The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - May 16, 2025

Episode Date: May 16, 2025

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/Learn more about the Data Center Coalition at: https://www.centerofyourdigitalworld.org/texasThe 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.The Bell Tolls: House Deadline Day Arrives With 30 Pages of Bills on Cliff’s EdgeTexas Senator Files Bill to Abolish Texas Lottery Commission, Transfer Operations'Detransition' Insurance Coverage, Biological Sex Definitions Pass Texas HouseTexas House Passes Bill Eliminating STAAR TestChemical Abortion Pill Crackdown Passes Texas Senate, Companion Pending in HouseTexas House Approves Bill Expanding State Medical Cannabis ProgramConstitutional Amendment Banning Carbon Tax Fails in Texas HouseAttorney General Paxton Announces $1.4 Billion Google Settlement Over Biometric Data CollectionProhibition on Local Taxpayer-Funded Gun 'Buybacks' Passes Texas HouseAt a Premium: Texas Legislature Mulls Reforms to Cumbersome Insurance IndustryCornyn Announces Department of Justice to Investigate Muslim 'EPIC City' Development

Howdy folks, Mackenzie here with Mary Lee's Cameron and Brad on another edition of the weekly roundup. It is deadline day, fun day in the Texas house. There's a lot going on today. I feel like we always say that during session, but this is one of those days during session. I in particular, I think a lot of folks look very forward to because Bill's diet midnight. We'll talk about that in a minute here. But Brad is a little bit distracted, I think, watching some sort of golf situation. Golf situation. Yes, the PGA championship. Ah, that sounds very important. Scotty Scheffler has

teed off and he is playing with Rory McElroy and Xander Shalfley. The top three players in the world are playing together on the first day. And that's obviously super notable. That's really cool. Is that not normal? Not really. No. Okay.

Broad sounds sick. Mary Lee says downing red bulls. Cameron has a 200 page committee substitute to parse through today. We all have a lot going on. And everyone's doing great. Yes. Exactly. Mary-Lynn, how do you feel about that? We're only, I don't know, what is it?

18 days away from the end of the session? Um, you know, I'm enjoying it and I'm running a little bit off of adrenaline, but I'm also a little bit tired. So, yeah, but it's not too bad. I liked your intro to the 40 today. It was essentially, um, this author is very tired. I'm relying on the editors more than usual. Sleep deficit and caffeine overload.

Yes. 100%. Absolutely. Combination. Um, well, we can go ahead and jump in since we've already alluded to the deadline today, Brad. and caffeine overload. Yes, 100%. Absolutely. Good combination. Well, we can go ahead and jump in since we've already alluded to the deadline today. Brad, I want you to run us through what exactly,

why today's notable, why it's important, what deadline day in the house even means. And we have two deadline days in the house, right? I mean, you could argue there are even more, but we're talking about- There are multiple deadlines. This is the first big one. The 122nd day of session is the last day to pass as non-local and uncontested House bills

on second reading. So to pass a chamber, a bill has to be read three different times. The first time it's just read. There's no vote or anything. It goes through the committee process, comes to the floor. The first vote is second reading and then the third vote or the second vote is third reading and then it passes the chamber if it gets enough votes to pass. So this is the first big deadline of the session and at midnight tonight a bunch of bills are going to die. There's a 30 page calendar. There's no way in heck that they're getting through

all of that. For reference how many pages does the house typically get through on a day where they are going late? We got to page 14 yesterday. Yeah but that was kind of a record I think. Typically we've only been getting to page 9. Yeah so but that was kind of a record, I think. Typically, we've only been getting to page nine. Yeah. But that was just to get through Sunday's calendar. So the bill that they ended on last night was Cody Vassut's statutory construction act. I think I've talked about it a bit on the podcast. It would do away with legislative intent

in these debates on the floor where members get up and they like to ask questions and make statements to establish legislative intent. And then ask for those statements to be read into the record. That way it can then be cited in court cases down the road about whatever law is up for debate. This would basically do away with that

and say courts should not take that into account when they're interpreting laws. You should take the plain meaning of the word on the paper. So that was, we know Democrats were wanting to kill that. They managed to point of order it last week or week before and Republicans put it back through the process, fixed the issue and put it back on the floor and passed it yesterday. I thought it was an interesting debate. I was probably the only one that was actually interested in this, but it was fascinating. There were good points made on both sides about this.

Mayor Lies and I were talking about that as, Jean Wu was making an argument on the floor. But anyway, we were thinking maybe that was gonna be the blocker bill, the bill that Democrats are chubbing, wasting time to try and ensure expires. Well, they got through enough of the calendar and they got to that and they stopped there and that was the beginning I believe of the Monday calendar. So now we're technically on Monday's calendar

and we've had calendars stacked on top of calendars. Yeah, I think that was the first bill of Monday's calendar. Yes, yep, it was on major state. So now we have all of Monday's calendar go through, all of Tuesday's, all of Wednesday's, and then Thursday's. There's just simply not enough time to get to all that. There's gonna be a lot of bills that die when Harold Dutton takes the back mic and calls, I don't know, what's the motion he makes?

I can't remember. There's a motion he makes every time at the midnight deadline. Yeah. Saying it's midnight and we can't take up any more business on this because the deadline's hit. So, um, or mysteriously the clock could just stop at 11 59.

It could. Yeah. You just never know. I think that happened before. I think it has as well. Yeah. I think I've heard stories about like ye olden days. I don't know if it's like a wives Taylor if it actually happened, but

I think it actually happened. Yeah, I think it might be. A rogue staffer is back there in the gallery. Holding you then. Yeah, holding them in a hand. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Well, and we also expect it's usually

Joe Moody from El Paso who gets back there and is like, hey, we have a whole nother hour in El Paso. Why can't we? That joke is always made, which is, which is fun. Beat a dead horse every two years. Hey, it's tradition. Yeah, it's great.

It's part of what makes deadline days so fun and the creative ways that Democrats will chub. And then you'll get to the point where Republicans, they start speeding through bills, probably at what, you know, maybe like an hour or two to go, they'll start going really fast to get through as much as they possibly can. It's kind of like LNC where it's auctioneering. You're getting through bills as fast as humanly possible.

You can barely understand what the speaker's saying. And when we talk about chubbying, we're talking about delaying. So that's essentially where Democrats will just, it's like there's not a filibuster in the Texas house. It's not something that folks are able to do, but this is for all intents and purposes, a similar tactic where they'll ask as many questions as possible, speak on bills, really just take their time on pieces of legislation that maybe they wouldn't even have cared about if it were a normal day in an

attempt to ensure that they don't get to whatever legislation they find to be, like Brad was saying, the potential blocker bill, the one they really don't want to get to. It's also just kind of a sign of like protest of saying, Hey, we have stuff we want passed and Republican priorities or Republican bills are on the calendar. We want ours to get gotten to. So it's, it's both and chopping has gone on for like the last week. People started this process.

Oh yeah. Barbara Grubin Hawkins has done a lot of learning. She's the queen of chubbing. Yes. And she's back on the floor after a short stint in the hospital. I'm glad she's in good health again. Yes, absolutely. But some of the bills to watch, potential blocker bill since 113 is obviously not it.

potential blocker bill since 113 is obviously not it. There's a Shelley Luther bill that is would make would establish liability for vaccine manufacturers for advertising vaccines that cause injuries. So like if you take the COVID vaccines, since that's the one everyone talks about, and you get in some form or fashion injured from that, and Pfizer has been marketing the COVID vaccine, you can then sue them in the state of Texas.

So that's the bill, that's I think the biggest blocker bill probably. That's 3441. What page is that on? That's pretty far down, like 17 or 18, I think. That'd be hard to get to. Yeah. Regardless. Yeah. But I think the conservative flank, the right wing flank is going to really try and push leadership to get to that. Who knows if they can but I think they're gonna exercise as much leverage as they can and that's that's really what this is all about.

Democrats are exercising their leverage which is hey we can waste time give us what we want or we're gonna keep wasting time and kill a lot of your bills. The the right flank can do that too and they've done that they've been in discussions with the speaker and they've gotten agreements to get to certain pages or certain bills like 113 was one. That was a borough's bill last session so it's not like they really needed to twist his arm to want to get to that. But for Democrats they're going to want to get to what number is that? HB 1738. Oh yeah. That's from a Fetty Wop song isn't it? 1738. 1738. Yes it is. I remember that from, that was the anthem when I went on spring break. You guys know? In Panama

City. I have, oh lord. Yeah that was played constantly. We don't need to talk about that. Oh don't worry I'm not gonna talk about that. Yeah, we, I've actually been to a Fetty Wap concert. What? Wow. No, you guys might want to know why. He was a guest at a Taylor Swift concert. Okay, anyway, that makes a little more sense. HB 1738 is something that Democrats are probably going to really want to get to. That's the proposal to reveal the state's anti-sodomy law that's authored by State Representative Benton Jones, who himself is gay. He has talked about it a lot on the floor.

He authored the bill. He also has two Republicans join authoring, which are former Speaker Dade Fielen and the state Representative Brian Harrison. Strange bedfellows. Strange bedfellows. So Democrats are gonna want to get to that. I think they might. I think that's possible. Well, actually it's not that far down, right? From 113? Well, no. Last night we were, we got really close to it. I think we got like a handful of those away. Yeah. Um, and then there are a few others that Democrats probably don't want to get to, but that Luther bill is probably the biggest one, I think.

The obvious blocker bill. So, and yesterday, even though they, you know, there were many pages that got through and we got to Monday's calendar in the house. There were still there were still chubbing representative Gene Wu, chairman of the Democratic Caucus specifically was at the back mic very frequently at least asking one question a bill for a while. Right. He kept asking, tell me what your what does this do?

Yeah. Can you explain to me what this does? And at one point, I believe it was Nicole Collier from Fort Worth, Democrat from Fort Worth, who went to the back mic and said who at the time Cody Vassut was at the on the dais acting as speaker in Burrowstead and said can you slow down a little? Yes we actually want we want to hear what's going on and of course I'm sure there are people who want to make sure that the bill's on the floor. They know what they're voting on. But at the same time, it's like Democrats have an aim in this, just as Republicans have

an aim in this of trying to slow down the process. So all very interesting. And I could forget Vasude's answer, but it was in classic Vasude fashion. Pretty funny. Yeah. But regardless, that's where we're at. It'll be fun. It will be.

I'm excited for it. And there's going to be a lot of carnage on the floor. Maybe we'll get some people yelling at each other. I would love that. That happens here and there. They have already been two fights, but I'm hoping they'll actually be there when they happen. Wait, which fights?

Which reps was it? They had to be, some people said they had to be pulled apart. I think it was the toll road bill. Schoolcraft and Gerties. I've heard mixed things about who was the other party involved. Schoolcraft was one. I've heard Jaydeen was involved. And then Patterson intervened. I've heard Patterson was involved and I've heard Gerties who was the author of the bills. I don't know who it was. But there was a skirmish. There was a yes. And apparently there was a night before as well. I don't know which rep so was. Yeah, I can't remember. It's just late at night and everybody's been having really late nights, they're stressed out. Um, so that's tired, they're irritated. It's probably why the toll road

sparked that. Cause it wasn't, I mean, it was's an interesting topic but kind of unexpected to cause a fight over well it when it's on those really local bills and toll roads is a different issue entirely there's a lot of fascinating debate over whether those are good to have or not whether they just become slush funds strong argument for that But this bill specifically was dealing with one toll road, I can't remember which, as it relates to Gerties' district, but it also goes into Schoolcraft's district. And he was taking pot shots at it, even though individuals in his district, like members of localities, wanted the bill and he was basically trying to torpedo it as his right. So it became really personal, that's the point I'm making.

Especially those local bills and this is for my district. The hot tax stuff is a great example. I was about to bring up even for Dell and the hot tax situation this week. That was super interesting. There there's always fights over that. And did you didn't vote for my hot tax, but I voted for your hot tax. And it's just, it all becomes personal. Exactly.

That's where, you know, people say that the keep the personal out of politics. That just is not the case. It's not what happens, especially at this point in session. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll keep an eye on all of that. I'm sure we'll talk about it next week. Bradley.

Thank you, Cameron. Let's talk about another big story this week, but this in the Senate, the Texas lottery remains in the news. There's a new bill that will address some ongoing issues, some questions about how this will all be dealt with this legislative session. Tell us about it. Yeah. This is a bill that was filed by Bob Hall and he's really taken charge of this

Texas lottery commission, uh, controversy, let's say. And would you say it's unusual for a bill to be filed this late in the session? So it happens, but this is a big bill too. Well, it's a big bill because of all the issues that have come to light over the past few months regarding the Texas Lottery Commission, what this bill would do would essentially abolish the Lottery Commission itself by moving its operations and supervision under a another agency, the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. And the bill would also require a limited scope sunset review of the lottery itself. And it would abolish the lottery by August 30 for 2027. If the

sunset review declines to continue its its existence. We actually saw a committee hearing called the same day that the bill was filed. So we got to hear some testimony from Bob Hall as he was laying out the bill. And he detailed how in some of the provisions, it would put a cap on the number of tickets retailers can sell, prohibiting internet ticket sales, the creation of a advisory committee,

and then also adding criminal penalties for some of these infractions. And an interesting aspect of this is during this bill layout, Hall was talking about some of the amendments he would like to add to SB 3070. And one of the interesting amendments would be to actually prohibit the extension of

the current contract for the Texas lottery vendor because for people to understand, the Texas lottery is actually run by a third-party vendor providing logistical services is actually run by a third party vendor, providing logistical services and operations. So there's companies that essentially bid for this contract and the contracts are worth, you know, close to $200 million. The latest one was 177.4 million. And so this brings up an interesting sort of dynamic

And so this brings up an interesting sort of dynamic where there's been lots of reports about how much the lottery is needed because some of the money that is being brought in from the lottery is being sent to, whether it's veteran services or public school funding. So there's the pro lottery side of things where it's adding funds to the state to help out different programs.

Revenue. Revenue, there's the anti lottery side that really points to the corruption that's occurring, sort of the downstream effects of exploitation that occurs because I actually wrote a big newsletter about this this week about how many, like an overwhelming percentage of the people who actually play lottery, play the lottery and online gambling are already already low income and have addictive elements to their personality so they are spending more on these gambling and lottery services than they are on putting money in investments and things, let's say. So there's the exploitation side and corruption side, and then there's the

There's the exploitation side and corruption side, and then there's the public good side with the revenue. And so hundreds of millions of dollars flowing back and forth, billions of dollars in winnings being handed out, lots of controversies about the courier services involved in the Texas lottery. So it's become a huge issue. And there's big names on either side of these lottery vendors that are lobbying for these contracts. Some people might be familiar with some of these names. Right now, the current, I'll just

mention the current, I'll just mention the current, uh, lottery vendors, uh, servicer who has the current contract is, uh, IGT solutions corporation. And for IGT, they have names like John Scott, Luis, and I have always signs. See, I can never say it correctly, but those are well-known names, uh, lobbying on behalf of IGT, uh, corporation. Um, and then on the other side, scientific games who actually has a contract for scratch tickets. Um, but they're also a lottery service vendor provider. Um, a huge name lobbying on their behalf is Alan Blakemore.

People know him. He's well-known consulting juggernaut in the state, representing Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. So that brings up some potential, some friction, let's say. Some backroom intrigue on this policy fight. On this whole policy fight. And so that's really insiderly baseball

for people listening, but if you're listening to the Texas News podcast, that's why you tune in. So lots of things yet to happen here because we still need to see if this bill makes it to the floor, what the debates sound like, and then has to pass

the House still. And there's been opponents to eliminating the lottery in the House, as we've seen with some of the legislation that's already rolled through there. So, lots of runway to go. This is just the latest update being that Bob Hall filing a bill so late in the session to do make a dramatic change to how the lottery would operate going into the future. Especially when earlier this session, when there were similar bills brought forward in the Senate, rumors were flying like crazy that the bill might be changed in some sort of substantive way to basically allow for what this bill does. And that didn't happen. And here we are with a new bill filed.

So very interesting stuff. Cameron has a ton of reporting on all of this, every plot point. So folks go read it at thedexson.news. There are a lot of plot points and it's worth checking out. Yeah. Cameron, thank you. You're welcome. Mary Lee, let's talk about two bills, very spicy bills this week,

dealing with some hot button social issues. It took up a good deal, a good deal of debate time. My gosh, let me try my words again. Tell us about them. Yes. So these were taken up for their second reading on Friday, I believe. And then third reading on Saturday and both days they took a couple hours each to debate over and they're both related to transgender issues and so

obviously that highlighted a divide between the two current party platforms because you know this disagreement okay is sex a biological reality or what exactly is it is it determined at birth or is it determined by the individual so there was that debate going on. So it's a pretty serious social issue. So this is the first one that was taken up was the companion to Senate bill or to House Bill 778 and so Senate Bill 1257 was taken up and that's by Senator Brian Hughes but the it was representative Jeff Leach on the floor defending this bill because he's got the companion to the Senate bill. And so this one requires the insurance companies that cover gender modification procedures

also cover any reversal services or procedures needed after if a person has adverse effects as a result of the gender modification. And there was a really interesting debate between this because there were there are multiple amendments thrown out there. One was saying that, okay, well, this seems a little bit like a punishment for the insurance companies for providing these gender modification treatments. So they suggested, some House Democrats suggested, why don't we do it just across the board, make an amendment that all the insurance companies have to cover.

They called it detransitioning or adverse effects from the gender modification. And so they were saying this would make it so that it's not a punishment and that these companies don't view offering gender modification as something that's tied up with a penalty. That was rejected by Leach and he said he just liked to keep the bill clean. Some people were saying that they felt like this is going to decent devise insurance companies

from providing these procedures in the first place. Lots of amendments are out there, point of orders called multiple. And then the other one is House Bill 229. And that was carried by Representative Ellen Trachsclare. And what that did is define male and female as the only two sexes and then define them with the biological definition. So yeah, fire discussion there because they're arguing, you know, a big argument was that they are erasing folks who identify as neither male or female, or they don't fall under the biological definition. Um, and they were arguing, oh, you're erasing these folks, um,

who perceive it to be different. So they, yeah, definitely highlighted this divide between the parties. I would say the insurance one, it was probably, there was probably more complicated debate about the insurance one because they were arguing about details such as, oh what if people are living in another state and they come to Texas to get the reversal procedures? They were saying that's going to be, um, that's going to be bad for Texas while these people come flooding here because we're the only, um, because we're one of the few states that offers us. And, uh, so there's kind of debate about that.

Another amendment that was thrown out was to say that if you receive the, you have to receive the gender modification procedures in Texas to get the reversal services. So that was an amendment thrown out there, but ultimately they rejected it. And they both passed third reading on Saturday afternoon after just hours of debate over these. But a lot of the debate was pretty similar. It was arguing about basically what is gender? What is sex? And what is freedom of expression look like?

Is this infringing upon individual rights or not? So kind of logistics versus the philosophical debate for these two issues that certainly do go hand in hand and interesting to watch them kind of be placed on the calendar so close together. Yeah. Very interesting for sure. Well, folks, uh, go check out Mary Lee's coverage of that issue. The Texan.news. Mary Lee's thank you.

Cameron coming to you with a Texas house, give approval to a bill that would eliminate the star test. Oh, this has been coming for a long time, even as, even as ESAs and school choice and school funding were debated on the House floor weeks ago, I remember representative chairman Brad Buckley of the public education committee being like, we will get to the star test as folks are trying to tack on amendments dealing with this specific issue. So where are we at? Well, really a bipartisan agreement on eliminating the STAR test.

I won't bury the lead. It passed with 143 yeas to 1 nay. That 1 nay being representative of Brian Harrison. HB4. So it eliminates the STAR test, yes, but it replaces it with what they're calling a national norm reference test. And this test is going to be administered three times at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year.

And it's sort of aiming to increase not only engagement from the teachers and the students but to have a ability for these teachers to implement the changes necessary to improve the outcomes for these students. So having these multiple steps for understanding the benchmarks that need to be reached and some other interesting aspects of what this bill will do is going to place a time limit on these tests, 60 and 90 minutes, which is interesting because I'm sure we all experience taking these types of star tests where you're anticipating taking the test,

you're studying for it, the teachers are having you prepare for it for months on hand, and then it's an all day event, sometimes multi-day. This time with this bill, it's gonna truncate it way down. It's also gonna require having the results and instructional feedback within 24 hours, just like I mentioned, trying to help teachers implement the changes necessary

so they can reach those improvement measures that they want. And it's going to have a public release of the questions and answer keys of the test. So that way, once the tests are over, people can go back and see where they need to improve. So lots of changes that are going to be occurring with testing moving forward in the public education system and like I mentioned at the top this is a an agreement bipartisan agreement between Democrats and Republicans on getting rid of the start test and so seeing the culmination of that here. Absolutely years in the making here we are keep an eye on it Cameron thank you. We're gonna take a quick break and hear from one of our sponsors.

Did you know data centers support 364,000 jobs in Texas and contribute $3.5 billion in state and local taxes? These critical facilities boost the state's economy and power essential services. From video calls and online banking to healthcare and government operations, data centers are the backbone of our modern lives, driving economic growth and ensuring seamless communication

across the state. With Texas households averaging 21 connected devices, the demand for data centers continues to grow. In today's rapidly advancing technological landscape and with the state's booming economy, businesses are expected to generate twice as much data in the near future, making data centers a vital investment for the future of Texas prosperity. To learn more, visit centerofyourdigitalworld.org.

And we're back. Mary Lee, we're coming back to you. Legislation cracking down on chemical abortion pills has passed one chamber. Give us the details. Yes, so we've got two pieces of legislation here, companion bills and so it's Senate Bill 2880 by Senator Brian Hughes and then Representative Jeff Leach's House Bill 5510, which is interesting because we were just talking about both of them. But this is legislation that's cracking down on chemical abortion pill distributors and providers. And it also expands Texas residents ability to utilize civil lawsuits in these cases

of chemical abortion pills. One really interesting aspect of this legislation is that it would allow the parents of a preborn child aborted through chemical abortion pills to sue under wrongful death claims. So you could sue the provider of the chemical abortion pills but also the parent who took the pills. Or if someone, if let's say if one spouse slipped the chemical abortion pills into the other's drink this would make it so that the woman would be able to sue the other person that did this. And I think that's

notable because there was a case in Texas. I wrote about this. Yeah, did you? Yeah. I was literally just looking it up because I was trying to remind myself. Yeah, it's Texas man drops lawsuit against three women alleged to provide his ex-wife with abortion inducing drugs. Oh, this is, I'm referencing a different one. Oh, go ahead then, I'm sorry. But I want to hear about this one too. But this one was where a woman accused her husband that he had been allegedly slipping

chemical abortion pills into her drinks, which she realized eventually. And he did serve a bit of time in jail. I actually met her in Washington, D.C. at one point because she was protesting outside the Supreme Court, but she didn't want to abort this child. That's a key thing there. And he had allegedly put these pills into her drink. And then her child that's born now is severely disabled as a result of those pills, but did not die.

My gosh. Yeah, so this is, it's just interesting because it brings in the civil liability aspect of chemical abortion pills. And do you wanna share that story real quick? Yeah, this is a story I wrote about in October, 2024. This is regarding Marcus Silva. He alleged that three women were involved in the procurement of the abortion pills for his ex-wife, who is not a party in this case, but he actually filed to dismiss this case. And just from the original filing,

he alleged that the three women, quote, conspired with each other to murder baby Silva with abortion pills, and each of them is liable for the resulting death. Yeah, if people are interested, this was a fascinating case that I dug into last year. So, yeah, so very much related to what you're talking about with this legislation. Yeah, for sure. And the ability of Texas residents to be able to sue providers, distributors, folks taking the pills. So something we highlighted in this piece was that Senate Bill 2880 was heard in committee and voted out successfully and it passed the Senate floor, but House Bill 5510, its companion, was heard in committee but it has been left pending and it's been a little bit over was heard in committee but it has been left pending and it's been a little bit over two weeks now and something I mentioned in the piece is so this is in

House State Affairs Committee which is chaired by Representative Ken King and and it's been sitting there pending committee hasn't been given a vote yet and there was a situation on the floor, maybe a week ago where Representative Tony Tinderholt kind of accused King of killing bills, all unrelated to abortion, the ones that he was mentioning, but he accused him of killing bills that are just left essentially rotting in committee. That's what Tinderholt was saying. And so this is- You may say it's rotting, but he might say it's marinating. Get ready.

That's a good point. You got to provide both sides of both opinions. That was actually really good. It's obviously funny. I feel like it's disproportionately funny because I'm tired. We all are. Yeah. Everything's a little bit more humorous.

So yes, this is how state affairs committee and, um, so Senate bill 20, 80 successfully passed the Senate and house bill 55, 10 is still. Marinating or rotting, however you want to describe it, in House State Affairs Committee. And yeah, this is just a huge bill because our current law doesn't really address chemical abortion pills, and it's something that a lot of pro-life advocates have been arguing that this is a huge gap in our, and what they'd like to see our pro-life legislation look like. So. Yeah, just, I was just going to say another example of how legislation has to catch up with the innovation of technology. Like the abortion post wasn't something that

people really thought about with the abortion issue when it was first introduced, but now true with the ability to do it chemically in the way it's done through. And it can be sent through the mail. I wasn't gonna talk about this piece. I was going to throw in something that was just pointed out to me about our previous segment on the blocker bill stuff. HB 32, which is the ENT squatter's bill, is on page 16. So that's a good candidate. or after the Luther bill before. I think that's before. Cause Luther's 17.

Luther is. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So interesting. Why is that a good candidate for, because Democrats don't like it. Um, they think it's, uh, at least the more progressive ones especially think that it's unfair and you know, just bad legislation. So that's in a range that they could actually keep from

coming up and like they're not going to block anything on the first five pages, right? So I still think that that page 16 is still so far through the calendar I wonder if they'll even get close to that they'd have to make progress like they did yesterday Yeah, which might be hard on a day like today when it actually is deadline, right? But TBD, I have a crazy squatter story. Maybe I'll save that for well I was just gonna mention it seemed like it was a year and a half ago That there was all these stories coming out about squatters across the country. Yeah.

Remember that? Oh yeah. Sort of has died out since then, but it was a huge issue not too long ago. Absolutely. News everywhere. Yeah. But Mary-Li's, thank you so much. Of course.

Appreciate it. Cameron, we're coming to you. Let's talk about medical cannabis program. Okay. That we need to talk about. I think we do. Okay. Well, do you want me to just go? You know, I want you to just go. Okay. That we need to talk about. I think we do. Okay. Well, yeah. Do you want me to just go? You know, I want you to just go. Okay. Okay. House Bill 46, authorized kinky. As you just mentioned on the last segment. Oh yeah.

This is in regard to the Texas Compassionate Use Program. And for those unfamiliar, this was enacted in 2015, allows physicians to prescribe low dose THC for patients with specific medical conditions such as incurable neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and post-traumatic stress disorder. What House Bill 46 is attempting to do is expand to new qualifying medical conditions and also expand the availability through more of these sort of satellite satellite locations where people can pick up these subscriptions essentially. And I won't go too far into it because there's lots of details here, but it did end up passing

118 to 16. And just to mention that there was a conversation during the debate on the floor if this has to do with the hemp ban, the banning THC in Texas, and it does not. Um, that is a Senate bill three, and that remains a huge bill that we're, uh, everyone's still kind of waiting to see what happens with that as it is a, such a low bill number, such a high priority for the Lieutenant Governor. So, um, this is a separate issue from the THC ban. Which is important to note.

And that was one of the first questions that the lieutenant governor was asked after he unveiled the THC ban priority was, Hey, how will this affect the combustion use program? He's been very adamant to say it doesn't interesting to watch this legislation move through the process in the house. Cameron, thank you. Mary Lee's coming to you. Legislation dealing with potential carbon taxes in Texas was rejected in the house.

Tell us about this debate. It went for many days. It did. Yes. So this is house joint resolution 138 by representative Daniel Alders. And although it ultimately did fail on the Texas house floor, it caused a lot of interesting conversation on the house floor. And it was postponed multiple times, likely in part due to certain members' absences, whose votes would have been valuable when it was voted on.

And so it was... It meant it was valuable, but... Absolutely necessary. Yeah. So it did ultimately fail, but it caused a lot of conversation about climate change or lack thereof. And so this is the resolution essentially takes pre-emptive action anticipating a time when Republicans might not have a majority in the legislature and may seek to put a carbon tax, a tax on carbon emissions, greenhouse gases. And so this is there's not currently a carbon tax, a tax on carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, and so this

is, there's not currently a carbon tax right, but this would amend the Constitution so that there's not allowed to be a tax on carbon or greenhouse gases, and so it was first brought to the House on May 2nd and with four joint authors, two of whom were Democratic members. And it had 58 co-authors and seven of them were Democratic members. Yes, so kind of an interesting divide there. And then it was postponed and then it was heard again on May 5th and it passed its second reading with 92 votes in favor and 49 against, but it needed to meet the 100 vote line to pass on second reading with 92 votes in favor and 49 against, but it needed to meet the

hundred vote line to pass on second reading, which it didn't do. So then it was postponed, postponed again, and then on third reading it ultimately did not reach where it needed to be. It got 93 A's and 47 N's. So yeah. Close but no cigar. Yeah. And this is just something Alder said on the

floor when he was talking about it. He said, the truth is free markets and competition are the best way to incentivize companies to produce more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly manner and addressing those concerns that a carbon tax would be able to protect the environment. That's what the Democratic members were arguing. They're saying we need to protect our environment and decent device companies who are emitting carbon greenhouse gases. He also referenced California a couple of times talking about their carbon tax and different places in Europe where he said it's been ultimately a failure in his opinion. So that it failed, but it definitely was an interesting conversation to

have on the house floor to see the different, a really strong opinions about climate change and then very, very different opinions about what's going on with our environment from Republican members. Absolutely. And the two Democrats who were joint authors were Eddie Morales and Josie Garcia. Yes. Interesting names. Yeah.

Okay. Mary Elise, thank you for your coverage. That was a piece we had in the docket for a long time. And finally it was like, okay, now we have a verdict. I know I was sad. It was like I had written it last week and it never got published, but finally we got to it. On the board.

Thanks for your coverage. Cameron, coming to you. A large settlement with Google was announced by the Attorney General Ken Paxton. Give us these details. Yeah, this is sort of the culmination of years of different lawsuits. large settlement with Google was announced by the attorney general, Ken Paxton, give us these details. Yeah, this is sort of the culmination of years of different lawsuits, uh, really stemming from a 2022 accusation that Google had collected what attorney general Kim Paxton alleged is very sensitive information like biometric

identifiers, and now it's ultimately culminated in a $1.375 billion settlement. Worth noting here, there was a statement that was provided by Google where they say, quote, this settles a raft of old claims, many of which have already been resolved elsewhere concerning product policies we have long since changed. We are pleased to put them behind us and we will continue to build robust privacy controls into our services. And this is just a, another example of Kim Paxton, um, uh, going after some of these big tech firms and he has mentioned that in this announcement,

uh, that this was one of the largest settlements, um, ever. And he has mentioned that in this announcement, that this was one of the largest settlements ever with Google. So just an update there for people who have been following Texas's sort of assertive pushback against big tech. Big culmination here. Absolutely, Cameron, thank you. Mary-Lise, coming back to you, a bill preventing taxpayer funded gun buyback programs passed

the House. Talk about very interesting debate again. Tell us about this whole debacle. Yeah, for sure. So this was House Bill 3053 by Representative Wesley Verdel, and it was his first bill to pass the Texas House. So there was a lot of interesting conversation about the content of the bill

and then also some hazing going on, some friendly hazing and joking around that Verdel loves his gun bills, which he confirmed. Yes. What's so fun about the first bill is oftentimes, for folks who don't know, when a member, it's when it's their first bill and they're freshmen and it's being heard on the house floor,

some gentle and fun and friendly hazing happens where someone will go to the back mic, make some jokes, and we talk about their called collegiate football career. You know, you never know what it might be, but it's always fun, it's lighthearted. When the subject matter of that person's first bill is a little bit more controversial, they kind of have to divide it up a little bit,

and which is always interesting to watch. And of course, Second Amendment legislation is not always the most agreed upon in Republican and Democrat in the divide in the Texas House. For sure. Yeah. So this would prohibit essentially taxpayer money being used to host these gun buyback programs, prohibit counties or cities from hosting these programs where they'll offer money exchange for folks

to bring in their guns. Um, and it's kind of advertises a, an opportunity to potentially reduce crime, get firearms out of circulation, off of the streets. That's the goal anyways. Um, and Verdel was arguing when he was introducing this bill that he's looking at the numbers and he said he's not seeing a reduction in crime at all as a reduce of these gun buyback programs and yet he said they're spending millions of taxpayer dollars but appear to be rather ineffective. And there were different House

Democratic members that came up and they said, well, I mean, some tried to argue, okay, it is reducing crime, but some were arguing. Even if it's not reducing crime, it's still getting guns out of circulation firearms off of the streets, which they were arguing is a good thing. Uh, Verdel was just talking about the amount of money that's been spent. He said, is shocking. Um, one member that was particularly going at it with Verdel was just talking about the amount of money that's been spent. He said is shocking. Um, one member that was particularly going at it with Verdel was, uh, representative Jean Wu.

Um, and he was also kind of taking the argument of should the legislature be imposing this upon these local governments, um, who he said are taking actions that they feel is necessary to protect their city. He's kind of making a freedom argument there that these local government, local governments should be able to choose to host these programs. Then Verdel is saying well this is taxpayer funds so we need to we need to crack down on this. Verdel talked about a few different law enforcement individuals. He referenced Police Chief William McManus of San Antonio, who he said is not keen on gun buybacks.

And he's quoted as saying that the number of guns recovered in no way reduced violent crime. Also referenced San Antonio Police Department Deputy, who he said confirmed that weapons surrendered in the gun buyback program were not the types of guns that are usually used in street crimes. Representative Trey Martinez-Fisher went to the back mic and kind of offered what he described as a clarification, accurate representation of what this chief had said. He said the chief had acknowledged that these programs don't make sense to cut crime, but they do take guns out of circulation. So

Fisher, Martinez Fisher was arguing, okay let's clarify what he said here to an accurate representation. Yeah, it's not decreasing crime, but it is still taking them out of circulation. So a lot of conversation back and forth like that. In the piece you mentioned how the City of Houston has participated in and funded such programs. In fact, Harris County Commissioner had said in 2022 that Harris County set aside 1.1 million for a gun buyback program. So that gives you a little bit idea of an idea about the numbers involved here. There's more numbers in the piece so you can see

what this cost looks like, but that did pass the House and Representative Verdele's first bill. First bill, second amendment bill, surprise surprise. Marillys, thank you. Bradley, we're coming to you. It's been a hot minute, but we want to talk about a particularly weedy policy issue, insurance, why has this become a big issue this legislative session? Well, everyone's premiums are on the rise. I mean, I've seen it in my auto insurance premium jumping like 300 bucks when I got a new car. It's insane. And so everyone's feeling it.

I don't yet have home insurance, but I'm sure people that do are feeling that as well. So this is a massive problem. And the biggest problem here is that the biggest drivers of this price increase are factors we have zero control over. A stressed supply chain, increased certainty of payouts because of weather disasters, 20 of the 27 events last year that caused a billion dollar or more payout happened in Texas. You know, you had Hurricane Burrell, $4 billion in property damage, the Smokehouse Creek Fire exceeded a billion dollars in damage.

May 2024's Hailstorm caused $2.3 billion in damage. That's just a lot of money. And it's becoming increasingly hard for these insurance companies to make any billion in damage. That's just a lot of money and it's becoming increasingly hard for these insurance companies to make any money in Texas. And we've seen some of them pull out. We've seen progressive state that it's not going to issue any more new, I believe homeowners policies nationwide has reduced its commercial policy offerings. It's just really difficult and if you're a business in order to stay afloat you have to make some profit generally and unless you're really subsidized by the

government but you have to be able to stay in business. And so with costs drastically rising, insurance companies, their option generally is to increase premiums because that is where they get their money generally. There are some other areas of revenue flow, but that's the main part. And so as with anything, all the cost, increased cost gets uplifted to the ratepayers, whoever that is. In this case, it's people who are buying insurance policies. Excuse me. So automobile insurance rates jumped an average of 25.5% in 2023. Home insurance rates increased an average of 21% that year. That's from the Texas Department of Insurance.

The replacement cost of structures has increased by 455% from 1990 to 2023, and by 35% just since 2019. It's just a massive increase in costs. So state lawmakers are trying to figure out what the heck do we do about this when really we have no power or very little power to affect any of these macro level economic factors. And so we've seen a few different attempts. There's one, I've talked a lot about the tort reform stuff. that is a factor in this, these nuclear verdicts, because who pays these verdicts ultimately? It's the insurance companies.

Business takes out an insurance policy in case of some sort of lawsuit against them, and then they cash out for it or they sell, these nuclear verdicts are causing insurance companies to prefer to settle a lot more, and a lot earlier than they would otherwise, maybe choose to fight in court and ultimately win. And so that's just stacking costs on top of costs. There's a lot of debate over those tort reform proposals.

We'll see if any of them make it out. But that's not the biggest factor. The biggest factor is all that other stuff that I mentioned. And so both chambers have offered their own kind of roadmaps in this short five month window, which is now just a couple of weeks. And if you have the interest in it, and if you're willing to weed through the weeds,

it's an interesting debate, but it is very complex and very difficult to understand, even for someone who sits there and whose job it is to listen and understand it. I don't know how the lawmakers manage to make their way through this stuff, but they seem to be. They seem to be. Thank you, Bradley. Well, what about the House? Did you already go through

that? No, I didn't say the Senate. So I will discuss the Senate's plan now. There are a lot of bills dealing with this stuff, but there's a few top line ones. Two of the Senate ones that caught my eye were SB 1642, which would make the Texas Department of Insurance a three-person board appointed by, I believe, the governor. Right now there's only one person running TDI, and this would just expand that, expand the brain power that's in there making decisions. The attempt is to try and make TDI more responsive and focused on consumers rather than the insurance companies. So that's the strategy there. The bigger one though is SB 1643 that would

The bigger one though is SB 1643 that would create, it would require any insurance company who wants to change rates, either lowering it or raising it 10% or more insurance rates, they would have to get TDI approval. And currently that doesn't exist. Currently they can adjust it to whatever they want. Now they still have to submit reasoning and paperwork to TDI to justify whatever rate they're setting, but it goes into effect immediately. And so let's say Progressive submits a 15% rate increase. They submit that to TDI, and TDI has the ability to tell them,

no, that's excessive. You're over, it's not taxing, but overcharging people. They will eventually have to change that, move that down. But in the meantime, you have't have to get TDI approval before implementing the rate. But if you're above it under this bill, you would have to. So it's not exactly like what California has where they have to get approval for everything. And California is a hot mess in the insurance market.

Companies are pulling out like crazy, which, you know, supply and demand. If you have less supply and the same amount of demand, price is going to go up for the limited supply. And so that's why there you're seeing a ton of policy increases, policy charges. Same thing's happening in Texas right now, but it's not as pronounced because you don't have a centralized government telling it the industry what they can and can't do with such precision. This is an attempt to try and find a middle ground there. Hey, if you want to raise it 9%, you can

and implement it, but you're gonna go 10% or more, you're going to have to get approval. So that's kind of the Senate's plan so far. And that's up for a hearing in House insurance next week, I believe, which will be fascinating to see how the House receives this. But it's difficult. It's, I don't know how they're, other than taking a sledgehammer to this whole thing, I don't know how they're gonna make really any effect on it. But that's just me sitting outside watching. So there you go. So that's the Senate.

Well, do you want to talk about the House? Yeah, I'll mention the House. So Chairman Jay Dean, he put out a memo in March outlining six priorities of the committee, six buckets he calls it. If there's something, a bill that addresses insurance that doesn't fall in one of these buckets, then he's not going to consider it this session. Those are reduce the cost of insurance, cut regulations and mandates, eliminate waste and fraud, deliver insurance more effectively and efficiently, increase transparency, and protect insurance consumers. So one of the main bills they have come up with in the House, this is authored by Dean, a low bill member, lower bill member, HB 139. It would expand health benefit plan options for employers so that businesses who couldn't otherwise afford

to provide health insurance to their employees may do so. Basically trying to lower the cost of entry for a business to pay for their employees' health insurance, give them more options, more flexibility if they need it. Dean said, quote, "'We're trying to give businesses an opportunity to really offer health insurance to their employees.

And what do people do without insurance? Texas has more uninsured citizens than any state. And where are they going? The emergency room, which itself costs a lot more money, which is then uplifted to all the taxpayers. Right. So this is really just a question of where do we want the costs to go and how do we create the environment enough that it provides creates downward

pressure on costs. It's a lot easier said than done. As are most things that the legislature has tried to tackle. And especially in insurance. Especially in insurance. So there you go. Wrote a whole piece on it. If you want to read more about it.

I mentioned TWA in there, which itself is a whole freaking issue, but yeah, check out the piece. Check out the piece. Thank you, Bradley. Cameron, let's talk about Epic City. We're burying the lead a little bit here by making this story anchor everything that we're at the Superdoc on this podcast, but it continues to make headlines. And you know, this time a Texas U S senator announced an investigation on the federal

level. Give us a rundown. Well, yeah, it, this has become a national story. Um, epic city is this proposed Muslim centric residential community in Josephine. And like I said, it's gotten a lot of attention in recent weeks. We've seen a number of state led investigations, Governor Greg Gavin, Dan Patrick, Kim Paxson, all launching investigations into this epic city and Senator John Cornyn announced last week that Attorney General Pam Bondi will begin a DOJ investigation

into this community. So we're still waiting to see the fruition of what comes out from these investigations, but increased attention being paid here to this community in Texas. So we'll see what happens. Well done, Karen. Thank you. Let's move on to our Twitter-y section. You guys, Mary-Liz, I feel like we should start with you. Okay. Well, I just want to do a little bit of a self-serving plug here for my newsletter.

Atta girl. I cover the reconciliation bill that has Washington DC, all of us over right now. Big, beautiful bill. One big, beautiful bill, yeah. In Trump's words. But I kind of break down a few different topics that our Texas representatives have been involved in with this reconciliation bill.

And it's interesting because it covers a lot of very random topics like the farm bill. And then we've got decreasing funding for Ivy League. So I think it was interesting. Go check out the 40 on our website and subscribe to the Texan yet to get weekly access. Ted Cruz included a very interesting thing. Yes. The invest in America act.

Yeah. Well, it's essentially putting a thousand dollars into an account for new children born in the United States. Not something you think Ted Cruz would propose, but it's interesting the pivot on some of these. Pivot. it's interesting the the pivot on some of these some of these proposals we see from lawmakers especially when it comes to trying to increase the number of children born in yes in America it seems like they're much more willing to invest money into those sorts of campaigns. Yeah. Yeah. I'm curious to see.

I haven't, um, observed a whole lot of commentary on his idea yet, but I'm sure that there's going to be some, both backlash and support, but I'm sure he's going to get some backlash from maybe some, um, some of his conservative supporters that find issue with us. For sure. Bradley, who's the best friends character? That is what you were referencing when you yelled Pivot, right?

Of course. Probably Jerry. Really? Yeah, he's a good one. Do you guys watch Friends? Favorite character? Cameron's not. I don't really ever watch that.

Okay, got it. Well, I'm a Ross fan. I don't think he's my favorite because I feel like that would be, it's very unpopular. I think Ross is the best front's character, but I think he's not as annoying as everyone says. He's not as annoying as everyone says he is. And I think the moments he's really funny are some of the funniest in the whole show. Huh? Ross. Like Pivot. You just quoted Ross. Yes, I am aware. Okay. Just making sure. Thank you.

Making sure you know, making sure the audience knows, et cetera, et cetera. Cameron? Are you looking up which character's which? Yeah. It's a classic. It's a classic. Cameron, tell us what you got. Well, there was some movement and some updates on Senate Bill 17. Senate Bill 17 is the essentially

protect Texas land bill preventing hostile foreign nations from purchasing land in the state. Well the Texas Senate they refused to concur on the House amendments and they decided to appoint a conference committee. Really, it came down to an amendment that was adopted by the House. It's now being called the Shaheen Amendment. Because in some sense, it would allow visa holders to purchase Texas land. And there was an interesting back and forth

between Lois Colchors and Senator Menendez on this. Texas land and there was an interesting back and forth between lowest cold course and Senator Menendez on this and Menendez asked if the sheen amendment would be something that cold course would consider to keep and She Didn't really give a thumbs up to that. She said there's gonna be some conversations that are had It's not really what the bill was about Which is why they're sending this to a conference committee to work out all the

the kinks in this bill, but Just an update for people there send bill 17 Still a long way to go until it reaches governor Greg Abbott's desk Absolutely, and Cameron has the exchange on his Twitter. So go follow Cameron Abrams on Twitter. That's right. Cameron S Abrams. Cameron S Abrams. There you go.

Scott, correct? That's right. That's right. I like that. Bradley, we're gonna come to you. So I got a tip this week about a new pack that is going to be very interesting. Scoop. Scoop, as it were.

It's going to be very interesting to watch next year in the elections, probably the primaries. I mentioned the tort reform fight. As of now, at least $5.6 million having been spent on advertising for or against these bills. But this is going to spill over into the primary. $5.6 million having been spent on advertising for or against these bills But this is gonna spill over into the primary. We already have TLR, which is one of the biggest It is the biggest group in the state money money wise You know, I think they have like 35 million dollars cash on hand. It's just an insane amount of money and they've been a

Staple in Republican politics, especially for a long time they are the biggest force in the states maybe outside of Governor Abbott but that's even more just recent. TLR has been this heavy hitter for two three decades now so but things are. We're seeing more and more anti-TLR Republicans, the rise of the right-wing trial lawyer we've seen, and just for various reasons, politically and legally, TLR in the business community's previous stranglehold over the Republican Party is loosening. And it's happening, especially in this tort reform fight. The trial attorney firm Arnold and Inken, which is one of the biggest in the state, announced that they're creating this new PAC called Texas for Truth and Liberty PAC. They're going to play significant, a significant role in the primaries

next year, especially. And I'm told they're going to have many millions of dollars at play in this. And what this will do is it'll provide a counterbalance to TLR where TLR has been just the biggest force of money in these races, there's now competition from the other side. We saw that happen with, I put this in my newsletter this week, we saw it happen a little bit with Alex Farrelly switching sides in the speakers race to pro boroughs that in his 20 million dollar pack, Alex Farrelly being the Amarillo billionaire, his daughter is a state rep.

A freshman. Yep. They are, that provided a counterbalance in these primaries to the Tim Dunne political machine. So that gave members cover to then go switch to boroughs. And they're going to play a big, probably going to play a big role in the primaries next year in that fight. It's a donor fight as much as it is a philosophical fight, as much as it is a personal tribal fight between politicians.

That same dynamic is at play here in this. And we've seen a lot of these ads try and shift messaging in a way that is more friendlier to Republicans. Trial lawyers are typically historically Democratic and Democratic friendly, and that's what they they the world they understand better Well, it's changing and they're increasingly trying to appeal to Republicans because Republicans are more gettable you take things like being able to sue a doctor for

Botching gender modification procedures on someone right or doing it in the first place That's the kind of messaging that's being used here. Um, you know, we see a lot of talk about semi truck drivers who can't speak English, who cause a big accident, cause a wreck and kill people. Um, it's just a shift politically in this. And because they, they now see, first of all, that they need Republicans in order to prevent these things from passing. Uh, but they also see an opportunity to get a constituency where they

didn't otherwise have one. And so this Texas for truth and Liberty PAC, something I'm going to be watching a lot and it will make next year's primaries variant, very fascinating to watch. Toe to toe in spending. I just love the names though for the packs. Yeah, it's all. It's like how altruistic can you make your pack name? Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, there's probably a joke in there somewhere about Texans fighting for all the good things that you could possibly imagine in a long, long time. Truth, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Yeah, well we've seen, you know, take the Dunpac go from Defend Texas Liberty to now Texans United for a conservative majority. It's like two names that mean absolutely nothing, but it just sounds good. But they're PAC names. That's how this game is played, right?

And so, you know, an innocent bystander watching their TV during primary season will be like, oh, well, this pack seems really good, like paid for by Texans for world peace. It's like, okay, I'm for world peace too. Yeah. The TLR pack that was made last year during the primaries was secure our border pack. So like, these names mean nothing. It's very true. We should quickly talk about before we wrap up here, uh, the primary that Brad is currently engaged in. Um,

cause obviously Brad's an elected official, he holds public office. And so therefore is deserving of a primary as our process dictates, you know, some healthy competition, Never a bad thing. So Brad, do you want to give a statement on the primary that you're currently engaged in? Well, I would like people to figure out if I'm running for HD 151 or 152 or Texas governor. I can't keep it straight. And yeah, I mean, I will say

there's a couple of challengers that popped up to whatever it is I'm running for. All of them might be running in different races though. That's what's interesting about this. Right. But I have gotten a ton of endorsements on the floor of the house from members across the political spectrum. Did you get them on the record?

Yeah, these are the endorsements. Yeah. Did you get them on the record? Yeah, these are Endorsements. Yeah It's I don't know. We'll see when push comes to shove if they put their name on a list, but they put their name It's I can tell you anecdotally Many probably have about 30 endorsements from house members Bradley, yeah, that's a fifth of the house without really soliciting. I will say, okay, explain what we're even talking about here. So every once in a while someone will tweet something out, just news and someone will reply that I need to get primaried.

And it happened recently. I tweeted out, there was a primary challenger to Brian Harrison that announced and someone replied and said, Brian Harrison Harrison we need to primary Brad Johnson And so I quote tweeted that being a snarky sob and I tend to be as I did it's fun. I enjoy it and You got to find the joy in life where you can right and So I put that out and then the internet just ran with it So I put that out and then the internet just ran with it. Like you of all people saying you need to find the joy in life where you can is so unbelievable.

Keep going. You can tell the sarcastic inflection of my voice there. Yeah, keep going, keep going. So people just started running with it. And the thing I think that threw gasoline on the fire was Greg Cox, a lobbyist up in Dallas. He's Kelly Hancock's son-in-law. He put out this hilarious press release announcing his run against me.

And- Beautifully written. And yes. Touched on so many wonderful points. Yes. Yeah. It was very layered in jokes. And that just sparked it even more.

It was last Friday. It was a week from when this podcast will be released. Yep. And it's taken a life of its own and I can't, Mary-Lisa's with me most of the time in the Capitol, I can't go like 20 steps without someone mentioning it to me in the Capitol. It's ridiculous. Representatives, lobbyists, random people just walking around. Random staffers, yeah. So this has become quite a thing and that's fun. People, people need some levity, especially right now in session. And this has provided it.

I have a friend in specific who works for one of the elected officials who put out a statement in support of Brad, which is also hilarious. You have elected officials on Twitter saying, I endorse Brad Johnson in his primary. But one of them was like, I'm trying to get him to do so many other things right now, and I'm asked for so many different things, and what he's choosing to do with his time is endorse Brad Johnson on Twitter. And there are a lot of elected officials who've come out and done so, and it's very ridiculous. On that note though, I will say folks who want to ensure that, you know, as this fake primary, because it is a fake primary, if this is not clear, I am not running for office,

not running for office, would he be allowed to work here if that were the case? I would sooner sooner crawl through 30 miles of glass. That's also true. But being that this is a fake primary, we do want to say that we have a, because it has taken on a life of its own on social media and at the Texas Capitol, we are offering a 25% discount off annual subscriptions. It ends today as this podcast goes out. Uh, so check your email, check social media. We have the, we have links to, uh, subscribe for very hefty discount right

now, um, code bride pack will be applied. So check it out. But you have to go to the post on social media, it's a specific link that will give you that discount. Check it out. Okay. No better time to subscribe than now. So you can have coverage of my fake primary.

Yeah, none of that is on the website. But we. No, but that's my pitch. We can provide it, certainly, if that is something that folks want. Okay, y'all ready for today? Absolutely. Did we talk SB17 already?

Lackluster. Am I not paying attention? Yes. Okay. You mentioned the, who was on the conference committee? I didn't mention the names, but. It was Cole Corst, which is not surprising. She's the chair.

Bob Hall, Mays Middleton Corst, which is not surprising. She's the chair. Bob Hall, Mays Middleton. I think Brandon Creighton. Hinajosa. And then Chewie Hinajosa. Chewie Hinajosa. One Democrat, so. Yeah, there you go.

Thank you for adding that, like 10 minutes after we talked about it. Hey, you didn't mention it, so should be mentioned. Also, I do, but I do have to give you a bad time. If you give me a bad time for messing up one question on the podcast, then I can be there missing an entire segment. I literally wrote it out for you.

Yeah, I scrolled just like two lines too far. That's all it took. It's all it took. Yeah, it certainly wasn't that you weren't paying attention. No, it literally is two lines. I also wasn't paying attention. Okay folks, on that note, thank you so much for tuning in to the weekly roundup.

We appreciate you doing so each and every week and we'll catch you next week. Thank you to everyone for listening. If you enjoy our show, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you want more of our stories, subscribe to The Texan at TheTexan.News. Follow us on social media for the latest in Texas politics and send any questions for our team to our mailbag by DMing us on Twitter or shooting us an email to editor at thetexan.news. Tune in next week for another episode of our weekly roundup. God bless you and God bless Texas.