The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - December 13, 2024

Episode Date: December 13, 2024

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/ 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:Dustin Burrows Releases House Speaker Majority Support List After David Cook Wins GOP Caucus NominationThe Gavel and Its Gravity: Texas House Members Push for Speakership ReformFederal Judge Temporarily Halts Affordable Care Act Expansion to DACA RecipientsTexas Senator Files Bill to Prevent Convicted Illegal Aliens from Serving Community TimeTexas-Based U.S. Army Soldiers Allegedly Smuggled Illegal ImmigrantsWebb County Judge Announces Party Switch to Republicans After November ElectionNew State School Safety Bill Proposes Use of Remote-Operated Aerial Drones

So the fact that they're still flying, there are still questions about who's putting these drones in the air. Like, I don't know. There's lots of conspiracies floating around. As always. As always. But it's very interesting. I saw the headline and thought I'd bring it up. It's fully my fault for bringing it up.

I'm sorry. But it's interesting. Question. Has the ability... We are fully off the the ability, the easy access to drones, has that reduced the number of flat earthers? Because they can buy their own drone and fly it up in the air and see that the earth is round. Brett, are you not a flat earther? I'm crazy.

I'm not that crazy. Howdy, folks. Mackenzie here with Brad, Cameron, and Mary Elise on another edition of the Weekly Roundup Podcast. Let's see if this start makes its way to the finish line. That was a horrible finish. That was very smooth. That was horrible.

Smooth move, excellent. Thanks. My first leading, I thought, was very smooth. This one, not so much. We had a battery go out on one of the devices we use to record the podcast. Those dang batteries in their devices. Or devices in their batteries. Tomatoes and motto.

Gentlemen, how are you guys? I'm good uh hasn't been nearly as busy for me as it's been for brad a heck of a week right camera's been sitting over there like i don't know what to write about i'm twiddling my thumbs brad's tweeting stuff out at midnight breaking news it's like it doesn't stop for you it has been a wild week which we'll talk about but i have i guess caught up on sleep now i don't know yeah that's unconvincing entirely i feel fine right now we'll see in about an hour i don't know we'll see we were taking bets on monday what your outfit was going to be coming in i don't think we told him this. I have not heard this, no.

Because that's when, it was the day after all the speaker stuff was going down all the votes and we're like, man, is Brad going to come in in his pajama bottoms, hair mess, black circles under his eyes. We're trying to predict what you're going to look like.

But I think the hypothesis was that there were two extremes that made entirely too much sense. The pajama bottoms being one of them and the other being like full-on suit like going to war. Let's make this happen today. Just why? And then Brad just walked in in jeans and like a polo or something. I mean I feel like that was the obvious choice that was going to happen. I would never wear pajama bottoms to work. I would never stoop that low.

I would stoop pretty low, but never that low. Never that low. Mary Lee, is just watching the insanity of what's gone on this past weekend with the speaker's race make you excited for session and following all of it, or does it give you some fear or trepidation that this is actually insane and this is what you're going to have to follow come January? Well, you know, I think it's a healthy combination of both for sure. Watching all of Brad's tweets going out, all of the craziness that's happening. And it's exciting, but it's also a little bit flabbergasting at how

chaotic things can get in Texas politics. That's what makes it fun. That's exactly what makes it fun. I think the healthy combination is exactly how you should be coming into your first session. That sounds about right. Well, without further ado, let's jump into that. Brad, we have a lot to talk about with the speakers race. I think it was much ado and also much ado about nothing. It was both.

There's a lot going on still that we have questions about and we'll continue to watch it but give us just the update walk us through what happened at the end of last week saturday was insane yeah we thought we're gonna get a lot of answers to questions that have been outstanding for a while and some were answered but nothing to any serious you know And if anything, we left with more questions to ask. So I got there at mid-morning Saturday, the Capitol, walking around. The House Republican Caucus was set to vote on its endorsed speaker candidate. There were two declared candidates. Dade Phelan dropped out last week. Dustin Burroughs decided to enter. Then you have David Cook, who's a reform group candidate who's been in the race for a while. There are two other candidates for speaker, two Democrats.

But at least in this moment, they're not relevant to the discussion here because this was supposed to be a Republican procedure. Yes, deliberation. And so there was a group of Republican activists there, not really picketing, but just kind of picketing, telling members that they want them to support the reform candidate, which is Cook. Yeah. And there's actually a lot of them. I was surprised at the turnout on a Saturday in December, probably 50 to 100. I didn't count, head count, but there were quite a few people. So the place was buzzing, and members are in through like basically a tunnel of activists. Some members are sneaking in the back door, not wanting to be heckled.

And the battle lines were drawn and members went in knowing, you know, this is this is going to be a fight. And it was. So eventually they got to voting the first round. Which none of the voting happened publicly. Right. This is all secret ballots. So we don't know who voted which way unless they've come out publicly and said who they're supporting. On their name on the list. Right. So they get in there.

The nominating speeches are given. I think Matt Shaheen, James Frank, and one more nominated Cook and gave speeches on his behalf. And then Dustin Burroughs gave his own speech. And so that's their last pitch. That's an elevator pitch. Why support me? They get to the vote. First round was 48 to 40, which was interesting for a number of reasons because I talked to some in the Burroughs camp that morning.

They thought they had 43 on the first ballot. Clearly, they didn't. They weren't quite there. But also, Cook's team had thought they would be mid-50s. And he stuck right at the 48 that were on his list from the reform group in that first ballot. And again, we have no idea who voted for whom because it's all secret ballot. Then they have the second vote, the second round. And in these first two rounds, you have to get two-thirds of the caucus in order to secure the endorsement. All 88 members were there.

Which includes Phelan. Includes Phelan. Ph feeling feeling was there the number the number to get in those first two rounds was 59 so neither candidate was even close now after the second round it drops to 53 60% of the caucus and then it continues for another round after that if nobody gets it and then if nobody gets that one they start over reading it renominate So on the second round, the numbers shifted very slightly. Cook got 47 votes. Burrows got 41. Burrows' team thought, both teams thought they had flips on the second round coming their way. And Burrows' team thought they had at least 10.

Obviously, that didn't happen. Now, my theory, and I have no way to prove this, it was not just one person that flipped. We saw, you know, let's say five go one way, four go the other. And that's how we had the net change of one. I don't know that for sure, but I find it hard to believe with all the talk about flipping that only one person flipped. Yeah, that's just my theory. No. So after, at some point, either after the vote count had been said or while it was still being counted, the Burroughs team asked for a break to go deliberate. Clearly, they did not gain what they thought they were going to gain. And there were some objections from the other side. It's unclear how far it went.

Caucus Chairman Tom Oliverson, who himself had been a speaker candidate, he said that there was going to be a vote, and the Burroughs team would probably be granted it, even though there were some objections. So regardless, the borough's team did not like the objections they decided to walk out and that sparked a stalemate a standoff between the two sides are they going to come back what is even going to happen here when is the the whole body just going to reconvene and and have the remaining members vote and let the chips

fall where they may. So there's like a three-hour standoff here. Nobody knows what the heck's going to happen. And so there's negotiations happening. I'm walking the halls and I can see members deliberating. Members like Todd Hunter, who's kind of being in a go-between, trying to figure out something between the two sides, talking to members in the reform group. So it was chaos. But it was also just kind of slow at that point. Like a lot was happening, but not a lot was happening. Trying to follow it all was disorienting. You're getting intel from both sides, of course, that is wildly different from each other because they're diametr course, that is wildly different from each other because they have

their diametrically opposed politicians with wildly different interpretations of how events unfolded. So eventually, after three hours or so, the reform group members, or well, the caucus itself, most of which are reform group members, decided to reconvene and finish the voting. Most of the borough's contingent did not come back, but some did. I think about 14 did. And they held the vote. Cook stayed right at 48 in the vote. 14 voted against him.

And because of the contingent that left and didn't come back, the threshold to get the endorsement, it was still 60% on the third ballot, but the number dropped. And I think it was roughly 60% of less.

Right. It's however many members are there in the moment. And so I think the number was like 36 or 38, something like that. But Cook, obviously, with 48, exceeded that. So he was now the caucus endorsed candidate. There are still some people there who voted for it. Oh, yeah. The entire Burroughs constituency did not walk out.

Right. It was most of the Burroughs constituency that walked out. And some walked out and came back, right. It was most of the Burroughs camp. And some walked out and came back too. So the vote happened. Cook gets it. I tweet out breaking David Cook has won almost immediately, and they were ready for this. The Burroughs camp said we're going to hold a press conference at 445.

And I'm like, I know what this is. They're going to say he has the votes. And sure enough, that's what it was. We get there. Now, I wouldn't say it's much of a press conference because they didn't take questions, but he gave a statement saying, I have a list of 76 members,

and that's final. That's how these things typically end. He started off with speaker's race is that's final. Like, that's how these things typically end. He started off with the Speaker's race is over. Yes. Very emphatically. Very emphatically. Just a few minutes before that, David Cook and all of his members, the members backing him, held up their own press conference. And he had the message, this race is not over.

But the Republican caucus has spoken loud and clear and of course the reason the caucus vote endorsement is important is because there's a bylaw in the rules that say all members should vote for that endorsed candidate on the floor now i think i've talked about it on the podcast before there's a lot of argument about whether that means anything anymore because there's been violations, right? So that happened. And you have these dueling press conferences, both of which are asserting their authority as a candidate for speaker. So the press conference for Burroughs happens. He says, closes with, I will have a list today out. And they were having some negotiations with members trying to figure out how many exactly they were going to put on this list. I know they were talking to one before they sent out the 76.

So they were trying to get 77. It didn't happen. So they went with 76. And it was carefully. Which is the exact number. Exact number you have to have. Yep. And so the breakdown of that list was 38 Republicans, 38 Democrats.

Very deliberate, right? Because the political repercussions, there were political repercussions regardless. For everything, yeah. The political repercussions for having your first list that you release is Democratic majority, that would be a PR nightmare for them. And so that's why they went with 3838. Which tells you how much the House has changed because for five sessions, we had Joe Strauss in office and only a handful, like a little over a dozen Republicans were needed to join him.

Right. It was the entire Democratic caucus and a few Republicans. So that tells you much that, you know, climate of the House politically has changed. Well, and a big part of it is how many people are watching on Twitter. You know, back then, nobody's watching. They don't know what's going on, really. But now you have live updates from me and others in real time happening and people are reacting in real time. Calls are being made to offices about votes, you know, like it's the political public pressure machine is very sophisticated and it's huge and it works. And we'll talk about that in a second. It has very much worked. So as soon as the list goes out, we see,

and I should add, David Cook also put out his list. The members who were in the final vote that they said had agreed to support the caucus nominee. Now that has some problems too, but there were some members in there who did not agree to that and um from my understanding the cook team said if you don't want to be on the list let us know now obviously there's a lot happening game of telephone things get dropped uh get missed by members so i know of one in particular who did not want to be on the list initially but didn't know you had that you have to get yourself off. So there's these two competing lists.

There's members on both lists. It's like, what the heck's going on? This is insane. Something does not add up. Yes. And then we start seeing members say that I did not agree to be on Burroughs' list. Someone quietly saying I did not agree to be on Burroughs' list. Someone quietly saying I did not agree to be on Cook's list. Because, of course, the outside influence is on Cook's side here,

at least for the most part. The loudest part certainly is. And we start seeing members saying, no, I didn't agree. Don McLaughlin put out a statement saying, I did not agree to this. That didn't happen. Then some other members start telling the Cook side, no, I didn't agree to be on this. The first was a Democrat, too. Josie Garcia was one of them, yep.

I think McLaughlin was the first, but she was like the second. Regardless, Paul Dyson put out a statement saying that. But then – Immediately below 70, according to the list. Right. They've been saying that. But then you have members who are telling the Cook side, no, I didn't agree, who are at the Burroughs press conference. I tweeted out pictures of it. They're there. They were there.

So it's very, like, wires are crossed. They were behind Burroughs, behind the dais, where everyone was. Okay. Yeah, I tweeted pictures. You can see them. Which is how most typically in the legislature shows support for a family. Exactly. Yes.

Right? It's like they sit behind the speaker. Yes. So now the talk is of the Republicans on the list, on Burroughs' list, four to eight of them have indicated in some form or fashion that they're no longer on the list. And then you start seeing Sam Harless was a big one. He's been on team, first Phelan, then Burroughs the whole time. But he was getting blasted so much in his district that he flipped and he said, all

right, I'll vote for Cook. Which now we're seeing these local groups come out and say, hey, these are the members in your area, you know, members of our group who are not supporting the Cook, who are supporting for us. And we will censure you if you do not vote for Cook. And that's important because the Republican Party of Texas in their rules, in the Rule 44 censure part, they added this year that the county chairs can either remove or prevent from being on the ballot in the first place any Republican member who's been censured. And that would open a legal can of worms that we don't know how it would play out.

Yes. But the mechanism's there. Yes. It's very much a – But the mechanism's there. Right. It's very much an open question. The threat is very much being made. It's an open question of whether that is legitimate or not. I have no idea. But that's the surrounding context of this.

Members start flipping, and we're right back where – I don't know. Like who knows where things are. Now, another interesting thing that happened during this, this happened during the stalemate. The Democratic caucus released its members to vote for whomever they wanted except for David Cook. And that's notable because they had been having discussions trying to vote in a block because they are the single largest block. With the Republican caucus as divided as it is, they have 62 votes to give to someone. But they're just as divided. And so there were, I think, 20... Right. There were 26 members who were not on Burroughs' list. And I think, you know, some of that is protecting

members who are supportive of him but don't want to be listed publicly. I mean, that was said to me explicitly that there are some supporters for Burroughs who just don't want to be on anything publicly. And then, but then there are others who are very much opposed to Burroughs. Symphonia Thompson, the second longest tenured member in the House, I think, behind Tom Craddock, she's a Democrat from Houston. She was blasting Burroughs late last week over the Death Star Bill, the preemption law that he passed. And so, you know, the fire is coming from both sides. And there's no, both caucuses are divided. There's no clear, there's no clear path for either candidate right now. David Cook has started soliciting

support from Democrats, at least publicly. And there's pressure from the outside to support the caucus nominee. We saw Greg Abbott put out a very deliberately worded statement saying, let me be clear. And then he said members should support the caucus nomination. Now, there's a lot of talk about reconvening caucus. I don't think that will happen. I don't think the majority of Republicans who voted in the caucus would want that because in their mind, we had a caucus and you guys walked out, right? But there is talk about that. And notably, Abbott did not say the name David Cook in his tweet. He is very deliberate about that. He does not say things flippantly. So it was a choice for him to do that. And I don't

know exactly what that says about it, but it's not nothing, right? So I don't know. This thing's a mess. And yes. And of course, there's also, there are plenty of rumors going around that if the Mueller vote happened tomorrow, if the Democrats could coalesce behind Burroughs, he has the votes. So there's also those rumors going around. So of course, there's also still a Democrat running for Speaker. That's a whole other situation. Two Democrats running for Speaker. I'm not.

Ramos and Bryant. I forgot where Bryant was going. But regardless, that's the argument, right? Is that there is certainly a chance that he can go to the floor and get the votes. But, of course, being elected by a majority of Democrats is not the look that he wants. Yeah, which is why he put the list out the way he did. And I don't know all the details of it, but, you know, if there are... It's a good chance the Democrats hold out, too, and say we're voting for our own.

Yeah. I think there's a large... Things are changing significantly. No way we're voting for our own. Yeah. I think there's a large – Things are changing significantly. No way we're voting for a Republican right now. Right. And, you know – Like, it's not normal for the House. One of the underlying fights in this is that Democrats are kind of aligned with – some of them are kind of aligned with Cook in the desire to move towards a majority minority style system like

we see in D.C. Because in the Democrats' mind who believe this, they can have more effect on policy as having a minority leader rather than their own caucus being split between the haves and the have nots, the ones that are close to leadership to get all the goodies, chairmanships versus the ones who are not. And so you see that at play in both chambers or both caucuses. And, I mean, it's – I don't know. There's so many moving parts to this, and every member has their own motivations.

You know, is their district one where they could easily get primaried and lose, or are they safe? Are they Drew Darby where no one's taking them out? It varies. And ultimately, this comes down to the 150 members, what they're going to do. There's all this bluster outside. And some of it has worked. Some of it has caused members to flip.

But nobody outside gets a vote. This is all the membership. And now there's a lot of talk about trying to get a secret ballot on the floor on January 14th. Which essentially would just make these members shielded from any potential people running for election. Now, of course, people also say, well, a secret ballot doesn't matter. People will figure it out. Which there's a lot to be said for that. Yeah.

And one of the ways to get around it is standing up and saying, I'm voting for David Cook. Which there's been a slight little rumbling. Yeah. Mitch Little has said that specifically. Yeah, on Twitter. But last time a secret ballot was attempted, I think, was 09 when Strauss first won. And Charlie Guerin, still in the House, authored an amendment to the housekeeping or the rules resolution that govern the Speaker election that would have made it a secret

ballot until after committee assignments were released. And that got a lot of support. It got 68 votes, not enough to pass, but quite a bit of support. So there's a lot left to play here. This, you know, I think Cook's correct, at least right now, that the race is not over. And I don't think Burroughs has the Democrats, as many of the Democrats on his side as he needs, though it's probably an easier get for the moment than Cook. And the vote's not tomorrow. The vote's January 14th. Yeah. Yep.

A long time from now. There's a lot of talk right now about a lot of things, right? But a lot of talk about a third candidate jumping in. What's the mechanism for that? Who is it? Names are floating around. Do they get back in caucus? Probably not, but that's being talked about.

This thing is just in a frenzy, and nobody really knows what's going to happen because of how far out we are. Well, we could spend the entire podcast talking about this. We actually are recording Smokeful Dream in a couple or next week, I think, which hopefully we'll have more to even talk about than we have now. But we could talk about this forever. We have a lot of other stories to get to too. Brad, do you want to plug real fast the piece that published this morning? Yeah.

So I put out a piece on the speakership, its power and attempts to reform it, the arguments behind it, the themes. So I won't go into everything at all, but it's pretty long, but it's detailed about what the heck is, why is this such a big issue now? And where are the arguments coming from on how to reform, what to do, where it's going, where the chamber's going? Is this just, is the cake baked already that something's going to happen? you know there a significant push behind keeping things as is you know I think that the one thing I would state about

it is it has developed this way for a reason and it would take a lot to change that now we might have that because of how insane the last two years have been especially exactly exactly so the the two years have been especially. And the primary. The primary gives a lot of fodder for that. Right. A lot of new members with a different perspective. Exactly. Exactly. So the conditions might have changed significantly such that this kind of alteration of the speakership into a weaker speaker could happen. But, you know, the speaker's one main role, according to the members,

is protecting his members. And people have different opinions on what that means. But that's where it comes down to. And that's a big reason why the speakership has been vested with so much power. Because they want the speaker to fall on his sword on things. Maybe that's changed. Maybe not. We will see.

Yeah. There you go. And folks, go read it at the Texan. All sorts of background information if you want more information about even that secret ballot in 2009 with Garen, some information in that piece for sure. Bradley, take a break. I will shut up now. Take a break from all this craziness. Cameron, we're going to come to you. A judge has temporarily blocked a Biden administration rule that would have extended health care coverage to DACA recipients. Tell us about it. So, yeah, there was a preliminary injunction and stay of the final rule, which was issued by Judge Daniel Treanor of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota on Monday. So yes, this has to do with Texas, even though this happened in North Dakota, because there were

19 states who joined this legal challenge to a final rule that the Biden administration announced in May, saying it would, quote, be expanding Affordable Care, the ACA, Affordable Care Act, coverage for DACA recipients, writing that, quote, the final rule will remove the prohibition on DACA recipients' eligibility for Affordable Care Act coverage for the first time and is projected to help more than 100,000 young people gain health insurance. And the legal challenge, like I mentioned, was submitted by 19 states, including Texas here, arguing that the final rule would require the states to, quote, expand their limited resources of public assistance diverted to support unlawfully present aliens. And for people unfamiliar, there are more than 578,000 DACA recipients according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Estimates. So as of now, the extension of the ACA to a larger pool of DACA recipients is stayed, and it

appears with the changing administration, it will stay that way, especially with how the future Trump administration has approached illegal immigration. Just an interesting development here because of the large number of DACA recipients and the billions of dollars that have been spent so far with ACA and the coverage of DACA recipients already. Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of this final rule before it was stayed, where they estimated that more than 100,000 DACA recipients would be enrolled in this, and it could increase the deficit by an estimated $7 billion. So lots of money would be going to this, but as of now, it's stayed. Yeah, lots of money. Well, Cameron, thank you for that. And like you said, it'll be interesting watching with the incoming term administration how a lot of this is handled going forward. On that note of illegal immigration,

Mary Lise, we are going to come to you. Texas Senator Joan Huffman filed a bill last week for this upcoming legislative session related to illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. Tell us about it. Yes. So along with lots of other bills that have, of course, been filed ahead of the legislative session, Senator Joan Huffman has filed Senate Bill 552. And essentially, it would ban convicted illegal aliens from serving community time, meaning they could not receive early termination of their probation through serving community time. One case that likely encouraged this legislation or maybe brought it to Senator Huffman's mind was in Harris County in 2024. A defendant was charged with acts involving indecency with a child with sexual conduct, and he was an illegal immigrant from Mexico who had been deported on multiple occasions,

and the judge ended up ruling that he could, gave him early termination of his probation. So Senator Joan Huffman said when she introduced this bill, she said, this bill is not just about enforcing immigration laws, it's about protecting our communities by ensuring that those who have broken both our immigration and criminal laws face full accountability. We are taking a firm stand for the safety and security of all Texans. So that was Senator Joan Huffman. And it's worth noting that in regards to eligibility for serving community time as a convicted individual, according to Texas law, you're not eligible, excuse me, criminals are not eligible to serve community time if they're sentenced to serve more than 10 years in prison. But it does not, Texas law does not mention citizenship status requirements to be able to serve community time. And another interesting response to this was Governor Greg Abbott said that he will sign this law. He was pretty quick to follow up with that. So this will be interesting to see how Senator Jones' bill pans out in the session,

especially with Governor Abbott's support behind it, public support. Certainly. And this is what we're going to be seeing a lot over the next month is, you know, the governor or lawmakers coming out, the governor coming out and saying, hey, I'll support or not support this bill and lawmakers filing off all sorts of different proposals. So it gives us a little bit of a glimpse into what we can expect come January. Mary Elise, thank you. Cameron, back to you. Texas-based Army soldiers are alleged to be involved in a conspiracy to smuggle and harbor illegal immigrants. Tell us about it. Yeah, this was an interesting little tidbit I came across. the DOJ where the U.S. Attorney's Office released a criminal complaint alleging three Texas-based

U.S. Army soldiers were involved in this conspiracy to smuggle undocumented non-citizens. So I was like, what the heck? You go look at the criminal complaint and it's something out of a movie or something because apparently U.S. Border Patrol approached a vehicle while it was carrying these undocumented non-citizens. It was stopped by law enforcement after attempting to flee, striking another vehicle, leading to the apprehension of the passengers. And then the driver fled on foot. All three individuals were eventually apprehended. One has been charged at the time of our reporting on this. Two were set to have a hearing.

But it's just very interesting sort of development here with, again, going back to the increased focus on illegal immigration and what's going to be done and how military is being allegedly involved, at least individual soldiers involved in the smuggling or conspiracy to smuggle undocumented individuals. So just it has a little bit of everything for everyone. And it's continuing to be investigated. U.S. Border Patrol and Department of the Army Criminal Investigations Division are assisting in this investigation, along with Homeland Security. So a lot of organizations involved in this trying to track down the facts. But yeah, I just thought those was an interesting story. It's spicy. spicy yeah it's quite

spicy so folks go read it it does have a little bit of something for everyone cameron yeah you're almost like uh touting some sort of christmas gift or something along those lines right package it up put it on the tree hey speaking of which folks if you need a christmas gift the texan has gifts gift subscriptions go check it out but great gift to give folks. You can choose the day it's delivered. Make sure that you get that for your family and news junkie in your life. And if you aren't subscribed to Texas, just go subscribe. What are you waiting for? Do it. Just do it. Just do it. Okay. Mary Lee, it's coming back to you. A Texas judge has announced his switch from the Democratic Party to Republican. Another South Texas switch. Walk us through this one.

Yes. So longtime Democratic Webb County Judge Tano Tehrina has announced that he is switching parties to the Republicans, saying that the Democratic Party left him and the people of South Texas behind. That was in his announcement that he was switching. Definitely something that's worth noting is that President-elect Donald Trump really made history in Teterino's district during the November election. He was the first Republican president to win the presidential vote in Webb County in 100 years. So some history made there. Tejurina was first elected and it was in 2015 as he was elected as a Democrat and then he won his third term in 2023 and his seat will be up for re-election in 2026. And Webb County was, you know, among the group of competitive South Texas races, rather surprisingly, last November. And it's race between Congressman Henry Cuellar and Republican challenger Jay Furman, with Cuellar winning by 51.9%. I think that was a race a lot of Texas folks were paying attention to uh tirina said in his announcement that republicans he acknowledged republicans made

major gains in south texas including donald trump winning my county not because our values have changed but because the radical democrat party's values did our shared values here in south texas hard work faith family freedom are no longer pillars in the Democrat party. And I want to be part of a party that stands and protects those principles. And again, that was and his announcement that he's switching parties and Cuellar responded to the judge's announcement. And I think that was something a lot of people were paying attention to, um, as Cuellar's district mostly consists of Webb County. And he didn't say anything that was too pointed at Tirina. It wasn't very direct at him as an individual.

But he did just say he's focused on and always will be serving his constituents. Very simple. And so this is, yeah, definitely kind of a big announcement that happened this week in Webb County um yeah that Texas 28 race was kind of surprising how close it was not because of the partisan makeup but because it the Republican candidate Furman did not really get much help support yeah yeah and people kind of wrote him off because of or wrote the race off the candidate not even necessarily because of the district and that's despite you know Cuellar having the indictment stuff floating over his head um you

know as Marilee's mentioned Webb County is one of the largest parts of the district it has Laredo so it was a massive um constituency there for that district. And, yeah, Trump won it for the first time in 100 years. And Cuellar was able to hang on, but by the skin of his teeth. And that's setting up next cycle. And maybe Tiarina enters into that as a potential Republican challenger. Notably, Axiom Strategies was the one that put out the email. And Axiom Strategies is? Is a consulting firm run by Jeff Rowe.

They represent Ted Cruz and Ken Paxton. They've been getting increasingly involved in the state and searching for candidates. So that doesn't mean he's going to be the one drafted to run, but it certainly smells like it, right? And Axiom, they wouldn't, they have plans for him. Whatever it is, we don't know, but they'd certainly have plans for him. Yeah, absolutely. Mary Elise, thanks for your coverage.

And obviously interesting to watch post-election in Webb County, a county we talked ad nauseum about after the results in November because of this shift in South Texas and Webb County being at the forefront of a lot of that. So definitely worth going and checking out that piece and keeping an eye on South Texas, as we always do. Cameron, you ready to chat again? Let's do it. Let's do it. The use of drones to enhance school security could be coming with a new bill being introduced in the House. Wait, okay. Also, were there drones? Did you all see the story about drones?

Yes. Over New Jersey. Are we going to go down this rabbit hole? Maybe we shouldn't. You guys want to talk about? Yeah, I don't know which state it was. I don't know about this. Was it New Jersey?

Yeah, okay, Mary-Lise was right. I don't know how much I should talk about this. What is it? You already opened it. What's the situation here? Well, there are residents in New Jersey have been observing UFOs. But in the common vernacular, right?

Just unidentified flying objects. Not necessarily aliens. Not necessarily aliens not necessarily aliens just drones you know uh flying uh off the coast there and it's brought up a lot of speculation about why these drones are there who's who's flying flying them and are they even real like maybe who knows um but the first sort of insight we got into this is i have here i put it in things are happening in our slack channel no one responded but congressman jeff van drew claims iran has stationed quote, mothership off the U.S. East Coast, reportedly launching drones now flying over New Jersey. So is this a coordinated event by foreign adversaries to destabilize our communications or they run in tests or drills but what's interesting is you I've been reading

people who are drone enthusiasts and they use yes is that what you are putting a drone up in the air next to an airport, military base, whatever, you know, they can capture. There's a unique signature on these drones. And so it's not like you can launch a drone somewhere and they're not going to know whose drone it is. And they can shut these drones down. There's ways they can do that remotely. So the fact that they're still flying, there are still questions about who's putting these drones in the air. I don't know.

There's lots of conspiracies floating around. As always. As always. But it's very interesting. I saw the headline and thought I'd bring it up. It's fully my fault for bringing it up. I'm sorry. But it's interesting.

Question. Has the ability, the easy access to drones, has that reduced the number of flat earthers? Because they can buy their own drone and fly it up in the air and see that the earth is you not a flat earther i'm crazy i'm not that crazy uh but yeah it's like you know they don't they don't need to get in a spaceship they can just fly a drone well i think the bigger implication with these drones is over the course of the past few years with the Ukraine-Russia conflict that's going on, drone warfare has been primarily used in the battle between these two countries.

And that's going to be the future of warfare going forward is remote-operated drones or even autonomous drones. Oh, gosh. I just refreshed my Twitter feed and three tweets about the drones. Stop. It's hearing us. Sorry. Continue, Cameron. think about is are is are these drones off the coast of new jersey a coordinated attack or a

coordinated effort by foreign adversaries or is it the u.s military running like a simulated defense strategy in case there is a domestic drone attack you know there's these two different competing uh conspiracies going on and some people just don't want their Amazon deliveries delivered by drone yeah that's true that's a whole other yeah yeah yeah spot more that's the way to put it it is compared to actual war but get back to what started us down this rabbit rabbit hole is um it was story there's an actual story there's an actual story you wrote um about a bill filed by ryan gian which is going to cover the presence of armed security officers at public schools um based upon the permissible uses of the

school safety allotment because there's been a number of bills that were passed and are now law regarding enhanced security measures, including having an armed security guard on school campuses. And this bill outlines how drones could be substituted to fulfill the armed security officer on these campuses. So according to the bill of text, I'll read from here, quote, requirements can also be met via at least one remote human-operated aerial device deployed or contracted by the district at each district campus, providing less lethal interdiction capability by means of air-based irritant delivery or other mechanisms for every 200 students enrolled at the district so

um pepper spray armed drones could be coming to a school near here oh an assault drone assault drone uh i think it's interesting we've seen um like we're just going down that rebel hole but local police forces have been using drones every time i cover a protest you see a drone up in the air now it's just drones coming to school campuses which you know could be a good thing in one respect where before an officer a human officer actually needs to be on the scene they could have a drone up in the air with the camera going that way they already have information about the situation they're going to be addressing of course there's always the privacy concerns with a camera always pointed on you do you have any privacy left uh so there's both sides of the coin people are going to have

to be dealing with here but i just just thought, again, another interesting piece of information, potential bill that's going to be coming up on the floor that I think people should know about. If and when that makes its way through the process, either in committee or on the floor, I'll be very curious to hear the debate surrounding that bill. That will bring up, I think, a lot of conversation that we'll see for years going forward. Yeah. Very interesting. Well, Cameron, thank you. Folks, let's move on to our Twitter-y section here. Bradley, what you got?

I am going to jump headlong into the Schadenfreude in this section. As many of you have known, as was broadcast on national television Saturday after Thanksgiving, Ohio State lost for the fourth year in a row to Michigan. And it was a glorious day. It will be remembered for a long, long time. And one of the reasons it's going to be remembered for a long time is that Ohio Soft University, they got mad that Michigan planted a flag at their midfield.

And you know, the best way to stop that from happening to win the game, but they didn't. Um, but I digress. So this week related to flag planting, Ohio state lawmaker Josh Williams filed a bill to make planting a flag in the horseshoe

a felony. A felony? I think so, yeah. Maybe it's not. I don't know. Illegal! Hey, check your facts, reporter. I don't know.

Oh my gosh. I'm a Texas reporter, okay? But that sparked the expected discourse and frenzy about this but it is turns out it is one of the best trolls you've ever seen because josh williams is in fact a michigan fan he is from uh he represents sylvania which is just west of Toledo, which is right on the border between Michigan and Ohio. So that's around the area that I'm from, and there are, well, a lot more Ohio State fans.

It's not entirely Ohio State fans. So, yeah, well done, Josh Williams. The first big, like, flag-planting scandal I remember in college football was the Baker Mayfield one. I remember it was such a big controversy. It was at Ohio State too, wasn't it? I don't remember what school it was at. I think it was Ohio State.

I just remember there was speculation, is this going to drop his draft stock because he did something like this? It got blown up that big. If you don't want people to plant the flag at midfield, don't lose as a 20-point favorite to a mediocre rival on your home turf. Don't do it. Okay, but Brad, I've been wanting to ask this question ever since because I was watching this game live, saw this going on,

and knew that there was just like a visceral reaction happening in wherever you were. Can you tell me, if you were not... Let's make this about an entirely different rivalry. So A&M and Texas. Do you care about that rivalry? It was fun to watch.

Right, but you don't have like a... How about Notre Dame-USC? Oh, I hate Notre Dame. We'll pull for you guys. Let's stick with A&M and Texas. So if flag planting had happened in the same score, same everything, in that instance, what would your reaction have been? You're a pretty reasonable, level-headed dude. And usually, yes.

And usually, I'd argue that excessive celebrations. Is that excessive? That's the argument. My question is, it's gone on for years, but it doesn't happen as frequently. It happens quite a bit. I don't know. It just doesn't always get the attention because there's not always a fight.

That's also, but I, I don't know. The, my point is, Ohio state players who caused a fight are to blame for this. And mainly their coach who stood by and let it happen. What was the Michigan player that says they don't know how to lose?

Yeah, learn how to lose. They are the most spoiled fan base ever. I'm not, but Brad, we're back to talking about your fan bases. Let's talk about any other teams. Big rivalry in California. Sacramento State versus UC Davis. It is not how I would celebrate, but it is peanuts. That's all I wanted to hear.

It was probably not how Brad would want his team to celebrate. Like if you were the head coach, would you want your players acting like that? I would just enjoy the depressive nature of the fan base in the stadium. But, hey, if they want to show them up by playing the flag. Would you punish your guys? No. No. They didn't start the fight. But they planted the flag.

So what? This is very helpful. Grow a pair, Ohio State fans. I just wanted to know. Gosh. And our running back said after the game, he was the one that said

some people need to learn how to lose. And it's true, they do. Michigan spent most of my life losing. I very well know how to lose. It's kind of ingrained in me. But Natty. But Natty. In the past four four years i wouldn't trade it um but he also said that um overall that's just no place there's no place for a reaction like that and

people got pepper sprayed yeah um and then they just kept fighting like they would it would appear to stop and the fight would break out again like it would just kept rolling almost it was pretty wild yep 100% on Ohio State good on Josh Williams for trolling him maybe one day they will learn how it's although I hope they keep Ryan day because we might never lose again. Cameron, you and Mary Lee, either of y'all have flag planting opinions? I don't have a problem with it. Just don't fight on the field.

That's pretty much it. Makes sense. Yeah, I think we need less government in sports. I think that people should be able to plant flags. Less government in sports. That's government in sports. That's amazing. I remember how many years ago was it? Blount from Oregon punching the Boise State.

LeGarrette Blount. LeGarrette Blount, yeah. Yeah, I remember that was a big thing. No, I will draw the line of fighting. Anyone who tries to fight after a game, ridiculous what are you doing but the action was not equal to the reaction got it okay okay what do you got for us this is a very big pivot. Big pivot. Trump. Like Ross Geller level pivot. Yeah. Well. Anybody know that reference?

Yes. Thank you, excellent. Okay, good, Bradley, yeah. My bad. Trump was named Time Person of the Year. The years of Time magazine sort of using Trump as their sounding board for writing hit pieces and editorial pieces. It's kind of circulating on X right now, the years past of Trump being on the cover of Time and how they sort of treated him in such a negative way. But, you know, now they're giving him a person of the year. I just thought it was interesting. Yeah. Did he win in 2016? Was he also not win, I guess?

No. Okay. I thought he'd won or he'd been Time's person of the year before. Maybe I'm wrong. Yeah, he had been. I don't know which maybe i'm wrong yeah he had been i don't know which year it was but he was okay very very interesting um mary lease i've been very interested to hear what you have to say yeah well not to turn the conversation dark but um the p diddy lawsuit has had some updates and i saw that there's there's two more men that are accusing him of things. So I believe they've just filed to sue him. So this will be – I'm not sure when his hearing is going to be,

but I'm curious to see what happens with P. Diddy. And Jay-Z was talking about Tony Busby this week. Did you all see that? Yeah. Because Busby leveled a lawsuit. I think it was a 13-year-old boy. I think both Diddy and Jay-Z were named. And Jay-Z came out with a very, actually a very odd statement, I'll be frank.

It seemed very unpolished. Yeah, that's so unlike Jay-Z, unpolished. No, I think the stakes for this just would warrant a more polished response. Fair enough. Somebody at that level of fame knows that and has a team around them that would be able to supply that kind of polish. Regardless, Jay-Z came out and called Tony Busby like a fake lawyer. He's like lawyer in quotes, which is like so ridiculous.

But it'll be very interesting to see where that goes. And wild to see Jay-Z mentioning Tony Busby. Like it was so wild. Yeah. in that you know busby's representing a lot of the victims alleged victims in the ditty cases it's uh wild to watch jay-z all of a sudden have his name in his mouth it's really wild yeah get my name out your mouth um i want to celebrate a dog's birthday dog is pancake abbott um pancake is 10 years old as of this week this is going around celebrate a dog's birthday. My dog is Pancake Abbott. Pancake is 10 years old as of this week. This is Governor Abbott's dog. If you've ever attended a press conference at the governor's mansion, there's a puppy, but maybe like two years old when I first started in this crazy world of politics. And now you're 10 years old for a dog the size of a golden retriever is getting up there. That's an old that's an old an old pup.

So just wild to me that that is. See, I didn't know dogs had last names. I just threw that in there for context. I don't know that anyone else has ever referred to Pancake as Pancake Abbott, but it is Governor Abbott. I love that though. Because Brad, you've seen Pancake at press conferences. Oh yeah, all the time. Have you seen Pancake in the flesh? Especially when they're having a press around the governor's mansion lawn. Yeah. She's always walking around. Always there. And now they have, what's the new one? And we won't name who. Honey butter chicken biscuit. Is it? It's something along those lines. I think. Yeah. Is it? But it's in press conferences. Some lawmakers are more excited about pancake. Biscuits. Biscuit. Yeah. Is it? But some press conferences, some lawmakers are more excited about pancake. Biscuits.

Biscuit. Okay. Pancake and biscuits. Horrible. Okay, folks. Well, hey, guys. Merry Christmas. When this goes out, it'll be 12 days till Christmas, and I'm very excited about that.

Merry Chrysler. Merry Chrysler. Folks, thanks for tuning in to our weekly roundup and we will catch you next week thank you to everyone for listening if you enjoy our show rate and review us on apple podcast spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts and if you want more of our stories subscribe to the texan at the texan.news follow us on social media for the latest in texas politics and send any questions for our team to our mailbag by ding us on Twitter or shooting us an email to editor at the texan.news. Tune in next week for another episode of our weekly roundup.

God bless you and God bless Texas.