are moments like that throughout. Her teacher background coming out.

Yeah, it's so evident that she's got a teacher background. You can just see it in her whole carriage. But again, the discussion just kind of still took off from there because it was an inevitable, unavoidable subject. Well, thank you, Isaiah, for covering that for us. Bradley, we're going to come to you talking about some political ramifications that have particularly been highlighted in the last couple of weeks. But after Jake Elsey won a state rep uh from woxahatchee up north in ellis county uh the sixth congressional district race um walk us through a little bit of the media narratives going on there and the assertion that you know donald trump's endorsement was no longer as valuable as it had been previously yeah i mean basically any time that donald trump endorses

a candidate and then the candidate either you out a victory or loses, the typical suspects in the national media want to jump on it and say that this is evidence that Donald Trump has no effect in the Republican Party anymore. And it just kind of hit me that all of these candidates, whether they get the endorsement or not, they don't recognize that. In fact, their actions in their statements say the exact opposite. And so I kind of put, this hasn't gone out yet as of this podcast recording, but it will go out the next day or two. But I just noticed a pattern that even when these candidates missed out on the endorsement, they still were supportive of Trump or at the very least stuck to the themes that rocketed him to fame and to the presidency.

So just quickly, specifically, after LZ1, he was asked by Mark Davis, Dallas radio host, about that specific question. He said, that's nonsense. People from the media that don't live here will ask that question incessantly because they want that the president still is exceptionally popular in this district so the the pattern i kind of noticed was same sort of thing happened in the governor's race after trump endorsed uh the incumbent greg abbott um his at that point most or highest profile opponent don huffines former state senator came out and said, I'm the actual Trump candidate. I touted his support for the president, his close workings with the president,

former president. And also, and Daniel's going to talk about this here next, but George P. Bush had a similar reaction. And it's just clear that what these national pundits wish to be true is not. And that doesn't mean that Trump's endorsement is the kingmaker. It doesn't mean that as soon as you get it, you are going to win. But it clearly still holds value to not only the candidates, but the voters. Certainly. And there are always factors that aren't as clear cut that contribute to a win or a loss, particularly when two Republicans are going up against each other in a district that does have you know a large contingency of democrats that's going to be part of the deal as well um and you know we've seen throughout this entire course nobody's really

uh defecting from the trump camp in mainstream republican politics in fact we've seen in this exact race when you do defect and you make your campaign about being anti-Trump, you finish pretty poorly. Yeah. Michael Wood in the primary or the general for this, the open general, he got fifth among Republicans and ninth among all candidates. And so clearly that was not a winning strategy. Now, what does this mean going into the 2022 midterms? Well, the 2022 midterms provide another test for this. Obviously, you know, does Ken Paxton, who got the Trump endorsement,

does he emerge victorious? How much does the endorsement affect that? Same with Governor Greg Abbott. We've already seen, I think, a massive effect on fundraising from the Trump endorsement for Abbott, especially. I'm sure Paxton has benefited from that as well. But, you know, it's another data point along the chart. And I don't think it's going to be a wholesale decision one way or the other, but we'll see which way it trends. And I'd be hard pressed to believe that it's it doesn't continue. Thank you, Bradley. Daniel, we're coming to you.

Let's continue talking a little bit about the former president. What's new in the rivalry between Attorney General Ken Paxton and his challenger, George B. Bush? Well, as Brad was just talking about, there was a big endorsement. I believe it was last week, but my clock is not working in my head right now. But Trump endorsed Paxton. He had hinted that he was going to endorse either Paxton or Bush previously a couple months ago. He said that he liked both of the candidates, but that he was going to be making his recommendation to the people of Texas soon. And he eventually did that,

came out, said that he wants the incumbent Ken Paxton to win re-election and gave him his full and total endorsement. So that was the big news. I think kind of what was to be expected, right? That was the safe bet, if you're going to take a bet on it. It depends on who you were talking to. But yeah, I would think that from the 30,000-foot view perspective, that made sense. It would have been surprising had he not.

Yes. There was some points where, you know, Ken Paxton was walking with a strong air of confidence that he was going to get the endorsement. And then other points in the past few months where George P. Bush was like, yeah, I'm definitely going to get it. You'll see lots of people posting this picture of a koozie that was handed out at his kickoff event. George P's kickoff event, where I think Bush or Trump said something to the effect that George P. Bush is the only Bush that I like or something along those lines. And so he had that

on a koozie, like kind of saying, yes, I am the Trump candidate. So he's still, you know, doing this thing where he's the trying to push himself as the real Trump candidate in the race. So along those lines, after the endorsement came out, he went on a radio spot and was doing this interview and someone asked him about the endorsement. And he said that Paxton actually misled the president, is what he said. He said that he would continue to be a supporter of the president and of America for his policies. And then Bush said, quote, but the reality is here that Ken misled the president and of america first policies uh and then bush said quote but the reality is here that ken misled the president he's deceived the people of texas multiple times

as we've seen with this fbi investigation looking into bribery and corruption charges he's misled investors as a lawyer that resulted in securities fraud the charges against him that are still pending in harris county and he misled his wife and that's at the core of the bribery case uh so really honing in on some of those accusations against paxton what does this tell us about what the right about what the race will look like going forward i mean those are some very spicy comments to make right off the bat yes so it is it's a heated race is definitely i think perhaps one of the most heated races we'll see in 2022, especially at the state level here in Texas. Of course, you have the governor's race, but this is the other big race that people are watching to see if George P. Bush, a big name, can oust Ken Paxton. And there's also Eva Guzman, a former state Supreme Court justice who's also in the race.

So there's kind of a lot of attention going on this race. So going forward, I'm sure that we will see Kim Paxton touting his endorsement of Trump or Trump's endorsement of him quite a lot throughout the race. And he'll use that as using as a signal pointing to it and saying, I'm conservative, Trump supported me, therefore vote for me, especially in the primary. Now, what it tells us about how his opponents will take this primary race is they're going to kind of brush aside the Trump endorsement, get away from the endorsements, and even policies I don't think they're going to be emphasizing quite as much as character and integrity.

That's what Bush is really trying to make this race about, pointing to those accusations about the securities fraud case that he has pending. He even said, when he announced that policy-wise, Paxton and I are very different in some of these races, as you said, about personal conduct. Even before he officially announced, that was the messaging. And it's interesting, too, if you look back at the timing of when George P. actually got into this race, you know, the rumors started kicking up back in last October, which was when all the drama in the office of the attorney general with Ken Paxton really hit the fan with all of the top aides leaving the office. And everything that happened with that whole whistleblower situation, it was along that time when George P. Bush saw the opening and he's like, I'm going to run for office. This rumor started going around and then he launched his campaign a couple months

ago. And now how did Paxton respond to this comment? So Paxton sent us a statement and he said, President Trump is one of the deflecting the accusations about integrity and really aligning himself with Trump. So I'm sure we will continue to see more of that going forward. Absolutely. Isaiah, we're coming to you now. Now, this is a story we haven't talked about in a hot minute, but it's one that we've covered for a long time. First, Daniel, and now you have taken the mantle. It's a very important story.

But we've been covering the custody case between, how do you ann's last name do we know georgilis georgilis okay and georgilis and jeff younger uh concerning their son james younger and the whole controversy surrounds the mom saying that james is a girl or a boy but wants to transition to be a girl and the dad saying no that should not be the case and we should at least wait until he's older what happened this week relating to this case that brought it back to light sure um also from henceforth i'm just going to say and jeff and james because that's i like it so uh the mother and had been arguing been arguing that James, or excuse me, Jeff, had been defying court orders regarding joint conservatorship decisions over the son's education, over mandatory counseling visits, extracurricular activities, haircuts, and things like that. And this was in a hearing that took place a month ago. So Jeff had been arguing that his open disobedience to certain court orders, like for going to counseling sessions, for example, or his intransigence with having his son go to cop LISD instead of being homeschooled for next regular activities.

All that stemmed from his disagreement with Ann over how to raise their son and how to address gender dysphoria alleged in their son. So with counseling, for example, previous joint conservatorship orders from the court mandated that James go to counseling. But because of the possession schedule, James is always going to counseling from his mother's house, Anne. And Jeff's argument this whole time has been that he presents as a girl with Anne and as a boy with him at his house, even while he gives him the option to wear feminine clothes and things like that. And so he argued that he wasn't going to take him to counseling, or he opposed the counseling, rather, because James' presentation, as we'll put it, uh, was, was biased according to Jeff's arguments. And, um,

and was arguing that this was just, you know, because he was an unfit father and, and you know, typical divorce custody proceeding arguments. So, uh, same deal with medical care, uh, education, extracurriculars, there's parental disagreement over how to treat those things. And so the judge stepped in and awarded custody of all these decisions to the mother, except for with medical care treatments that would physically change James's sex or alter it. So hormone therapy, puberty blockers, physical surgeons, things like that, those still require the consent of both parents,

but all of their medical care decisions are up to the mother alone. Got it. Now, this is important in that the entire case is centered around this issue, but it was not one of those things that, okay, well, essentially just got changed throughout and kind of morphed into another argument. Now, going forward, I mean, Jeff no longer has custody of his son. What does, well, what can be remedied if something can be going forward? Are there options for him moving forward? Appeals. Previously, there was, in October of 2019, a jury verdict actually sided with the mother entirely and said that she should have sole conservatorship. And then the judge decided there would have sole conservatorship. And then the judge decided

there would be joint conservatorship. And the same judge in this case, Judge Mary Brown, upheld that joint conservatorship in the last order. And so this kind of appeal and continued legal fight, not appellate to a higher court, but this kind of continued legal fight is what got Anne these custody rights in this hearing. What it's going to look like going forward is that Jeff will still be able to have possession time with the son, but it's going to have to be monitored. And that was not the case before. Well, thank you, Isaiah, for covering that. Certainly a complex and difficult topic.

Hayden, let's go back to your stomping grounds. Let's talk about Dallas County. Always a delight, always some drama going on. And, you know, as we've seen, County Judge Clay Jenkins and Commissioner J.J. Koch certainly do have a lot of beef with each other. They have a difficult working relationship, to put it lightly. What is the backdrop off this latest spat development, whatever you want to call it, is Jenkins kicked Commissioner Koch out of a commissioner's the backdrop for this has been a tense relationship between the commissioner and the county judge. Since the coronavirus pandemic began, they've sparred over everything from a resolution to call on the state legislature to enact election reforms to various restrictions that Jenkins has

desired to put into place in Dallas County to supposedly prevent COVID-19 infections. And what occurred on Tuesday is they sat for court and everyone except for Koch was wearing a mask as requested by or as ordered by Jenkins. Or I guess I should say allegedly ordered because the subject of this lawsuit is whether it's legitimate. And Koch clarified that he was being kicked out of her masks, and then he got up and left. So what is this lawsuit that is now being, you know, another portion of this beef wage between these two? and that Jenkins should be removed from office for violating that as well as allegedly violating the Texas Open Meetings Act. Warren Norred, who is representing Koch in this suit and who is expected to be a Senate candidate here pretty soon, says in this lawsuit that it's a violation of the Open Meetings Act because at this point, having virtual meetings

is no longer justified and masks are only minimally effective, especially since the vaccine is being widely distributed. So Jenkins' actions and Koch's opinion were over the top and illegal. Well, Hayden, thank you for that. We're going to stay on the local news beat and talk with Brad about the city of Austin's August agenda. That's some good alliteration right there. But the city has a very busy agenda ahead. What not including austin energy which is kind of an outlier because it's a city-owned utility company the budget is three billion dollars still quite a bit for you know the city the size of the city it's a lot of spending and in order to well actually included in that is additional compared to last last year, additional APD funding. Now, the city famously cut and redirected $150 million from the Austin Police Department.

Just a small chunk of change. Yeah, only a quarter of the budget. It's not that big of a deal. Now, in this proposal, which the city council can adjust, and they may, who knows. But in this proposal, it places about $130 of that million dollars back in. Now, the largest way they did that was by placing like the 911 call center, the forensic lab back under the APD umbrella. And that was part of the redirection that I mentioned. They basically took what money went to that and moved it outside and put those two departments under some other, I think it was the Office of Police Oversight. But now they're putting it back under APD, and that allows them to say, yeah, we're mostly refunding the police.

And really, that's a misnomer. They could have done worse in terms, uh, in terms of how much money they, they appropriated there, but, um, it's still the, the patrol funding is still about $3 million, $3 million shy of where it was in 2019. So there's that to fund all this. They have, uh, they're proposing a property tax rate increase and I calculated it out. I'm not sure the exact percentage. I believe it's, if not, an 8% increase close to it. Calculating the property tax increase gets very complicated, and honestly, I haven't

really figured out how they come up with that specific percentage. But it will be a $906 increase for for median homeowner in their city tax bill and they are able to do that without triggering an election because of the disaster loophole now the the legislature kind of closed that for pandemics but they that does only pertains to physical damage um or economic damage as opposed to physical, which the February winter storm was. And so there's, they had every, every county, yes. Every county in the state can, because of the winter storm,

can use this 8% loophole. Now, a couple other items that they have on their agenda. They have been trying to figure out some sites for sanctioned homeless encampments. Famously, they, the ballot initiative passed in May to reinstate the homeless camping ban. They have not narrowed down a single site yet, approved a single site. They narrowed it down to two and then it came out that they were pretty close to schools. And the two city council members of those the districts that held those two spots came out against it and then finally we have the police refunding petition that was

they turned in enough signatures and will be on the ballot but that would require a minimum staffing level of 2.0 officers per a thousand people and currently APD is operating at 1.2 per 1,000. So tell us more about this petition and how and when it will be on the ballot. It'll be on in November, unless the city tries some sort of maneuver, which I have, Save Austin Now, alleged. Now I contacted the city and they said,

we can't discuss any advice we've given our clients, meaning the law department talking to the council. So we'll see what comes of that. They were apparently allegedly trying to use redistricting, the delay in redistricting, to push that back, although the city is not being redistricted. So I'm not sure what the legal argument would be there. But barring something crazy, it will be on the ballot in november and among other along with the minimum staffing level it has things like added training added hours training and the requirement that city officials both elected and staffers go through the citizens police academy what essentially is

that it's like a watered down version of the regular police academy that average people can go participate in to kind of see what the process is like. And one council member, Mackenzie Kelly, this was actually her idea to put it in the petition. She's got a really good name. Yes. Yeah. Spelled differently, though. Yeah. And she has participated in that.

She's actually the only one that has, at least as far as a couple months ago. And so if this passes, then all of them would have to do that. Thank you for covering that, Bradley. We're going to stay on the local Austin beat and go to Hayden here. What is the backdrop of the latest accusations against Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza. Yeah, speaking of Austin police, Detective David Fugit is investigating the death of Garrett Foster. He was a 28-year-old individual who was protesting in downtown Austin at a Black Lives Matter event.

I believe he was a former Air Force mechanic, and he was caring for his wife at the time, or that was his occupation was being a caregiver to his wife. But he was protesting downtown, and according to the court documents, he had a weapon. And there's controversy over the events that occurred between him and Army Sergeant Daniel Perry, of course, and that will play out at trial. But Foster ended up losing his life, allegedly murdered by Daniel Perry, according to the indictment that has been brought against him by a grand jury. And his attorney says that he was an uber driver that perry was an uber driver that he had

just finished a trip um and that he was um he navigated into congress avenue stumbled upon upon a protest that he was confronted with an ak-47 by foster and that he shot foster to defend himself that's the 10 000 foot this was during all the george protests, right? If I remember correctly. This was in July. So, this was not in the immediate aftermath of the Floyd protests. But it was still that's the case. So that's the case that is the backdrop of this. It's being investigated by David Fugit, and that is the individual who has made these accusations. Now, tell us more about the significance of these accusations and why they matter. The detective.

So this is not just some Joe Blow on Twitter or a defense lawyer even, because it's defense lawyers commonly make remarks against prosecutors. It's their job to do so. This is a high-level homicide detective in APD saying that District Attorney Jose Garza committed witness tampering by instructing him to exclude exculpatory evidence from his presentation to the grand jury. Of course, prosecutors are obligated to present exculpatory evidence in grand jury proceedings. And this was not the trial. This was just the hearing to determine whether there'd be an indictment. But the reason that this is important is if Fugitz

accusations are true, the people of Travis County are being represented by a criminal in the DA's office, which of, would be a huge problem. So we'll have to see whether the judge overseeing this case agrees with those allegations or even agrees whether they should be heard in an open hearing, because that would involve a lot of grand jury secrecy implications. They would have to reveal things that were presented in the grand jury proceedings, which of course are secret under Texas law. So that would, it's a very thorny issue and we'll have to see how far Detective Fuge's accusations go. Well, thank you, Hayden, for covering that. Definitely going to be a sticky

situation and we'll continue to follow that for sure. Isaiah, we're coming to you. One of your more popular pieces has to do with a bill passed this legislative session dealing with Texas suppressors, Texas-made suppressors. Quickly remind us what that bill was all about. Well, the idea behind the bill is to exempt suppressors or silencers that are made in Texas from federal law. And the way federal law works right now is that there is a pretty expensive tax stamp, $200 or so, and a very long registration process involved to buy a suppressor. Just owning one without complying with these federal regulations in Texas is actually a third degree felony. Now, there might be something, a legal fight ahead for this particular piece of legislation. What's that going to look like?

Well, the ATF sent out this open letter to all Texas weapons manufacturers after the suppressor bill was passed. And it's set to take effect in September 1st. So in the letter that the ATF sent out, they warned that federal law still applies and essentially that the suppressor bill the legislature passed doesn't mean anything. So even if a suppressor is entirely made in Texas from Texas materials and not sold to a citizen of another state, the ATF is saying that they still have control over it and federal law is still going to apply. There was another law, Daniel actually dug up this legal history of some interesting stuff, but Kansas passed a similar law

where they try to do the same thing, invoke the 10th Amendment and say that, you know, if we make a suppressor in Kansas and, you know, two Kansas citizens have a transaction between each other, then the Fed shouldn't be able to touch it. Both of the people involved in that suppressor transaction after that law was passed in Kansas ended up being convicted as federal felons. And so in an effort to not have that same outcome happen here, this bill kind of has a step one in the Texas version. And if you are a manufacturer, you're trying to start a suppressor manufacturing business, then you're supposed to send a request to the AG, Ken Paxton. And then in turn, he is supposed to get a declaratory judgment from a federal court that this bill is consistent with the constitution. So that way, this kind of legal mumbo jumbo gets worked out before somebody gets a life changing felony sentence. Either way, I'm really hoping that there are some manufacturers or prospective manufacturers that reach out to me over email

and ask, you know, how can I get this thing started? And I told them, the law says you have to reach out to Paxton. And I'm hoping they tell us if they do, because that's going to be a big deal. Absolutely. Well, Isaiah, thank you for following that. It's definitely going to be something we continue to keep an eye on and will be fascinated to see what kind of precedent is set. Hayden, you already alluded to this Hildoggle County craziness going on down south. But what is the action taken by the county judge there? And what is it in response to? Real briefly, Hidalgo County Judge Richard Cortez declared a state of disaster because in his, and this is his position that he has put out there, that the United States Customs

and Border Protection is releasing too many people into the area who have pending asylum claims. So they're not illegal aliens. They are, they have been given permission to stay here while their asylum claims are processed either by asylum officers or immigration courts. And this is different from Abbott's, which is direct Abbott's disaster declaration, which is directed toward illegal crossings, not asylum individuals who have been granted permission while their asylum claims are being processed. So he's a clarity of state of disaster because in his view there, and based on a lot of evidence, there are too many people down there being released and they are potentially spreading COVID-19. Now tell us more about what's happening specifically in Hidalgo County. Well, the city of McAllen put out a statement yesterday that said

since February, CBP has released 7,000 immigrants who have tested positive for COVID-19. And that's 1,500 just in the last week. So it has spiked in recent days, and the city of McAllen has activated emergency management protocols because the nonprofit organizations and the city are overwhelmed by the demand for resources and medical attention. So these are officials who care about the people in this area. They're not targeting immigrants at all. They have only so many resources, and they are being inundated by brand can, according to their statements, with the resources they have, but they are expressing and all but screaming and waving their arms that they need more help from the feds and the state in getting this under control, because these areas on the border are the ones who are having to deal with this influx of individuals. Hayden, thank you for that.

One thing we particularly take great pride in here at the Texan is our focus when we can on Texas history. And Brad, this week you wrote another piece in our Texas history installment talking about the opening gun of the Texas Revolution. Tell us about this. Yeah, so it's the Battle of Nacogdoches. And that while the Battle of Gonzales wasdoches and that, um, while the battle of Gonzalez was basically the, the shot heard around the world for, uh, the Texas revolution, um, this kind of planted the

seeds for it. And it was a small skirmish, um, actually kind of created by this anti-immigration law that from Mexico that prohibited people from then the United States coming and settling in Texas. And that caused a lot of problems. It resulted in the imprisonment of William B. Travis. William B. Travis. And that kind of culminated in this little fight that occurred in the small town of Nacogdoches. And so I hope I'm saying that right.

Nacogdoches, yeah. It was important, and it led to, a couple of years later, what ultimately flowered into the full-blown Texas Revolution. And so I recommend you check out the piece. It was fun to learn about. One reason that I like these things is I did not grow up learning Texas history. And so I get to learn Texas history while doing my job on this. So I recommend you give it a read. We have a tab at the top of our website that says Texas history. Click there and you can find all sorts of goodies.

Exciting stuff. Thank you, Bradley. Well, gentlemen, we are supposed to talk about a fun topic now, but I'm not sold on any of these fun topics. Oh, my gosh. I just saw the most recent. Yes. Was that you adding that day? Maybe. I actually thought about that earlier, and I was going to make that our fun topic.

So maybe we should do that. The boys earlier were arguing over their favorite cereal. Not arguing, but discussing. I don't know why it has to be so pejorative. Everything's combative with Mackenzie. With me? I'm the one who makes things combative? Do you see what's happening right now? What's developing?

That's very fair. But I think the nature of this office is full of reporters and reporters have to have things nailed down to a very specific, or at least our reporters have to have things nailed down to very specific detail. That is true. And the literal nature of any given sentence is, you know, probably the most important thing to y'all. Oh my gosh.

So it becomes very. As he scoots open. Yeah. He's like, oh, let me add this topic. It becomes very difficult. But let's talk about our favorite cereals. Let's go there. I like oh let me add this stuff it becomes very difficult but let's talk about our favorite cereals let's go there i like that one we're making it yeah so what's your favorite cereal right i grew up eating apple jacks a lot which is kind of did that spark this yeah uh you made a reference to that jamaican cinnamon stick yeah that was honestly two mascots

for the apple jacks i like i like the cereal almost entirely because of this little cinnamon guy it's just the marketing that worked on you yeah it got me got me just like the uh the quiznos baby did too they were looking at commercials earlier and it was ridiculous but basically as a kid all i was allowed to eat were apple jacks or frosted flakes and i preferred apple jacks so since you know maturing i am now in the stage of my life where i prefer raisin bran or special k that's like somebody who says you know i started with like wine coolers like boxed wine and now i like my you know my mall back or my my pinot noir yeah Who would make that comparison? A white girl. That's fair.

Isaiah? Chocolate Chex. It's king. What is that? What? It's wheat Chex, but it's chocolate. But it's chocolate? Yeah.

Let me look it up. It's all the little, you know, the little pores are just caked with this chocolate powder that's pretty good it's really good and it diffuses in the milk anyway that that will always be king interesting same deal i guess with my family my mom always would eat stuff like grape nuts i think this is

gravel you know now i'm out of the house but whenever i visit home like there used to be chocolate checks on these shelves i'm a devoid of joy just a bunch of things that have words like brand and fiber and oat it's all important for your gut health yeah who cares about yeah so but no chocolate checkers don't enjoying what you put in your seriously i go hog wild on chocolate checks like every day do you have them here like at your own residence yeah yeah i mean not in this office right but you yes interesting hayden do you have a strong opinion on this or just a preference on cereal i'm gonna say bran flakes bran flakes with the most boring answer

possible i'm serious i don't know what half of these things are it's raisin bran without raisins that is a good option that is a bad option raisins are not very good though i guess you're right yeah you know what i mean like if you like especially in milk i don't quite get the whole raisin and cereal thing that's a good point they can't float they can't float they just all sink to the bottom yeah brad are you mad about that a little perturbed yeah that doesn't make any sense, but hey, whatever. But Brian Flakes Hayden. That's a good choice.

Yeah, let's switch over to Daniel. Daniel, what is your favorite cereal? And do you have any opinions on raisins and cereal? I really don't have any strong opinions. I like Raisin Bran. I like Honey Bunch's V votes with strawberries are good oh okay those are good they're kind of dried strawberries is that how they're like in that yeah they're good um yeah i don't have a i don't really eat a whole lot of cereal anymore i don't eat a lot

of breakfast ever really you're against big breakfast yes you think it's a scam kind of like isaiah does yeah isaiah does breakfast cereal count as part of the breakfast scam? I guess that's a chink in my armor. That's an exception. But, yeah, otherwise. This man hates bacon. But, you know. Don't take away his cereal.

That's the one. Don't take away his chocolate chips. Those are my exceptions. And chocolate chip pancakes. But other than those, pretty much three things. But those are a lot of things. No, they're not. Consider the breadth of breakfast food and the breadth of its terribleness now consider the beauty of all

other foods do you like bacon is like a dinner meal like as part of a dish for something else bacon's all right it's just so low on the right every other meat is better than bacon every single one that is except for breakfast sausage which i'm not a fan of bacon has like the penultimate spot on the list sausage is just the apps breakfast sausage which i'm not a fan of bacon has like the penultimate spot on the list sausage is just the apps breakfast sausage is the absolute worst meat that there is interesting sorry daniel we got off but honey bunches of oats what was the other one that that was it that was it i said i'll eat raisin bran that's right so no strong no strong no strong opinions anyway honey bunches of oats i think think, is the best of the canon of sugary breakfast cereals that we all kind of grew up with, in my opinion.

I love Honey Munchies of Oats. I do not like the strawberries in them. I'm trying to think. I loved Honey Nut Cheerios. I loved Honey Nut Cheerios growing up. But I don't really have cereal now. If I do, it's granola. It's the things you guys hate.

It's the oats and the fiber and the health. I't hate that now okay yeah oh i thought you did i was very uh very bitter growing up about how my parents would never buy cookie crisp yes which is literally chocolate cookies and milk right yeah yeah just how can i get better than that and that was another thing that i was persuaded by the ad campaign. No one likes Lucky Charms or Cocoa Puffs or anything like that. I used to. Yeah. Cocoa Puffs are good.

They're really good. They're just a little bit sharp. Yeah. You kind of got to wait a minute or two to let the milk soak in a little bit. They sneak up on you because they're round. Then you've got this like cocoa shrapnel jamming your gum. Yeah. You have to wait for them to soften. I'm laughing that I actually chose this as a fun topic because just the other day a friend of mine was giving another friend of mine grief.

Because when she first met him, he asked what her favorite breakfast cereal was, like an icebreaker. And she thought he was the most boring person in the world. So apparently I need to do some self-reflection or we need to, I hope that this was at least remotely interesting for our listeners. No, they're all worried. Hopefully nobody fell asleep at the wheel. Yes.

To be held liable. Daniel. Well, folks on that riveting note, thank you for listening and we will catch you next week. Thank you all so much for listening. If you've been enjoying our podcast, it would be awesome if you would review us on iTunes. And if there's a guest you'd love to hear on our show, give us a shout on Twitter. Tweet at the Texan News. We're so proud to have you standing with us as we seek

to provide real journalism in an age of disinformation. We're paid for exclusively by readers like you. So it's important we all do our part to support the Texan by subscribing and telling your friends about us. God bless you and God bless Texas. Bye.