The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - March 26, 2021

Episode Date: March 26, 2021

On this week’s “Weekly Roundup,” the reporters cover alcohol to go passing the Texas House, Democrats delaying the movement of election integrity legislation, updates on bills related to the gender-changing procedures, state senators being denied access to an unaccompanied minors facility, a Democratic mayor calling out President Biden over the border crisis, a lawsuit involving Native American tribes’ ability to worship at the Alamo, a look at why gas prices have skyrocketed, and more.

Howdy folks, Mackenzie Taylor here, Senior Editor at The Texan. On this week's Weekly Roundup podcast, our team covers alcohol to go passing the Texas House, Democrats delaying the movement of election integrity legislation, updates on bills related to the James Younger story and gender changing procedures, state senators being denied access to an unaccompanied minor facility, one Republican official suing another Republican official, a Democratic mayor calling out President Biden over the border crisis, redistricting updates, a lawsuit involving Native American tribes' ability to worship at the Alamo, and a look at why gas prices have skyrocketed.

Thanks for listening. We hope you enjoy this episode. Howdy, folks. I'm here with Daniel Friend, Isaiah Mitchell, Hayden Sparks, and Brad Johnson. I will say this podcast has already gotten off to a rough start because it's cold in our podcast room. I brought in a space heater because Sarah White, who records our podcast, and I are always cold, particularly in this room. And I just had to turn it off because, well, lo and behold, you could hear the space heater in the background. Brad, I'm sure the boys are all very excited that the space heater's off,

but I'm devastated that this was 30 seconds ago. I'm really going to miss the space heater singeing the hairs on my legs. Singeing? Oh, man. Well, here's the thing. We are always cold in here, and we're always wearing blankets, and so at the very least we had it running 10 minutes prior to the podcast, and I think that will do well for us going forward. Who's we? Me and we're always wearing blankets. And so at the very least, we had it running 10 minutes prior to the podcast.

And I think that will do well for us going forward. Who's we? Me and Sarah. Yeah. Specify that. They're both cloaked in blankets right now. This is true. Because we're always cold in here.

I think this is one of the biggest, you know, workplace inequities that we have in this country is the temperature of the offices themselves. It's intriguing. Isn't it you and Sarah that manage the office? Yes. Okay. Just putting that out there, Daniel. Aren't the people that mess with the thermostat the most in this office male? Yeah, I keep on turning it up.

Yeah. I don't, for the record, touch the thermostat the most in this office, male? Yeah, I keep on turning it up. Yeah. I don't, for the record, touch the thermostat. You've got to have a computer science degree to understand that thing. That's true. I go over there, and one number says 68, the other says 85. Nothing makes sense. Turn it up a little bit to 70, and then 85 becomes 86, 87, 88. So I think, was it already set to the 80s?

And it's just refusing its own – I don't know. You employ the Pythagorean theorem. You return to Algebra 2. You see what you can figure out and still no answers are found. Yeah, I understand. Well, on that note, y'all, let's go ahead and talk about the news. Brad, we're going to start with you. This week, rather uh some big legislation

was heard in the house well i wouldn't even say big there was one particularly notable piece of legislation but more than anything the house is now hearing bills on the floor we've not had that up to until this point and you know walk us through you were there you were you were part of the press um following everything going on walk us through what happens and give us the highlights. Yeah. So it was a light docket, only a handful of bills, five to be exact. And for the record, further into the legislative session, there will be upwards of 200 bills on the calendar for any given day. So this was a very light docket. Yes, yes. And, you know, there weren't many really significant bills within it. The most significant one was Alcohol to Go, which is something that has broad support. And if there had been a record vote on it, I assume it would have been close to unanimous.

It's something that Governor Abbott has been very supportive of, Speaker Phelan as well. So that wasn't surprising at all that it got the red carpet rolled out for it. And there were four others that all very technical. One would require the DFPS to provide written notification and receive acknowledgments that they're investigating child abuse or neglect situations, a prohibition on denying organ transplant based on disability, exemptions for pest control licensing, and aligning domestic relations orders with federal law.

So those are all of them. And that was a very brief session today in the House. Yeah, and the alcohol to go legislation being particularly notable in that during the coronavirus pandemic particularly at the start the governor waived regulations in order to allow that to occur and teased you know for months now that that was going to be something that would be a perfect back is may last year certainly yeah um so there was some contention on the floor though so we were not you know with the absence of record votes which we'll get into in a minute um that did not mean there was an absence of conflict or some fun drama going down walk us

through what happened so on that final one i stated it was actually the first one heard it was representative sinfronia thompson's bill that you know is aligning uh state domestic relations orders with federal law at least that was the stated intention, there was an amendment put forward by Representative Brian Slayton of Royce City, and it would have halted the proceedings of these domestic relations orders. Essentially, a court can interject itself into a dispute, uh, specifically requiring child support payments, uh, to be, um, you know, from one delivered from one part of the other, um, in a situation where a child, um, is in a, there's a

dispute over the child's sex, um, specifically what they identify as in this whole transgender debate. If there's a situation like that going on and there's child support that has been withheld, that's delinquent, then the situation would be halted, the court order would be halted until they can reach a resolution on that. Essentially, it's to prevent child support payments from being used for transition treatment, whether it's surgery, puberty blockers, anything like that. And so, Slayton issued that as an amendment. Thompson, Sinfernia Thompson, she challenged it. She issued a point of order.

It was sustained by the chair, and that was that. Meaning the amendment dies. Amendment dies, yes. It was not adopted. The bill advanced through second reading, but without the amendment. Certainly. Or the bill did, not the amendment. So one thing you talk about in your piece is the notable absence of record votes for

any of the bills that were heard on the floor. What is the significance of a record vote? Well, it puts all of the legislators on the record, support or against, whatever legislation it may be. It's a tactic that was used a lot last session by specifically former representative Jonathan Stickland, just calling a record vote on basically everything because you know, that there's a,

they can, the house can pass things through voice vote and it's just essentially unanimous. And they just say, yay or nay on the House floor, and the Speaker decides essentially, or whoever the chair is at the time, decides which one wins. But when you have a record vote, you can see the tally,

and that tally is preserved in the House Journal. And to be fair, when there is a voice vote, it's one of those things where you're on the floor, you hear how many people are saying aye or nay, and it's fairly obvious if it's a strong vote. Most of the time, yeah. Exactly, most of the floor. You hear how many people are saying aye or nay. And it's fairly obvious if it's a strong. Most of the time, yeah. Exactly. Most of the time.

But that in no way allows a constituent to be able to go into the House Journal and say, how did my representative vote on this issue? Right? So there's no accountability in that sense. So I think this will be something that we'll see a lot of attention drawn to going forward this session, particularly as we're seeing who will pick up that mantle that Representative Stickland left a little bit and, you know, how many record votes will be called. And notably last session, you know, Stickland and the others who would call record votes a lot, they could do so from anywhere in the chamber, essentially, and yell it. Yeah, literally yell from their desk.

And the chair would recognize them and call for a record vote. When Speaker Phelan was laying out the day's docket, essentially, he stated that if you have a request for a record vote, make sure you bring it up to the dais and do so before the bill is presented. And so that leaves a lot of time that you could have requested one beforehand, basically all the way up until the vote itself was taken. And now that's shaved off and you have to do so well in advance. Yeah, certainly, which will create a little bit of difficulty, I think, for members on the floor having to remember to do it so far in advance. Especially when you're going through days where there's 200 bills.

Yes, absolutely. That mechanism will be either utilized a lot and be kind of a tiresome mechanism for a lot of the people dealing with the House procedure. Or it'll be left by the wayside. We'll see what happens. Well, thanks for covering that for us, Daniel. We're going to pivot to you. Election integrity again at the forefront of the discussion this week. Walk us through what happened and what was notable with some Senate bills.

So several Senate bills were scheduled to be heard in the Senate State Affairs Committee on Monday. So lots of people had come into town. They were testifying for or against the bill. Reportedly, there were over 200 people who had planned to testify. That was what someone from Senator Hughes' office told me. Senator Hughes is the chair of the committee. But when he— And is the chair of the committee. But when he... And also the author of the... And the author of SB7, which is the big election bill

in the Senate. Lots of other bills were filed by Senator Paul Bettencourt out of Houston. A lot of those were scheduled for a hearing on Monday. So people were expecting this to happen. But a few minutes into the hearing on Monday. So people were expecting this to happen. But a few minutes into the hearing on Monday, it was clear that would not take place. That was when Senator Hughes announced that several Senate Democrats had used a procedural move known as the tag rule to delay the legislation and push the hearing back for a later date. Got it. So explain to us what the TAG rule is and why that's notable.

So the TAG rule is one of those clever little tools in the Senate rules that is helpful for minority, the minority party. You know, there's some differences between the upper and lower chambers and, you know, especially in the U.S. Senate, and I think there's some similarities in the Texas Senate, where there's some advantages for the minority. And this is one of those advantages where a member can basically demand a special notice, a special 48-hour notice of a hearing before it can take place in order to kind of give them more time to look at legislation, read it over, and whatnot. Now, there are some ways around this.

If they post it 72 hours before the hearing, so there's like the normal process. But then if that doesn't go through, senators can still demand a special notice for that hearing. And so that's what five Democrats had done. They demanded this notice so that essentially they would just delay it. I don't know if there's some stuff going on behind the scenes of why they wanted it delayed for a later date or why they didn't want it to be heard so soon. But nonetheless, they delayed this. And yeah, that is where we're at. Yeah.

So what does this mean for the election bill going forward? So it definitely does not mean that it is not going to pass. It's just delayed a little bit. They rescheduled a hearing for Friday when this podcast is being released is when they're going to be in a hearing on Friday looking over these same bills that cover the election integrity. Now, one of the things to keep in mind, and this is what Senator Hughes pointed out at the hearing, this tag rule is really helpful a lot later in session is when it's really more useful when you come up against those deadlines because you only have 140 days for the legislature to pass these laws. And so once they get closer to the end, if they need to have

a hearing and they have a very short window of time to do that, that's when this can really get kind of boxed in. But because this hearing is pretty far out from that deadline, they still have a lot of time to reschedule it. Now, it could also affect other legislation, you know, because they could have had the hearing on Monday and then had another hearing on Friday related to something different. So it does kind of have some ripple effect that might delay some legislation, but that's really hard to define what exactly is delayed because of it. Certainly. Well, thank you for covering that for us. We will continue to keep an eye on all of this.

Isaiah, we're coming to you. There was a press conference this week that addressed an issue that has been at the forefront of a lot of discussion, particularly back in, was it 2019, Daniel? Was that one? Or is this 2020? Yeah, this was 2019. Yeah, the fall of 2019. Walk us through a little bit of what happened and what legislators were there for the press conference.

Sure. So the press conference is essentially around House Bill 68. And this is by State Rep. Steve Toth, hooking out of Spring, Texas. And it would classify sex changes and other gender-changing procedures as child abuse when performed on minors. And we've written about this previously a few months ago, and Toth said then that the infamous James Younger case actually inspired the bill. And for those of you who don't remember, Daniel covered this very closely. But James Younger, a young Texas boy, infamously chose a girl's toy from a Happy Meal some

years ago, prompting his mother to believe that he identified as a girl. And a lengthy court battle ensued. While the mother emphasized that she was not seeking a medical or physical transition, which is what HB 68 would prohibit, Jeff Younger, the father, testified today that James was on the cusp of exploring, his word, puberty blockers and other physical gender-changing methods before the court granted him some more authority over his son's fate. Got it. So we'll continue to see this talked about throughout session. And I know multiple legislators during this debacle came forward and said they were going to file similar legislation. So there is some support in the legislature for this already. What kind of support do we see at the press conference today? Who showed up to this?

Politically, State Senator Bob Hall from the upper chamber showed up and um he actually spoke in support state reps cody vasut tan parker and kyle biederman were also there though they didn't speak um also present were some non-political people including activists gerontologists and psychologists sarah jessica fields um pretty pretty active in this subject matter in Texas. And Houston therapist Dr. David Pickup, who has a very large clinic, if that's the right word for it, who treats a lot of children with gender dysphoria. I said clinic to him, and he said that wasn't the word. I don't know. I don't get medicine. medicine anyway um so a number of scientists and medical professionals in the field showed up um

along with bob hall and and toth and some others so i'm very good well thank you for covering that for us we'll continue to keep an eye on that issue hayden we're coming to you the border i'm surprised shocked that we're talking about this again i feel like this will be in a car we'll be talking about it for quite a long time. Just hold your breath and it's coming. That's basically where we're at with the border. Let's talk about some state senators here in the legislature and what they had to say, particularly in regards to an unaccompanied minor facility here in Texas. Well, Daniel and I attended a press event on Monday evening at the Capitol with six Republican state senators who

had visited the border, and they literally got off of their flight and headed straight to the Capitol for this press conference. Those senators were Senators Donna Campbell, Angela Paxton, Jane Nelson, Lois Kulquhorst, and Don Buckingham, as well as Joan Huffman. And they said that they had been denied access to the Donna Unaccompanied Minors facility. In other words, they weren't allowed to tour it and view it themselves. And they were disappointed in that because they wanted to be able to lay eyes themselves on what was actually going on at that facility. This has been a theme in recent days, as Senator Ted Cruz has also criticized the Biden administration,

because they are reportedly being very tight lipped toward the media. And I have spoken, I spoke with someone earlier who said they've never seen this type of closed, this type of restricted access to the media. And it's becoming a thing. It's becoming an issue that President Biden has instituted this unprecedented, and I use the forbidden word, I hate myself for using that word. President Biden has instituted a very unusual cloak over Border Patrol facilities. And this is definitely coming up, something that's coming from the top down, in other words. So they said that as Texas state senators, they were not allowed to view what is going on. And to them, that was striking. Yeah. So let's, you know, dive in real fast. You mentioned both state senators and US Senator Ted Cruz. Now they have different jurisdictions over

issues of the, you know, relating to the border. Walk us through just a little bit of that and what kind of responses they could actually tangibly have. Well, US senators are the ones who have a more direct influential role over immigration policy because immigration is a federal issue. However, Governor Greg Abbott has taken a more active role in immigration lately by supplementing border patrol resources with state law enforcement resources and National Guard resources via Operation Lone Star. So state senators do play more of a policy role in immigration these days. However, because this is more of a federal issue, it's more notable that Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn have issued letters to President Biden. Cornyn's letter was more of a bipartisan approach with Senator

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona, calling on him to reform the asylum system and to increase transparency and to work to increase coordination between federal agencies, that type of thing. But Senator Cruz was his letter was, and I say letter, he's also made public statements, including today at a press conference, criticizing Biden for locking down border facilities to a degree that Presidents Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton did not do. So those are the various reactions that we have seen from U.S. senators and state senators. Awesome. And I know we'll continue to be following that very closely. Thanks for covering that for us. We'll get to the border again in a minute. Daniel, we're going to

come to you this week. We saw two state leaders, not Dan Patrick and Greg Abbott, as we saw last week. Well, half of that. But of that equation uh we saw go head to head here walk us through what happened and you know a lawsuit's involved give us the details yes so the two figures that this central part of this story is dan patrick and then also agriculture commissioner sid miller both republicans both republicans uh both i would say more on kind of like the same wing of the party I would say more of the conservative grassroot see a little bit

maybe I'm going on a limb but they went to blows over the Senate COVID-19 testing mandate there is currently in the Senate if you want to go to the Senate gallery if you want to go to the Senate chamber if you want to go to the Senate gallery, if you want to go to the Senate chamber, if you want to go to any Senate committee hearing, you have

to be tested for COVID-19. Uh, you have to get a wristband approved. Uh, there are 15 minute tests outside of the Capitol, uh, free to the public. Of course you have to pay taxes. So that's how it's paid for. But other than that, you don't have to pay for it. You walk right in. They do kind of a Q-tip swab, and then you get a wristband, assuming that there is a negative test. And then you are allowed into these Senate activities.

Now, this is different than the rest of the Capitol. Right now, to go just into the Capitol itself, You don't have to have a COVID-19 test. You don't have to have a face mask on even. The House debated having a COVID-19 test, and they voted against that, or they got rid of it. I don't know if there's an actual vote. They opted not to. But they still are requiring face masks for their committee hearings

and their chamber. But the Senate takes an extra step to have that COVID-19 test. And Sid Miller, along with conservative activist Stephen Hoetze out of Houston, I believe, filed a lawsuit against Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, as well as the other relevant Senate officials, essentially saying that the COVID-19 testing mandate is a violation of the Constitution, which says that during a regular session, except for executive sessions in the Senate, the chambers should be open. So they're saying this is not open to the public,

along with some other similar provisions in the Constitution. Got it. And to be fair, you know, this is an interesting dynamic at play here, because like you said, we have two. I think it would be accurate to say both of these officials elected at a statewide capacity have been very supportive of President Trump, particularly in the last presidential administration. And that's kind of where they've staked their ground for a lot of their political responses to anything in different ways, right? In very different ways. And we're seeing this session, the lieutenant governor, you know, being far more stringent in terms of COVID restrictions in the Senate than, you know, the counterparts in the House. So politically, there are differences there. But I think, you know, in the last four years, there's been some camaraderie, at least in terms of support for the president within the Republican Party.

So interesting to see these two go at it. Now, how did the lieutenant governor respond? He's not known to pull any punches. So what did he have to say about this lawsuit? Yes. So he didn't give a direct quote himself, but his press secretary released a statement that said the lieutenant governor doesn't vote on Senate rules, but he agrees with the unanimous decision of the Texas Senate to test in order to protect the public, the Capitol staff who interact with hundreds of visitors every day,

as well as members of the legislature. So it's kind of an indication from his office that he is fully behind this testing mandate and will fight this lawsuit wherever it ends up in courts, however that fight plays out. Yeah, we'll see what happens. Now, is the Senate going to take any action? Now, that is an interesting question. I actually wrote about this, the COVID-19 testing mandate, as well as the face mask mandate, back in February, I believe. This was after they had passed the rules. And there were some people who were really concerned that they're not going to be able to participate in activities at the Capitol, especially parents of young children or children with special needs. You know, one person made a remark that I'd like to see Dan Patrick shove a Q-tip up a 300-pound autistic child. So kind of giving this picture of people who really struggle with these special needs,

who are not going to be easily tested, and they're not necessarily easily going to be wearing a face mask. And so they were trying to petition the Capitol to end these restrictions. Now, at that point, the hearings really had not taken place. There really wasn't a whole lot going on at the legislature other than bills being filed and referred to committees. And so there wasn't a whole lot going on. But after probably about the 60- which was, uh, March 12th, uh, the Senate and the house started having a little bit more hearings. Now it's, you know, it's jam packed with, uh, different bills being heard in committees, uh, and being funneled through that. And so people are actually going to the Capitol and testifying now. And, uh, some of those people are

potentially being excluded from being able to give testimony. Now, as to what the Senate might do about it, back when I wrote this story on those concerns, Senator Charles Shortner sent us a statement saying that they had planned to revisit these rules around the 60-day mark. However, like I mentioned, the 60-day mark was like March 12th, March 13th. So a couple of weeks ago now, and the Senate has not really changed anything. There hasn't really been any more talk about it. It's really been very quiet. There's no indication that they're going to be changing anytime soon, but time will tell. All sorts of interesting situations here. Thanks for covering that for us.

Hayden, we're already back to the border. Now, this week we saw particularly one interview of a Democratic mayor in Texas calling the border crisis the Biden border crisis. Definitely making headlines with that statement. Walk us through what happened. Well, Democratic Mayor Bruno Lozano, who, and just to clarify, municipal elections in the state of Texas are nonpartisan. In other words, when you go into the ballot box, it doesn't have an R or D next to the name. But he has self identified as a Democrat. And he is in Del Rio, Texas and the Del Rio sector. Well, I'll talk about that in a minute. He appeared in a Fox News appearance. He said that it was a Biden border crisis because of the lack of a plan. And he said he had spoken with officials from the White House who assured him that they were taking steps to try to meet some of the needs of the illegal aliens that are being released into his community.

But from his perspective as as a mayor, who's actually there seeing what's going on, that's not happening. And he has also characterized that as a slap in the face. And what I really think this highlights, McKenzie, is the difference between Republican versus Democrat, and then local versus state versus federal. Some of these issues don't come down to partisan concerns, but rather he is hearing from his constituents fear and concern. And he feels and his position is that the Biden White House is not doing enough to take care of the people that their policies have released into his community, especially during the historic freeze that was imposed on our state last month.

Yeah, certainly. And I think this highlights, you know, often we hear about California Democrats versus Texas Democrats, right? And the same for Republicans, East Coast Republicans, Texas Republicans. There's just a lot of, you know, difference of opinion within the party and, you know, on both sides of the aisle and i think this highlights that particularly in a border town right where you have policy directly impacting your community absolutely it becomes about the welfare of your constituency and i

think we'll continue to see these kinds of policy discussions be part of the forefront and i think it shows you know the willingness to critique a president of your own party when you're in elected position is a very interesting dynamic. We certainly see this no matter who is president at the time, but it's certainly dynamic. Now, what kind of, you know,

encounter numbers are we seeing in the Del Rio sector? Walk us through a little bit of that. Well, we're seeing increased numbers almost everywhere, but this, the, the data that is provided by us customs and border protection is on a month by month basis. the data that is provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection is on a month-by-month basis,

and it usually takes a bit for that data to come out. So we don't have information on March yet, but in February, the apprehensions in that sector were pretty steady. But family unit encounters, and this reflects a broader trend, family unit encounters increased by 31%, and unaccompanied minor encounters increased by 18%. And in January, overall enforcement counters, so everybody, there was a 21% increase.

And that is reflecting the bigger problem, which is not single adults, but the children and the families, the unaccompanied minors that are coming into the state of Texas. And that is the crisis that the administration is currently grappling. But because of the increases in the Del Rio sector in particular, Mayor Lozano is having to deal with this. And he said in his first, and he's released a video before and addressing the president saying that they did not have the resources for their own people in their own community. And his testimony was that there are business owners there who are concerned about individuals who are desperate, who don't have any other resources

to turn to, turning to local business owners. And he also stated that he believes that there are individuals being set up for failure when they're released and there's no plan for their care. And so the Biden administration has rebutted that they are still trying to clean up the mess from what they consider to be failed policies from the Trump administration. And that is their rebuttal to claims that they are mishandling the current surge on the border. But I would encourage everyone to check out our coverage on illegal alien family unit apprehensions from

this month. That article goes through some of the border numbers and border enforcement encounters. I love it. Well, Hayden, thanks for covering that for us. Daniel, one thing we've talked about, you know, not enough this legislative session is redistricting. One of the constitutional requirements that the legislature actually take care of this session. What's the status with redistricting? Where are we at this session with it well where are we at with this session it's not gonna happen but um but actually though that's very true it was expected to happen a year ago well yeah a year ago it was expected to happen and then a year ago, it was expected to happen. And then a year ago, the pandemic happened and the Census Bureau delayed a lot of their operations with conducting the census and reaching out to people and contacting them to see where they live. And, you know, all that fun stuff that the Census Bureau does once a decade.

And those delays added up. And so the Census Bureau has a responsibility of delivering two different files. First is the apportionment file to the White House, which was supposed to be delivered on December 31, 2020, and that would essentially tell Texas and all the other states what their total population is and how many congressional districts they'll be receiving. And so based on the estimates, it's expected that Texas will gain three congressional seats, but the official data has not been released yet. And so there's no official number yet on how big congressional districts will be, how many congressional seats we'll have, and also how big the other districts in Texas will also be be the ideal size for those. So that was delayed from December 31st to now.

They're saying it's going to be as late as the end of April. And so with that, that's just the apportionment file. And even with the apportionment file, you still can't do redistricting. You can't redraw the maps with that. The next step that you need is the redistricting data itself, which is usually delivered a little bit later. It usually comes kind of in the spring time, right about now. And Texas usually gets it a little bit early because they release it on a flow, kind of a rolling basis. And so Texas is one of the states that has historically gotten it earlier since we're in the middle of a legislative session.

And that's when lawmakers redistrict. But since the apportionment file has already been delayed until the end of April, now they're saying that redistricting data might not be delivered until the end of September. And unlike in previous decades, they're not going to release the data on a flow basis. So Texas isn't going to get early. It's going to get it at the same time as all the other states. Got it. So, you know, administratively, this causes some headaches. Yes. Tell us about what problems this creates. So it raises the question of when redistricting is legally allowed to take place. The Texas Constitution essentially says that lawmakers shall redistrict in the first regular session after they receive the redistricting data.

And that has been interpreted by courts to mean that if Texas receives a redistricting file in February, like we have, then it's expected that the lawmakers should redistrict in that session that they're in, in the session ending with a 1, 2011, 2021, so on and so forth. And so that's what it currently says. Now, if the lawmakers don't accomplish that in that session, then the responsibility falls on the shoulder of the legislative redistricting board, which is made up of several of the elected statewide positions, like the agriculture commissioner and the, no, I don't think any railroad commissioners are on there, but the comptroller, the Texas Attorney General, and some others.

So that's the normal process of how it works. The problem is what happens when the redistricting data is delivered after the regular session already takes place, but before the next election. And that's what it's looking like it's going to happen. So if the redistricting data is delivered in July of this year, July, August, even September of this year, then the first regular session after that the lawmakers are supposed to redistrict would be until after the next election. Now, of course, I don't think that anyone in the state is going to let the next election go by without redistricting before then. So what's likely going to happen is a special session will likely take place or, you know, they could try and send it through the legislative redistricting board. Either way, it kind of sets it up for a lawsuit.

Now, redistricting inevitably leads to lawsuits anyway, and this is kind of probably going to be one of the central themes in the lawsuits of this decade, is under the Constitution, can the legislature redistrict, are the maps they redistrict in a special session uh legal and binding or do they have to wait until the next regular session to do it and so that's going to be a question that lawmakers will debate probably courts will debate at some point we'll see there'll be a lot of debate yes debating it's very interesting i guess people debate it at the court yeah

the courts might debate too, because, you know, it goes through the, the district court and then the district court fights with the appellate court and so on. There's just a lot of infighting. Yes. Um, well,

thank you for covering that for us, uh, in terms of, you know, broadly, let's just, you kind of already mentioned this, but broadly just give us a 30,000 foot view of what we can expect to be

different than in the previous redistricting period. So congressional districts, obviously Texas population has grown. Our population growth – I wrote a really fantastic, very underrated article a year ago, a little over a year ago. So go check out my latest article on redistricting. I gave it five stars. I don't know what you're talking about. Well, thank you. I appreciate it um but essentially texas

population has been growing at a faster rate than the rest of the country um and so we're going to be having more congressional districts so in that terms will probably increase from 36 to 39 you know the numbers could be a little bit different, could possibly be two, but it'll probably end up being three congressional seats added. Now, how they're going to cram stuff around, we'll see. It really depends on what happens. One of the things to be on the lookout for is retirements from congressmen, because when people retire, that kind of frees up the district. You know, you don't have to worry about making an incumbent mad. So down in South Texas, we saw this week Representative Philemon

Vela announced his retirement, that he would not be running for re-election. And so that will kind of free up the Republican-controlled legislature orative redistricting board or whoever ends up Redistricting is probably going to be Republican Kind of carve out some districts in South Texas Where things are swinging a little bit more Towards the Republicans So that's

The congressional level, at the state level We'll see a similar thing, you know The sizes of state districts State Senate and state house districts Will naturally grow So there will be thing you know the the sizes of state districts state senate and state house districts will naturally grow so there will be larger populations represented by fewer members if i'm saying that right um there's you know huge growth in some suburban areas also notably there's some growth out in the permian basin so we'll see if midland odessa how the maps kind of

change around there and then also you know the suburban county is like hayes county or collin county didn't county fort bend comel county yes so that's what to be on lookout for i like it thank you daniel fantastic isaiah we are coming to you uh there was a a bill that we've been watching for a little while from a legislator in the Williamson County area. Walk us through what the bill would do. Sure. So this is from, this is by James Tallarico, Democrat from the Williamson County area, like you mentioned. And the bill would place diversity, equity, and inclusion officers at every large public school district. So the officer has four duties as described by the bill.

And what's interesting about this position that it's proposing is that these duties range from those of, say, a counselor on the individual working with a student level to those of an administrator where they're wielding power for big decisions that are district-wide. So the four duties, I'll try and condense the bill jargon as much as I can. The first is to lead the district's efforts to establish and sustain a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion for all students. The second is to support continuing education and training related to diversity. The third is to develop district policies, practices, and programs that champion the individual cultures and interests of each student. And the fourth is to ensure that each student receives the necessary opportunities and resources

to meet the student's unique needs, abilities, and aspirations. A lot of syllables in those words. So sorry for the stumbles I made. There you go. So what qualifications would be necessary for the hiring of such an inclusion officer? This is another interesting part of the bill. Because there are two options to be qualified to be a diversity officer under this bill. The first is that the officer must have significant professional experience working with special needs students. And specifically what that means are students that have difficulty

with English or other special needs students like those that are disabled mentally or physically. And so that's one option. The second is that the officer just has to hold an approved certification in diversity, equity, and inclusion. I don't know what authorities dole those out. But anyway, those are the two potential paths that one could take to become an officer of diversity and inclusion under this bill.

Very good stuff. So, you know, is this an idea that has been batted around before? Does it already exist in certain institutions? How new is this idea? Anybody that's ever been to college recently has seen this before in college. It's almost barely an overstatement to say that every college has a diversity and inclusion officer or department or some kind of measure like that. We wrote a little over 45 million dollars in the past fiscal year on diversity and inclusion measures at the primary and secondary level obviously it's much more rare

parents are a lot more invested in that and there are different state laws that apply this kind of thing seeps in i I mean, different districts are different. I mean, anytime you start talking about what primary and secondary schools do, you've got to start thinking about a lot of caveats because they work so differently in Texas and it's so decentralized. But for the most part, this would be a pretty new idea for primary and secondary schools. It would only apply after certain population levels. I go in more depth into the article because Texas has a lot of very complicated formulas about defining school funding, and those depend on how you define the size of a school.

But Tallarico's bill exempts smaller mid-sized schools, which, to put it, I think, the most simply would mean if they have fewer than 5,000 students for K through 12 districts for the whole district, they would be exempt from this bill from requiring, you know, to have one of these officers. Got it. Well, Isaiah, thank you for covering that for us. We'll keep an eye on where this goes. Hey, Hayden.

Hey. You know, let's talk about the border again. Does that sound like a plan? Sure. Awesome. So some Texas Republicans this week, you know, obviously we've seen Republicans go to bat against President Biden, particularly in that they are now going up against a Democrat president in the White House. Tell us a little bit about something that we covered this week and what they called a tone deaf plan to legalize childhood alien alien

legal alien arrivals well first i want to make clear that i am not an immigration attorney and i'm not an expert in immigration no i'm not believe it or not no i'm kidding uh however they're um always go to our website the texan.new, and you can find in the article, Texas Republicans Opposed to Undeft Planned Illegalized Childhood Illegal Alien Arrivals, you can find links to the official status for at least hundreds of thousands, probably millions of illegal aliens. The childhood illegal alien arrivals are the focus of the American Dream and Promise Act. And in order to qualify to apply for temporary status, they would have to graduate high school, they couldn't be a security risk, and they'd have to pay application fees. Then after or within a 10 year period, I think they'd be able to acquire a green card permanent legal status by achieving other life events like

serving in the military or being in the workforce for three years. And I think us being in our 20s, we know that that's something that when you get out of high school, you either find a job or you go to college. These are things that usually come right after high school. Many people go to college, many people choose to go directly into the workforce, and it allows room for that. But the essence of this legislation is providing a way for these individuals who arrived here or were brought here prior to their 19th birthday to have a way to acquire legal status and not be deported. Those are for the childhood illegal alien arrivals. The Farm Workforce Modernization Act implements various reforms to legalize people who are farm workers and they would have to work additional years on farms and there are other requirements that they have to meet. Got it. So, you know, the headline in and of itself, I already alluded to it,

you know, calls those plans tone deaf, walk us through, you know, who said that and why, you know, there's this accusation floating around? Well, I think last week, I talked about Representative August Pfluger, who has raised objections to the fact that Biden moved hundreds of illegal alien children to his district without notifying local authorities or consulting him and other relevant officials. And he has he called this plan tone deaf because it involves legalizing individuals or granting legal status to illegal aliens during a border surge. And it isn't that there are very various views on how childhood illegal alien arrivals should be handled. But one of the objections raised is that it creates incentives for people to send children to the United States. for child traffickers and for human traffickers to lie to families in Central America and tell them that the borders open and that, look, in Washington, D.C., they're legalizing everybody.

So give us your kids for this fee. And then, of course, all kinds of child abuse happens along the way. So that is the concern raised by Republicans. Not that they're necessarily opposed to, not that they're saying that all childhood arrivals should be deported immediately. But the objection is that it is tone deaf at a time when we're facing a border surge and that the administration should be focused on that rather than focused on legal status for illegal aliens. Got it. Well, Hayden, thank you for following that so closely for us of course um isaiah we are back to you my friend now you've covered the alamo extensively and you know throughout the course of this debacle a lot of the focus has been on george p bush the glo the cenotaph right the city of san antonio the reimagining plan now this is a different angle with all those same components but walk us through a lawsuit that drew some attention this week

sure it's been going on for a little bit a couple years and it's complex because there are multiple defendants and they're being sued by the top ilam kwawelekens. Kwawiltekens. One of those pronunciations. And that is a San Antonio-based Indian tribe who lack federal recognition as of yet, although there is a bill that's been presented by Menendez in the legislature to recognize them at the state level. And they claim that they are being ignored in the renovation project. And this all ties back to their religious practices one of their complaints is that um for a little bit of over a decade they were able to worship at the alamo with a remembrance ceremony that has to do with their reburial practices and how they treat the remains of their dead um the topilam tribe they're still you know even today a lot of their foremost members are direct descendants of mission ind who lived in the Alamo and other missions.

And so barrier records and some of their own traditions indicate that they have a lot of forefathers buried at the Alamo. And so because of that, they have to conduct reburial ceremonies. And they've been prevented from conducting these ceremonies since, according to court documents, 2019. Furthermore, there is a committee of archaeological advisors that is run by Alamo Trust, the non-profit steward of the Alamo set up by the GLO, General Land Office, and that committee includes representatives from five Native American tribes. Topilong claims that only one of them, the Mescalero Apache tribe, actually bears a historical connection to the Alamo, which in their case is mostly antagonistic. And the Topilam Kwabotecans who lived in the Alamo in Wild West times faced not constant,

but pretty regular conflict with the Mescalero Apache. And so a lot of members of the tribe today say that it was shocking to see the Mescalero Apache on this committee, but not their own tribe, whose forefathers actually lived in the Alamo. The Cenotaph also plays a part in this role because this ties back to their contention that the Alamo is a cemetery and a burial ground. And as such, the cenotaph is a funerary object that cannot be moved under Texas law. Alamo Trust, the General Land Office, and the City of San Antonio had all previously claimed in public, though they're being a little bit more quiet about it as of late, that the Alamo is not a graveyard. And so the cenotaph

is not a funerary object, meaning that they can proceed with a plan to move it. So that's kind of the conflict in a nutshell. Got it. So explain a little bit more, you know, dive into a little bit more about the relations between these different Native American tribes. I mentioned that the lawsuit's been going on for a while. The more recent development is that they've taken it up to an appellate court and they've been joined in an amicus brief by the Leapin Apache tribe of Texas. Interestingly, the Topolong Kwabaltecans and the Leapin Apache were historic rivals. They were enemies back when these gunfights were occurring.

But now the Leapin Apache are joining them in court and taking their side with an amicus brief. I'll read a little bit from there. Their introduction begins with a couple sentences. The mistreatment of Native Americans is a persistent stain on the fabric of U.S. history. Through what the Supreme Court has recently called the most brazen and longstanding injustices, Native Americans have been robbed of their land, their sovereignty, and their way of life. So the Leap and Apache are taking a cultural line, along with the top-long Qualtechans, against Alamo Trust, the GLO, and the city of San Antonio. And interestingly, the Texas Historical Commission as well.

That's complicated. I'll get to that in a little bit. The Topolong historically lived in the missions, like I mentioned before, including the Alamo. And they had dirt attacks from Apache and other tribes, including the Leapin Apache. The Mescalero Apache are on this committee and are not named in the suit because it's not their fault that the Topalom wasn't included. So it's complicated here because we have two branches of the Apache tribe that are sort of sided against each other on this legal battlefield right now,

and one of them is s with the top alarm who they historically fought. So it's, it is a tangled and naughty battlefield right now. Certainly in court. So explain a little bit, you know, very quickly, the different kinds of arguments we're hearing from Alamo authorities on why this was, you know, instigated in the first place. I think the most substantial one in their favor is that by not letting the top halams worship, what they're really doing is just enforcing a policy where no religious ceremonies can take place. And the top halam have argued that other ceremonies are sponsored and allowed in the Alamo, including certain secular but religious-ish ceremonies involving, you know, musket salutes for the dead defenders from the famous siege. But I think the best and most substantial argument from the side of the Alamo stewards is that they just have this policy that they're enforcing uniformly, and the Toplum

Quallatecans happen to fall under that. And so like everybody else, they can't worship with private religious ceremonies at the Alamo. Other than that, their arguments have been mostly procedural. I mentioned before that this is a plaintiff with – you've got a plaintiff on one side of the top, Palam, suing multiple defendants. The city of San Antonio, the GLO, the Texas Historical Commission, and Alamo Trust. And they're all making slightly different arguments. Among them are procedural arguments involving sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, meaning that they're taking the line that under the doctrine that government bodies cannot be sued without their own consent in court.

A lot of procedural arguments involving standing in jurisdiction of the court. And so Topolom lost at district court, which is why they're appealing now. And the district court decision was very complex. It acknowledged that the Topolom incurred real injury from being, you know, they refused to allow them to worship at the site, but it ultimately cited against them. And we've included all these legal documents in the article. So if y'all enjoy reading that kind of thing, we've got them all there from the district court decision to their original complaint to the appellate briefing stuff that's going on now.

I like it. Well, this is truly a fascinating article. And I really do think it's one of the more fascinating ones we've published this week. So folks, go take a look at it. It's on our website, thetexan.news. Isaiah, thanks for covering that for us. Brad, one of the things that a lot of Texans have been noticing, particularly as it affects their pocketbooks directly, is the increase in gas prices here in the state. When folks go to fill up their tanks, we're seeing an average of a 52 cent increase in price per gallon.

So walk us through a little bit of what is causing that. Well, in short, it's a lot of things. It's not an easy answer. As most economic questions are, generally there are four causes of gas prices for contributors. There's the price of crude oil, the cost of refinement of the crude oil into petroleum, the cost of distribution, and, of course, taxes. And under taxes, I know, I would put regulatory indirect taxes. And so this, you know, we saw gas prices under the last presidential

administration, you know, drop pretty low, some occasionally below a dollar, if I remember correctly. And that was a big change from the previous administration. And obviously, when politics is involved, everything, especially when it is so apparent right in front of the face of consumers, gets linked to presidential policies. And it does have an impact. Absolutely. Um, but you know, in this, in this specific, uh, increase, I would say it's mostly, um, uh, it can mostly be attributed to the fact that people are starting to actually get out and travel more, uh, you know, as vaccines begin to, uh, be distributed and, and applied, uh, you know, applied. People are moving more. Commerce is picking back up. People are driving more places. They're not holding themselves up in their homes.

And so that right there is the biggest factor to this. But that doesn't mean that the public policy implications are irrelevant. For example, President Joe Biden, since taking office, he's issued two executive orders that have contributed to this quite significantly. First of all, it's the Keystone Pipeline revocation of the permit, basically canceled it. And, you know, that would, that affects Texas especially because Texas has, the Port Arthur, Texas refineries is where the oil from Alberta, Canada was going to be sent. And so, you know, for oil to be used for really anything has to be refined. And that would be a big boon to Texas itself. And so stopping that commerce has an indirect effect on what consumers pay at the gas tank

the other thing is the federal land leasing ban he's basically prohibited new and renewed drilling permits on federal lands and so that that contributes to it as well. And it especially contributes to it in these market forecasts that all of these producers use to decide how they're going to act next. How many new drilling operations they're going to open, how many new refineries they're going to open. It all comes back to that. And so it absolutely, Biden's policies absolutely do have an effect. Another thing that has an effect is, you know, his broad plan of reducing the nation's use of fossil fuels. He wants to get down to a carbon neutral grid in like in less than 15 years. And so that also has an effect on it. You know, so when you see that the gas prices increase, there's obviously going to be anger

or relation directed at depending on what your specific political leanings are directed at the president. And it does have his actions do have an effect. But by and large, you're seeing that increase because of increased commerce. And we'll eventually see the supply catch back up as things get back to what we used to call normal more. And the operations of these oil, gasoline suppliers can catch up and basically reach the price equilibrium. It's a complicated equation and don't look at it through one specific lens, but the president's policies do have an effect.

Yeah. So as with most price increases with something like this, where the market is affected so rapidly, it's complicated. That's what we're dealing with here. Well, Bradley, thank you for covering that for us and really explaining for our readers what exactly was going on there. Gentlemen, let's talk about a fun topic. I think a lot of folks this week or the last week saw a $1,400 check either hit their accounts

or come in the mail. I want to know, in a fun world if you could just spend it on something fun what would you spend fourteen hundred dollars on not what you did spend it on if you did receive a check but what would you in a fun just in a fantasy world what would you what would you spend fourteen hundred dollars on of bills and you know clothes are we talking about like narnia or lord of the rings what kind of fantasy world i mean particularly i mean i would go Narnia probably. It sounds a little more, a little less intense.

Well, yeah, a little less intense. Depends on when. Depends on the book. Yeah. Depends on what we're talking about here. But what would you spend $1,400 on? 1,400 hot and spicy McChickens. Like all at once or like to be spaced out for a period of like five years

how long has it been since i've last eaten has it been like like three hours spaced out okay okay yeah okay okay what if it was like three weeks since you last eaten well i'd be dead but um well you can survive three weeks since you last eaten? Well, I'd be dead. You can survive three weeks without eating food. Drink some water. 100%. Like the ultimate limit, the three weeks. I don't know, like three weeks in a day, you're dead. I don't think so.

Depends on what you have. If it's like a juice fast, if it's just water, if you don't drink any water, there's a lot of factors. Particularly what you're drinking. Regardless, I don't think Isaiah is going to try that anytime soon. Who knows? Just a hunch. Who knows? Daniel, what would you say?

I would buy a camera. That's very fun. What kind? Canon or Nikon? Canon. Okay. I like it. I'm on board.

Is this like a conflict in the camera world? Yes. Interesting. I'm on board. Is this like a conflict in the camera world? Yes, there is. Although I think it's becoming less prevalent compared to 10 years ago. I think it was a little bit more heated. Now there are some other. Sony has some good cameras. That's what we use in the office. It's really now Sony, Nikon, and Canon.

I see. Yeah, and it's very proprietary proprietary it's a battle within the world it's quite fun yeah bradley what would you spend money on well it's probably moot at this point but i would probably spend it on a trip to spring training next year fun yeah that is so fun definitely a fantasy world broad looks defeated i mean like last year there was no spring training right that's true yeah well it has actually been much like two weeks of it oh yeah they've had the entire spring training oh they have okay and they let people actually go there though yeah they're fans oh okay we'll see it's in florida so that's pretty open i like it i think y'all i think i would this is gonna be unsurprising to those you're gonna get a dog named winston

okay i literally was gonna say a puppy i literally yes uh i would probably get oh gosh you were puppy shopping this weekend i was yes um i was helping out a friend um but i think uh i would get i would probably get a doodle of some sort probably a little golden doodle like a mini like a mini golden doodle on a piece of paper right yeah exactly that's probably because i grew up with a conger spaniel and a golden doodle so i'm i'm kind of in in that zone i love them i just love them They're just precious little beans. What is the D in poodle for?

I think it's just so that there's a consonant sound and it sounds a little more differentiated. I really don't think it's a poodle. So golden noodle, that doesn't sound that great. It sounds like a noodle dish. Yeah, like a pasta. What about golden poodle? What's wrong with that? That's true. I think there's a difference between doodles and poodles isn't there oh yes

that's the whole point is a doodle is mixed with a poodle oh it's mixed with a so like a golden doodle is a golden retriever and a poodle yeah interesting so that way it doesn't shed and they look like little bears i think it's i think it's great that mckenzie was able to turn this conversation into a discussion about which type of dog you might adopt. What kind of dog would you adopt? I would not adopt a dog. Hayden is kind of the outlier at the office here. He's more pro-cat than he is pro-dog.

I'm kind of neutral. I'm on the neutral ground. I'm not anti-cat like all of you other folks oh my i'm not anti-dog or anti-cat or necessarily pro-cat i just don't have any pets and so in this hypothetical world i would prefer to adopt a cat over a dog got it so what would you spend your money on your 1400 dollars Hayden I would probably spend it on a new cell phone because my current cell phone is very old and it's also pink

and that's not your style? it's a subtle pink yes but Kim Roberts isn't it rose gold? made fun of my pink phone and since then I've been self conscious about it so I'm just kidding I'm trying to make her feel bad when she listens to the podcast.

She will post in Slack and she'll be like, I'm so sorry. Or she'll be like, I think Kim will be like, I stand by it. I think she'll stand by it. I was judging a debate round with her and I picked up my phone and texted and she started laughing.

I said, are you making fun of my pink phone she goes yes i am okay well fine oh my gosh i love it um and kim brought us you hayden so we are so grateful for her bringing her bringing you to us me and my pink phone you and your pink phone that's exactly right you could get one like isaiah hayden's phone is older than mine i just want to point that out really but yeah his flip phone is more advanced than my iPhone. Hey, I was just in the same boat or almost the same boat as you. It's so nice. We should get you a new phone.

We should figure out how to do it. A GoFundMe will start tomorrow. Do not start a GoFundMe for me. I will delete it. Well, folks, on that note, thank you so much for listening. 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. Thank you.