The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - May 28, 2021

Episode Date: May 28, 2021

This week on The Texan’s “Weekly Roundup,” the team discusses the final week of the legislative session, priority bills that died like taxpayer-funded lobbying and big tech censorship, talk of a June special session, the status of various gun bills, and an ERCOT update.

Hello, folks. On this episode of the Texan News Weekly Roundup podcast, we discuss the final week of the legislative session, priority bills that bid the dust like taxpayer-funded lobbying and big tech censorship, talk of a June special session, various firearm-related legislation, and ERCOT updates. Thank you all for tuning in and following our coverage of the 87th legislative session, and we hope you enjoy this episode. Hello, everybody. We are throwing you a curveball today. It is I, Brad Johnson, hosting today. There is a rumor circulating around that McKenzie has been abducted by one of those UFOs we keep hearing about. I can neither confirm nor deny that. Daniel's tragic.

We weren't supposed to bring that up. Oh, shoot. Now I'm going to be canned. We'll see. Well, like I said, we're changing it up a bit today, and we're talking the last week of the legislative session. I have Hayden Sparks, Daniel Friend, and Isaiah Mitchell here with me. It is a guys podcast. Let's get down to it. Hayden. Well, when we say guys podcast, Sarah's here orchestrating all the logistics here so we should i didn't mean to unperson sarah so uh my apologies but against

max better judgment she did leave the guys here with the recording equipment and the shenanigans will commence so um hayden you and i wrote a piece this week, you wrote most of it, about the House deadline preview. There were a couple different midnight deadlines that the legislature was dealing with and coming up on the back end were various important legislative pieces of important legislation. Why don't you tell us a bit about that. Well, one of the things that I have enjoyed about the legislative session is the mad dash between 1150 p.m. and 12 a.m. on many days during this session. And one of those days was last Tuesday because that was the last day for the House to pass Senate bills and joint resolutions. And there were a lot of hot button issues that were on the docket for that last Tuesday. You mean this most recent Tuesday? That's why in my article, I was like Tuesday, May 25th,

because I didn't want people reading and thinking it was a different Tuesday. So yes, it was Tuesday, May 25th. And that was when the transgender sports bill and spending limits and another bill about informed American patriotism were on the docket for consideration. And it was the last day for them to get to that. and especially the transgender sports bill was way down low it was and they kicked it even further down on the docket as the evening progressed they could have gotten to it sooner but they actually postponed it at a certain point to 11 30 p.m and they ended up never getting to it it was a it was a postponement to almost right up

to the deadline okay so there were on the desks of many state representatives the transgender flag and they were discussing a topic right up until midnight that had nothing to do with this issue but that was what was on everyone's mind because, I mean, you've been here longer than I have, you know, what chubbing is. They were trying to run out the clock until SB 29, which was the bill that would require public school athletes to compete based on their biological gender rather than their gender identity. But that,

that bill at 12 AM was no longer eligible to be considered. So, you mentioned that this is a deadline. And I know you dove into the rules and found the section on what regulates, what governs this deadline itself. Did you find anything interesting in there? Obviously, it's a self-imposed deadline. What did the rules say about that? Well, the rule is that the way it's staggered toward the end of the session is they have – then the House is more structured than the Senate, and Daniel can attest to this, that the Senate's a little bit more –

Yeah, I was just about to ask, like, covering the Senate this session, what are these rules that you keep talking about i think suspend the rules is a phrase that has burned into my psyche at this point but in the house they have various deadlines for when a bill can be voted out of committee when house bills and house joint resolutions can be considered and when items of legislation are just lost because they do not pass a certain point. But a few of the hot button items were addressed, such as the spending limits that you discussed in the article. And while that's important, it wasn't really opposed that much. You know, that was something I was watching and many, on second reading, it passed by, I believe, voice vote.

I don't remember any amendments being offered for it. It was kind of a generally unopposed thing. Which is interesting because I'm taking a look at the page right now, and it actually received 12 nays in committee against 14 ayes. So it was opposing committee, but you're right, it passed by voice vote on second reading. So it's interesting to see how things, you know, they may be controversial in the beginning

and then they reach consensus. But that's one item, you know. But by far the biggest one was the transgender sports bill. And we all knew going into it that Democrats were going to chub and waste time for specifically that bill. And they did succeed. And that kind of takes us to the next topic here. Isaiah, this is something you covered. Obviously, it's one of your beats. And you pumped out a piece at midnight or just after on this topic. What happened with the bill? Obviously, we know it died.

Tell us more about what it would have done and its fate. Yeah, so Hayden, you described it accurately. Senate Bill 29 would have mandated that public school athletes compete with members of their own sex. It was meant primarily to protect women's sports, meaning that it kept in place some obvious exceptions to this rule. For example, we had a girl kicker on my football team in high school, so girls can play football under UIL rules. That wouldn't change.

By the time it got to the House calendar, it was a little bit diluted. If passed, it would have been sunsetted, meaning it would expire unless the legislature decided to renew it in six years. And it also lost an original line that sex would be defined by an original accurate birth certificate. So this bill actually underwent an interesting resurrection. If you remember with Dutton. Yeah. So Harold Dutton Jr.

is the chair of the house public education committee. A Democrat. Yeah. A Democrat. That's, that's notable. And the first time that this bill came through committee, it, it fit, it needed one more vote to get out, and it lost it.

One of the Republicans was absent, and he assumed they would have voted for it. And Dutton voted neutral. He brought it up again a second time after his fellow Democrats, some of whom were also on this committee like Alma Allen, killed one of his education-related bills like the night before, hours before. And so he said as a consequence, he not only brought up this bill but voted for it. And so it passed out of a committee with a pretty good margin. And so that earned him a lot of flack from some fellow Democrats. But he actually made the motion to postpone it on, on Tuesday night, which is ultimately what killed it. Gotcha.

Gotcha. Um, and can I add something on that? Ironically, um, you know, when they got to that 12 AM deadline on Tuesday, Dutton was actually the one who approached the back mic and raised the point of order that they needed to end deliberations on all bills because the deadline had been reached. So when he did that, I kind of looked down into the, you know, I was sitting up in the gallery, I kind of looked down and, you know, that was puzzling because he was the one who brought this transgender sports bill back. And then he jumped back in. And I don't know

if it was if it, you know, meant anything, but he was the one who actually, you know, threw down the flag and said, we have to stop because we're at 12 a.m. So that was kind of interesting that he came back into into the picture to to end this bill. And I mean, it was clear, like I mentioned before, it was clear this was the main target of Democrats for the process of chubbing. And and that didn't stick out to you while this was the whole day was going on. Any of their tactics stick out in particular? Well, you know, it should be noted, chubbers are going to chub, right? I mean, everybody does it. Yeah. And this bill could have been placed on the calendar earlier, which is something that should be noted, right? Like

it didn't have to be put on the calendar for the last day. And so that's something that should be noted right like it didn't have to be put on the calendar for the last day and um so that's something that should be noted um it was interesting hayden like you mentioned earlier the kind of nod and wink atmosphere of the chubbing especially as we neared midnight more and more i don't remember what exactly what bill we were on by the time midnight rolled around um it didn't have anything to do with transgender student athletes. I can tell you that. But Gina Hinojosa, Chris Turner, and some other Democrats were gathered at the front mic kind of waving transgender flags, you know, the salmon and the powder blue flags

and, you know, kind of smiling, right? And so it was pretty clear but not overt that um this stalling was taking place and the uh the house lgbt caucus kind of spiked the football there's a picture of them celebrating uh you know their victory they had killing the bill um we'll see if that uh comes back to haunt them with you know special session talk which daniel and i will get to in a little bit um who knows if that gets added right but uh's dead right now, but who knows where it goes from here. Last thing on this topic, this wasn't the only transgender sex-related bill that was here this session that got killed, basically.

What was the other one? So we've mentioned before that there were, I guess I should say, a number of proposals to ban puberty blockers and sex-altering surgeries for children in the legislature. The only House bill that would have done this, that made it out of its House committee, also died before getting a vote by the midnight deadline two weeks ago. And that was House Bill 1399 by Matt Krause. Then the following week, which was last week, the House also failed to get the Senate versions of those same proposals out of committee. Gotcha. Okay. You know, another bill that died the same night

that the transgender sports bill did was something I've been following quite a bit, taxpayer-funded lobbying ban. It was actually the subject of quite a fight behind the scenes that nobody really saw unless you had some intel. But eventually, the prospective ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying, it was postponed over and over again, and then finally postponed until September. So killing it this session. Now, that was among the GOP priorities. And so that's a big deal for Republicans, especially given that it was a Republican that postponed it. Not only did that, but it was

Representative Chris Patty, but he watered the bill down significantly in committee from compared to what the Senate had had passed. And we covered that last week and touched on that quite a bit. But on the floor, there was this jockeying going on between Patty and Representative Mace Middleton, who is the I would say the most consistent and fervent voice in favor of banning taxpayer funded lobbying in the House. I mean, this has been his big issue basically from the moment he got to the legislature. And they were in negotiations on trying to push the lever one way or the other towards them. And of Mays Middleton, he prefiled four amendments, two of which would have basically reinstated his other bill, which is just an across-the-board ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying. Then another strategy of the amendments was to reinstate just the version that the senate had passed now um the reason it was notable on

the floor that day is because the the way the committee sub was structured it was vulnerable to points of order and um you know actually it was vulnerable to to various ones a couple of different uh both germaneness and uh two uh subject uh requirements so um there's this, like I said, jockeying back and forth. And eventually, Patty, he put the final nail in the coffin this session by postponing it. He said on the floor, he told the Dallas Morning News that Middleton needs to decide whether he wants perfect to be the enemy of the good or whether he wants to be reasonable. Now, that was earlier in the day. I think it was early afternoon. So he was taking his pulpit to the public and trying to pressure Middleton to give a little bit on what he wants.

And Middleton responded in kind. Obviously, nothing happened. But once the bill died, Middleton was clearly upset. I mean, obviously, this is his key issue. And he told me right after it happened that, uh, Chris Patty made a mockery of what even his own Republican primary voters want and treats conservative priorities with disdain. Tonight, he chose to protect Austin lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers. And so, um, like I said, taxpayer funding lobbying is dead this session. We'll see where it goes.

It may get placed on a special session to-do list, but we'll see. Regardless, once again, it has failed to pass muster in the legislature for the at least second consecutive session. Daniel, coming to you on the next one, the third big bill that perished on Tuesday night was the big tech censorship bill. Do you want to tell us a little bit about that? Yes. We had said big tech earlier. It would apply to big tech. It would really apply specifically to social media companies as the sector of big tech that it really hones in on. And so the aim of SB12, this social media censorship bill, is basically just to curb social media censorship by allowing individuals to sue social media companies that censor them or deplat for them based solely on the individual's viewpoint, whether that be their political opinions or religious

views, that kind of issue. If they're censored by a social media company, it would allow them to sue it. Now, there was recently a law signed into law by the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, that was kind of similar in that it allows individuals to sue social media companies for censoring. Uh, the difference between the Florida bill, or I suppose the big difference between the Florida bill and the Texas bill is that the Florida bill would have gone a lot further in, or it does go a lot further in allowing individuals to sue, not just to get back on the platform or for attorney's fees, but also for any monetary damages. Whereas the bill that was authored by Senator Brian Hughes

in Texas would have just allowed individuals to sue, basically to just get back onto the platform to have their viewpoint shared the reason why texas took this route and not the the florida route and when it was not as aggressive is because they were trying to work around a federal law which kind of shields social media companies and you know other internet platforms with uh some liability. And so by just allowing them this limited lawsuit, they were hoping that that would be more effective than something that I'm sure will get caught up in courts in Florida with the bill that they passed.

And the Florida bill did go further and had other provisions related to if a social media company takes down a they use to get their message out specifically you know the uneven treatment between uh conservatives quote violating terms and conditions and and those on the left violating terms and conditions um you know a big example would be uh is it the ayatollah that is still on twitter and uh you know he's saying lots of horrible things i think some of the selective enforcement is what the issue is unless the you know people don't have a problem with terms and conditions i think it's the selective enforcement that people have a problem with yeah and underlying even that is this debate about whether the um whether these big tech companies,

Twitter, Facebook, count as still platforms or if they're now publishers because they are moderating content. There's a very large technical debate going on over that. But the more understandable version of it is, are these companies acting honestly? Are they honest brokers? And, you know, that's the basis for these types of both the Florida and the Texas pieces of legislation. You know, Daniel, tell us more about how the legislation died,

Texas has died, you know, this week. Yeah. So, uh, obviously some Democrats definitely opposed this. They were trying to, to kill with points of order and it was eventually delayed. Um, it had been placed on the calendar for Monday and was brought to the floor then, but,

uh, it was challenged with a point of order and delayed. Um, so you could, and many people are just placing the blame on Democrats for pushing it late, uh, with the other priority bills, like the SB 29 that we just talked about. But the other thing to remember is this bill was sitting in the Senate passed this on April 1st or 2nd.

So a long time ago, it was sitting over in the House in the House committee for over a, with just absolutely no action on it. Um, now it only moved forward, um, just last week or a couple of weeks ago, um, after the Texans for lawsuit reform clarified their position on it, uh, because apparently there were some rumors going around that, uh, this organization, which is, you know, their PAC gives a lot of money to candidates. A lot of money. A lot of money. And so there was some rumors, I guess, circulating that they were in opposition to this bill because the organization is like trying to stop frivolous lawsuits. Yeah.

And so people see this and like, oh, is this just going to open up frivolous lawsuits? Are they going to oppose this? And so they came out with a position saying that they do not, that they're not opposed to it. And the chairman of the board for that organization also said that, you know, personally, many people on the board, including himself, and I believe the president were in actually support of the the legislation so after they sent that letter and clarified their position on it uh then the legislation started going through a lot faster was approved in a formal meeting which was interesting a few days later

um and then finally brought to the floor but by that time it was too late. And then with SB 29 and all the chubbing that went on, it died. Yeah. And I think it became increasingly clear as the day went on that the margin was shrinking for the big tech censorship Bill had. And like I said earlier, it became clear very early that we weren't going to get to SB 29, and we didn't. So this kind of leads. So, um, you know, this kind of leads us into, well, a declaration that was made the very next morning after these bills died. Um,

you know, Dan Patrick came out Lieutenant governor and wants a special session, not just a special session to address these, these issues, but wants it immediately. He wants it next month. And, um, Daniel, you covered that. Tell us a little bit about what Dan Patrick said. So the three bills that we just talked about, the died SB 29, SB 10, and SB 12, you'll notice that those all have low numbers. The SB, all the SBs under Bill 31 are priorities of Lieutenant Governor. And so it wasn't just like any senate bill any you know big uh more monumental senate bill that died it was his senate bills that died and so he was very mad about this and uh you know there has been this feud between the house and the senate that we've kind of seen

play out this session certainly no kumb uh, singing around the campfire, but, um, so in his frustration, he released a statement, uh, and said, uh, he was calling on the governor to call for a special session in June, uh, which is next month, believe it or not. I don't, is that the month that comes after may i wasn't i mean that's what i've heard um i guess in other countries that speak different languages maybe it's called something different so obviously you know special session denotes that it's not a regular thing how does it how's it work so the regular session uh by the texas, the legislature only meets 140 days every other year. So, you know, this is the short window of time that lawmakers have to pass legislation.

Between now and 2023, January to May of that year, the legislature has no capability of calling themselves back together they can only come back into a session at the request of the governor and we saw that become a big issue this last year with disaster related yes yes which is interestingly something that the legislature might not even touch uh there's there's a possibility that they still could. There's a bill in the conference committee, but that's a side note. You said request. Is it a request? I'm pretty sure they're actually required, aren't they?

They can't call them into a special assessment and then they're just like, nah, we don't want to. I think you're right. They can come in and not do anything. Or pass bills that the governor really hates, which is not outside the realm of possibilities. I don't think they can introduce anything beyond what the governor. Yeah, but they could pass.

They can't. He can't, you know, or like take out. He can't order up exactly what he wants them to do. They could adopt something within the parameters of the agenda that he hates. Yes. So like you were saying, the governor sets the agenda. He says, these are the issues that I want the legislature to address this session. And the legislature has pretty broad discretion on what kind of legislation they fit into those boxes that the governor sets. So it's kind of closed. It's not just, you know, they can't come in and say that they want to ban gender reassignment surgeries.

If that's not what where you know if he says health care reform then maybe that would fit um so yeah okay and what was the real quick what was the governor's response he did come out with a statement um yes so the governor came out with a statement uh basically saying that hold your horses it wasn't a direct response to the lieutenant governor but it was pretty clear that's who he was kind of addressing and he basically was just saying hold your horses like we can still pass some great conservative priorities this session yeah it's not over even though it basically is yeah um and you know we saw various legislators in the house come out in favor of the special session the entire texas freedom caucus did um that kind of group of four even more conservative legislators did you know

tinderholt biederman slayton case and all did um senator bob hall has senator bob hall which is interesting like i emailed all the republican senators and senator hall was the only one that actually got back and said that he he supported it yeah um you know others uh representative james white uh jeff leach both got back to us and said they were supportive of it scott sanford so um momentum seems to be building for it now. You know, who knows if it'll just get put in the fall session that is already going to happen for redistricting and allocation of the ARPA funding, the federal coronavirus funding. So we'll see what happens. Daniel, coming back to you to finish the trifecta.

Your big story, basically, that you covered this session is constitutional carry. What's the update on that? Yeah. So one of the interesting things about this constitutional carry has been the big story I've been following. It's also been one that our readers going to get to after this is actually trending above constitutional carry for some reason which is kind of peeves me but it's all guns it's guns all the way down it's all about guns so you know this bill constitutional carry some people call it permanent carry Basically what it does is currently under Texas law, there is a requirement. If you want to carry a handgun in

public, you are required to obtain a license to carry an LTC, which you have to go through a class, a shooting proficiency test. You have to get a background check. You have to have your fingerprints sent into the department of public safety. You have to pay a $40 application fee on top of the fee for the class and the fingerprints. So it's kind of a hurdle to get through. You have to do paperwork. It can take up to a couple months for this to go through. And last year when they were swamped with background checks, I imagine for some people it took even longer. And so what the constitutional carry bill does is eliminates that requirement for the LTC. It doesn't get rid of the LTC. You can still get one,

but you don't have to do it in order to carry a handgun in public. Mm-hmm. So you actually got to speak with the bill author, Representative Matt Schaefer, about what came out of conference committee. What were his thoughts? Did he elaborate on much? Yeah, so he said that he was happy that the House went ahead and moved to a conference committee. So what a conference committee does is when the two chambers pass completely different versions of their bill, or in this case, the Senate took the House version and they put

on about eight amendments to it. Then if the original chamber rejects those changes, they send it to a conference committee of five members from each chamber to go ahead and negotiate the differences. And they come out with a conference committee report. And then that is approved by both chambers again. And so this conference report, Schaefer said that he was happy that the House went ahead and did that because it did bring it a little bit closer to the House version. But if you look through the bill, you know, it is it's kind of a Senate white version. Most of the amendments that the Senate tacked on are in there in some form. However, there were a bunch of them that were kind of tweaked and and modified to kind of what's the most significant of those

amendments uh so there were a few different uh big ones one of the big ones uh was increasing the uh penalties uh for individuals who, uh, are, cannot possess, legally possess a firearm, but they carry it. Uh, it would increase the penalties for that in some ways. Another big one was,

uh, broadening the number of people who cannot, uh, be able to qualify for this constitutional carry, uh, to include some, uh, other,

you know, uh, domestic violence type things. And then the other one that was kind of big was a provision that was in the house version that is similar to current law in that if an individual goes into a place where a firearm is prohibited and they don't realize that this place is prohibited then they have to uh immediately leave if someone asks them to leave and they don't leave it bumps it up to a higher penalty if they if someone asks them to leave and they leave right away there's not the harsh consequences um and so the house version was going to carry

that over and in the senate they tacked on an amendment that democrats had actually wanted the house but republicans rejected and that was to basically strip that and so that if you go into a place where uh carrying a firearm is prohibited and you don't realize it, there's still going to be a penalty even if someone asks you to leave and you leave right away. The kind of compromise that I guess you could say the conference committee worked out was that in cases where there's not a clear sign at the entrance saying that you need to leave, then there's a defense to the prosecution there. So an instance where this would probably be most likely is under federal law, you're not supposed to carry a firearm where a school event is taking place. And so, you know,

even if a high school field trip is going on where you could otherwise normally carry a handgun, if there's a public school event happening at that place with minors there, then it's suddenly illegal to carry there. So in this case, if that place does not have a sign prohibiting firearms and you don't realize it and they ask you to leave, then there's defense prosecution there. So that bill is likely to be signed by the governor this week or the following. And he has said he's going to sign it. So there's no reason to believe he will not. I guess the exit question on this topic for you, Daniel, is how in God's name are you going to squeeze more constitutional carry articles out after this becomes law well uh you know I'm going to find a way just for Isaiah

specifically every time you see someone uh with a gun openly yeah make that a splash that headline you know Texan carries openly I could say a Texan might carry openly. I don't know. That would be all, well, I guess not children, but that would be all 20 plus million adults that are in Texas. Good work on that. If you are joining the listeners, if you want to see more of the in-depth coverage

on constitutional carry and what it means, go check out Daniel's articles. He will continue to produce those. Otherwise, he'll be sent to the salt mines. So Isaiah, coming to you on another gun topic. As I mentioned to you before we started this podcast, I know absolutely nothing about this suppressor stuff.

So walk me through it. Well, like you alluded to earlier, there's kind of an informal competition going on in my brain between me and Daniel. We've got this little column on our website for top trending articles, and Daniel is usually at or near the top with some, like his 20th article on constitutional carry and how it's traveling. And today, I'm at the top with a topic that Daniel gave me about guns. So it's not even my beat. It's like he's still winning. There's a bill that both chambers of the legislature have passed that would exempt Texas-made suppressors, silencers, you know, from federal regulation.

And there are two main parts to this bill. One of them would say that if you make a suppressor in Texas, then the government, the feds can't touch it, basically. The other part would say that local governments, and I mean, just about every kind of way. So that's a that's kind of an interstate commerce thing there. Exactly. Okay, right. You know, for those constitutional nerds out there. And so the other part would say that local governments cannot enforce federal suppressor regulation that conflicts with Texas law. Okay, gotcha. Right now, what's the process like to get a suppressor? So the relevant federal law is the National Firearms Act of 1934. And an interesting bit of history is that according to the ATF, the passage of this law was

motivated at least in part by these gangland crimes like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, you know, with Dillinger and Capone and the boys back then. So under this law, suppressors must be approved and registered at the ATF. And suppressor buyers must also pay a $200 transfer fee to the ATF and provide their fingerprints and their photograph. The only way you can get around the fingerprints and photograph requirement is if you form a trust to register, something called an NFA trust. But doing that also costs hundreds of dollars more and there's more bureaucracy to wade through. So Tom Olofsen, the Republican representative who's carrying this

bill, presented his bill not only as a way to get around this kind of regulation, but also for health reasons. Oliverson is a medical professional. I think he's an anesthesiologist. And he's mentioned CDC guidance in his introduction to this bill. He's an actual doctor. Right, yeah. And his reasoning is that unless you're wearing hearing protection, the regular report of a firearm can be pretty damaging to your hearing. And people have good reasons to not wear earmuffs or plugs when they're shooting.

For example, if you're hunting, if you're in a group, you want to be able to communicate clearly with others without having to yell necessarily. And so it's advantageous to not wear hearing. I never wear earmuffs or plugs or anything when I'm hunting. That's probably not the best decision. But so his reasoning is that with letting suppressors be sold more freely and widely, that'll have health benefits for years. Gotcha. Can you confirm or deny that suppressors, like in the James Bond movies, make the firing of the gun just silent? You know, they basically 100% do.

Oh, wow. They turn that loud gunfire into basically a punchy, quiet little fart sound out of the barrel of a gun. No, I mean, Oliverson was very vehement about emphasizing that suppressors, that silencers don't exist. It's kind of this Hollywood-ized version of the gun. They don't actually silence it. I've got my own qualms about that because I think when you say silencer, people know what you mean. Why act confused? What's a silencer? Those aren't real.

I know what you're trying to say. Well, another gun-related story that you wrote was on hotel carry. Can you tell us quickly about what that bill does? Yes. So this is another complicated bill for constitutional reasons as well. This bill would require hotels to allow guests to take their guns into the hotels and store them in their rooms. That's it. Short and sweet.

Short and sweet. Okay. And it is also a priority bill. It's Senate Bill 20. So like Dana mentioned, that low number below 31 means that that is one of Patty's picks, is that what you call it? Yeah. One of Dan Patrick's priorities. So this is one of the themes that I've seen play out in this quite a bit is the property rights versus the Second Amendment, which comes first. This came into play during this topic, did it not?

Right. For example, during discussion in the House, State Rep. Raphael Anchia said that the bill would hamper private property rights, and he actually brought up the First Amendment. The Fifth Amendment came up in the Senate quite a bit, and kind of indirectly in the House, too. But Anchia noted that hotels don't let you play loud music in your rooms. Yeah. Right.

And they don't let you, like, sling around slurs and things like that. So we let hotels, in a sense, hamper the First Amendment. Why not the second? Right. That was in Chia's argument. And so in response, Cole Hefner, who was carrying the bill at the time, said that guests have an expectation that their rented rooms become their domain. That was the word he used during their time there. And that responsible go-to-new guests should be allowed to take their weapons in become their domain. That was the word he used during their time there. And that responsible go-no-no-ga should be allowed to take their weapons in from their cars.

It passed out of surprisingly high support. Excuse me. It passed out of the Senate with surprisingly high support. 27 to 4, actually, was the final vote. And Brian Birdwell, a fairly conservative Republican, voted against it. He was one of the four that did. And his reasoning was, in his words, this legislation seeks to emphasize Second Amendment rights to such a degree that they supersede property rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. It is my duty to protect all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights

equally and simultaneously. Gotcha, gotcha. And that kind of mirrors the, um, the debate over, uh, a much less sexy topic on, uh, easements that, uh, that we saw. Yeah. Yeah.

Um, it's just interesting to see these, uh, philosophy class type debates play out in real life where the stakes are, you know, actually significant. So, uh,

thanks for covering that Isaiah, Daniel coming to you to close out our firearms section of this podcast. Second amendment sanctuary state, where are we at? We are almost going to be dubbed a second amendment sanctuary in Texas. Um, now if you've been following step or something, yeah, exactly. Basically it's just like a remix of everything. Um, it's a remix of all the county resolutions that passed a couple years ago. If you were following the Texan news then, you probably saw my countlessRourke came out and said, hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15 away, everybody got up in their arms. Oh my gosh, don't chuckle.

Sorry. And so they started urging their local county commissioner's courts to pass these resolutions, these Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions, where the commissioner's court was basically pledging not to enforce any unconstitutional gun laws. And so at the beginning of the legislative session this year in January, Governor Abbott said that he wanted to see Texas as a state become a Second Amendment sanctuary as well and pass legislation along the same lines. The legislation that passed in Texas, it was approved by both chambers, HB 2622 by Representative Justin Holland and carried by Senator Bob Hall in the Senate, would do this by essentially prohibiting government enforcement from a few specific potential federal firearm regulations. Gotcha. So essentially, to put it plainly, this will be basically the entire state declaring it lost all of its firearms in a boating accident. Yeah. When it comes to federal inquiries anyway

yes for specific things you know if there is a uh i think there's four or five different items that would be covered under this it has to be a new regulation uh since january 19th of this year so under the biden administration or a future administration i, if it's still in law five years from now. So it would have to be a new regulation, and it would have to be a specific one like a gun confiscation scheme, a buyback program, universal background checks. In other words, requiring a background check to take place even if I let you borrow my gun to go to the shooting range. Yeah.

Gotcha. Okay. Exit question on this. Will the governor sign it? Will the governor sign it? Since he said that he wanted to see Texas become a Second Amendment sanctuary, and since he also has tweeted out support for this bill i'm a little bit hesitant to like make like a a certain this is what he's gonna do but yeah so you're you're saying you're not willing to bet the house on it yeah unlike he didn't just glare at me las vegas sands

um all right well thanks thanks for covering that it closes out our firearms section isaiah coming back to you. Everyone's favorite Christian quarterback had a piece of legislation named after him working his way through the legislature this session. Tell us about that. Yeah. People have called this the Tim Tebow bill, colloquially. The Texas Homeschool Coalition prefers to refer to it as the UIL Equal Access Bill. That's some good marketing right there.

Very punchy. Move away from the famous person and go to the incredibly technical term. Yeah, like 30 syllables in there. So this bill is meant to let homeschool students compete in public school, sports, and other UIL activities. And it works as an opt-in system, which means that districts, school boards, they have the chance to vote to allow homeschool students to play. And what the law is like now, this is kind of important to understand the splintered response to this bill's passage.

The way that the law works now is that it's kind of silent, but UIL rules say that districts can allow homeschool students to compete, but only if they're enrolled for at least four hours of instruction per day. So technically, after that point, they're no longer homeschool students. However, in a colloquial sense, their parents still consider them homeschooled. Like for most of the day, they're not there. And they're only going to these minimum number of classes that they can play football or do debate or what have you. So technically, homeschool students cannot play in public school sports, but in a sense they can. They just

technically stop being homeschool students. Gotcha. Okay. So there's been some pushback from various corners on this. Who has expressed concerns and what are they? Well, the most obvious opponents of this bill have been the pro-traditional public education crowd, teachers' unions, those kinds of advocacy groups. I've got some of their words here. But the general argument is that you've got homeschool students that wouldn't be in attendance at a school and therefore wouldn't be included in the school's formula for funding from the state.

But they're still getting the advantage of equipment and gym time and other things that cost money that the school is not being allotted for because the students not enrolled there. So the association of Texas professional educators called this a drain on public school finances and an unfair option for failing students, arguing that if a student's failing, they can just, you know, decide to effectively drop out and become homeschooled, but still play. And I don't remember their technical name, but the largest coaches association in Texas is also, this is like the one piece of legislation that they have a very strong opinion.

Very obscure association. Yeah. And they've been opposed to it. Okay. What about supporters? Yeah. So supporter, the Texas homeschool coalition has strongly supported it. And I, I want to say a majority of the homeschool crowd, but you can't safely say that without

like a poll or something, right? Which also comes with its own problems. Right, yeah. I know someone who does a lot of polls. Who? Of someone, the governor. Oh. He spent like $300,000 on them last year.

This has been a Daniel Finance joke. Yeah. About the governor. Thank you. But yeah, so the Texas Homeschool Coalition and other homeschool supporters have said that they've pointed out that homeschool families still pay taxes that go towards a school's funding. So they get funding from the state as well as from local taxes. And if you're a family that pays those taxes why shouldn't your kid also get to use these amenities this equipment or whatever and get to play and participate

and this line of reasoning interestingly enough saw support from you know texas freedom caucus members but also very liberal progressive members like uh representative gene wu who sits pretty firmly on on the Democratic Party's left wing. And, you know, he made the same argument, basically. Not exactly someone who wants to get rid of teachers unions. Right. You know, he's a big fan of teachers unions for the most part, I would assume, based on

some certain other votes. But he said, you know, in addition to some other arguments about how, you know, this might be a good way for these homeschool students to get their vaccinations and get some social interaction, on top of all that, he said, they're paying these taxes. Why shouldn't they get to play? Interestingly enough, there's a certain corner of the homeschool crowd that has opposed the bill, saying it opened the door to more regulation, comparing to other states like michigan that have a reputation for being very high regulation and um so not not quite a party line vote got this one gotcha we'll check out isaiah's coverage on that for more information switching topics um to something far more technical uh electricity the power grid all that stuff was a topic this week during session um probably the biggest the omnibus electricity bill uh passed the house

it had already passed the senate um you know it's the the legislature's most biggest response to the the ercot february blackouts that occurred and so within the bill it includes a mandate for weatherization against uh severely cold weather um i think it goes down to zero degrees that uh they have to protect against uh will create a statewide alert system which is something that was clearly lacking during the winter storm. Communication just fell apart overall, kind of wholesale. And that was something that was a constant theme during the hearings and the committees. Also within it is a restriction on wholesale index plans,

specifically that it's not prohibiting residents from using those. It's capping the amount that residents are charged on those plans. And those are the plans that we saw people getting thousands of dollar utility bills during just a stretch of two days. So that's one other part of it.

Another aspect is mapping of critical infrastructure. There was a, you know, one thing that really created a lot of problems during the event was critical infrastructure, especially the natural gas wells were shut off from power. And so created this self-fulfilling problem of you know we don't have enough energy or electricity to turn the energy to turn the lights on we can't even get it because there's not electricity going to these places that are pumping out the gas so and moving it through uh pipelines so that's another aspect of it um it's There's more to it than that. Check out the piece if you like. Also part of this overhaul, it's not in that bill specifically, but it's separate.

We saw overhaul of the Public Utility Commission and ERCOT, the ERCOT board itself. The PUC would be expanded to five board members, and it prohibits registered lobbyists from being appointed to those on ercot on the ercot bill it gives the big three the governor lieutenant governor and speaker of the house say over the five unaffiliated board positions those are basically uh generalized positions and they're not there to represent specific sectors of the power industry power sector so um that gives them say over that. And it has an in-state residency requirement. Obviously, that was a big thing that the president and the vice president of the board were both living out of state at the time of this.

One was in Michigan. One was in Maryland. That would change under this legislation. And it also has a prohibition for members on the board. Two years after they leave, within those two years, they cannot become a registered lobbyist. Outside of that, statute of limitations expires, they can do whatever. But immediately after, they cannot become a lobbyist. One more thing to watch is the securitization debate. It is essentially, it's a very technical term. If you try and read the bill, your eyes will glaze over, or the bills. But

essentially, it is the government providing these above-market interest rate loans to these companies that are underwater with debt from what happened during the storm. It's essentially the least coercive response they can have to this because there was the whole repricing fight about literally taking money from some companies that gained and giving it to redistributing it to those that lost. This allows the companies like Brazos Electric Co-op, which is I think it was $1.2 billion in the hole it filed for bankruptcy. One of the state's largest electric cooperatives

gives them the ability to pay off that loan or that debt over an extended period of time. And instead of having to put that on their rate payers in the short term so they don't go bankrupt. Daniel, do you? Yeah, I was going to ask you. I know that there's been some – this has been a very heated issue in some ways. Did you just slide a pun in there? I mean, not intentionally. That one was not intentional.

I don't believe that at all. Fake news. Okay, whatever. I could slip some more puns in there. I'm not not going to I'm just going to get straight to my question now it's been an issue where does the governor stand on the legislation that's coming out

is that clear if he's going to support these or if he's going to veto especially SB all of these that I just listed off the securitization one that's more murky at this point. But the SB3 and the PUC and ERCOT overhauls, I don't see any scenario in which he doesn't, especially because you have to sign something after this, right? Everyone is upset about what happened in February. And so the governor's been

very adamant about passing legislation to fix it. So on the securitization, I'm not sure. We'll see what happens. I suppose it kind of depends on which versions advance, But that will definitely, you know, materialize in the coming days and week. So, yeah, it's not – and also we'll see if these actually have an effect come summer when, you know, demand jumps and supply – the margins kind of restrict. We'll see what happens. Texas avoided blackouts in the summer because texas's system is meant to withstand the hot summers because there's far more of that than you know the the week-long sub temperature what if we get another freeze in in july in july there will be

a lot bigger problems on our hands if july freezes over y'all we need to all be knocking on wood right now because anything could happen at this point. Okay, moving topics. Isaiah, you had a really good piece on this embezzlement in the charter school that occurred. Give us an elevator pitch on your article. Thank you. Before I do that, I have to give credit to Jacob Carpenter over at the Houston Chronicle. I believe he was the first one to break this story.

So thanks a lot, Jacob. But basically, Idea Public Schools, which is the largest charter school network in Texas, parted ways with some top brass this week over financial malfeasance. And basically, the now former CEO, Joe N. Gama, and COO, RMU knows, no longer work for the network after a company investigation uncovered misuse of idea resources. And so according to the letter, it says in summary, the review uncovered substantial evidence that in the years prior to 2020 reforms, a small number of idea scenery leaders directed the use of idea financial and

staff resources for their personal benefit on multiple occasions. And so the 2020 reforms bit of that sentence refers to some other irresponsibility that took place last year. And it's interesting because Joanne Gama, who is the one that just got fired, was put in this position after her co-founder Torkelson, the former CEO, left in the wake of some dumb and unhelpful financial plans. And if those words sound strong, those are his own words that he used in a public apology about a plan to lease a private jet for the network. Well, there's always a private jet involved when these embezzlement scandals happen. Yes, when embezzlement's going on, private jets are a must. And yeah, so he released a public apology about that and some other plans, some stuff involving spurs, tickets, things like that.

But he and Gama founded Idea Public Schools in Donna 21 years ago. And now they're the state's biggest charter school network. And so after Torkelson resigned in the wake of his jet-setting schemes, Gama was instituted as the CEO by the board to kind of make things right after that and restore the company's sagging reputation. And then within a year or so after that decision, now she's getting fired for actual malfeasance and not just irresponsibility and poor planning, but for embezzlement. The rubber is meeting the road, as it were.

Right, yeah. All right, Hayden, coming to you. Final topic. There was an endorsement in the gubernatorial race. It's notable because it involves a mayor on the border, which obviously, in the context of this shifting demographic that we saw in the last election, Republicans performed, especially Donald Trump, performed much better than they had before.

In border communities. Yeah. So give us the upshot of this endorsement, why it's important. Well, this is going to be a spicy campaign for the governor's mansion, which is right down the street from here on 11th street. Don Huffines was endorsed by mayor Don McLaughlin. Don Huffines is a former state Senator. Yes. He is former state Senator from Republican from Dallas.

He served in what is now Senator Nathan Johnson's district. So he has some experience in politics. I can't remember off the top of my head how many years he was in the Senate. I can't remember if it was one or two terms. I think it was one, but don't quote me on it. I knew at one point, but I can't remember it at this moment. Don Huffines has been very assertive on the campaign trail. No more excuses is his mantra with Governor Abbott.

And he's hit on the border a lot. He has. Mr. McLaughlin called Abbott a fraud, saying that he has essentially been complicit with Biden in keeping the border open. And Huffines said in this campaign advertisement that was released, which is where McLaughlin made the endorsement, that we're running out of time to close the border. And Huffines, in fact, promised that if he is governor, he will completely shut down the border until illegal immigration stops, is the campaign promise. Of course, in order to do that, he would have to have the cooperation of the state legislature to secure the appropriations for the border wall and other things that are ancillary to that. And that has proven difficult. This legislative session, Governor Abbott has prioritized border security in recent months

by activating the Texas Department of Public Safety to assist Border Patrol in apprehending criminals. And Abbott updated us the other day and said that there have been more than 1000 criminals apprehended through this this operation. But Representative Brian Slayton, Republican of Royce City, which we've discussed before on this podcast, who we've discussed before on this podcast, introduced more than one proposal to try to complete President, former President Trump's border wall project using Texas funds. One of the ways he tried to do that was through a budget amendment that would have redirected funding from the Texas Arts Commission to the border wall project. And those proposals went nowhere because they were not advanced in committee. And on the floor, that budget amendment that I mentioned,

someone raised a point of order and he ultimately withdrew it. So those proposals have hit roadblocks in the state legislature this session, something to keep in mind. However, Huffines has been assertive with Abbott on other issues, including during winter storm Uri, aka the Texas freeze. I guess we'll have to come up with something else when we have our July freeze that apparently we're going to have. I'm kidding. So this is foreshadowing what is probably going to be a very fiery campaign between these two men and another challenger, Chad Prather. I don't think I'm

forgetting anybody. I think those are the only two challengers. Those are the ones that are jumped in right now. Right. And then, of course, Beto O'Rourke is widely considered to be a possible contender. He said out loud that he's going to mull over running for the governor's mansion. So this endorsement was met with an announcement from Governor Abbott that he will be updating the public on Thursday afternoon regarding border security efforts. So by the time this podcast drops, he will have already had a press conference in Fort Worth with the sheriff of Tarrant County to update the public on their efforts to curb the border crisis. Do you think he'll say, all right, all right, all right, we need to take care of this? Speaking of gubernatorial contenders.

Don't open that Pandora's box, Dan. We're closing it back. So obviously this endorsement is less notable for, he's not a big name person. He's not a big name mayor, but it's notable because of the surrounding context of where he is, who he represents and what's going on down there. So thanks Hayden.

You're, you've been covering the border a lot and you will continue to. So with that, I'm going to shamelessly plug quickly two of my pieces this week that we're not going to talk in depth about. The city of Save Austin now has launched a new petition this time about police defunding. You can read about that on the website. And then another one, a bill was passed in the legislature that really strikes back against these, frankly, progressive cities that are passing ordinances, inserting themselves into the hiring process between private businesses and private employees.

So both of those are on the website. If you find those interesting, take a look. With that, we're going to move into our fun topic. And with Mackenzie out, this is going to be an actual fun topic. We are not going to talk about budgets or some other nonsense like that. Favorite business plans? Well, other than the abuse I got, I actually enjoyed that one.

Guys, we are, what, three days from the end of session? Summer's about to hit. Allegedly. Allegedly, yeah, better knock on wood there. What are your summer plans? Well, I started to talk about part of my summer plans before the podcast and Bradley over here kind of shot me down. I said I was going to go to the beach and in Galveston and just kind of lounge around

on the beach. And then he goes, well, I don't, I don't really picture you doing that. That's not what I said at all. I said, I don't think you will. You don't think I will? I think you should. I don't really picture you doing that. That's not what I said at all. I said, I don't think you will. You don't think I will? I think you should. I don't think you will. Now I have to because you said you don't think I will.

So, like, literally an itinerary in my mind. Good. Was that your dastardly plan? That was. All right, well. See, I think what's going to happen is he's going to say he's going to go to the beach, and then he's going to drive the other way towards the casino down in South Texas. Oh, my gosh.

And he's going to. Eagles Pass. Yeah. Kickapoo Lucky Eagle Casino. Are you a beach person, Hayden? Not necessarily. I haven't been to the beach in a long time. I don't know why, but I have this itch to go to the beach for some reason.

You just like sand in your shoes. So I'm going to wave at our Galveston listeners and readers when I get down there. I think you might just be a little jealous because Sarah was just on the beach for a week. Oh, you think that's why? Yeah. Well. I think so. I'm not going to go to Cancun, but I will go to Galveston.

Okay. Daniel, um, what about you? I, after session ends, assuming that there's not a special session, I guess I'll have to do it. Whether there is a special session or not.

I'm, I'm moving. So there's that. I'm moving. That sounds like a riveting summer plan. Yeah. It'll be, it'll be great.

Um, I'll be closer. Wait, do you have any pianos you have to move you know i swear i'll help you can i help you move so i can make fun of your belongings or you know other things that i might find while i'm helping you move maybe like childhood diaries or something yes i have lots of childhood diaries hanging around. He's got shelves. Yeah.

You're outpouring some emotion. I actually frame them on my wall. So any actual plans? Well, for Independence Day, my family's going to be coming and visiting. So we'll figure out some fun stuff to do. You're going to take them to Skid Row? I haven't actually been to Skid Row myself. Okay.

All right. Well, that sounds like fun. Isaiah? I'll probably also hang out with my family. My family's all teachers, so we're used to having summers free. It just occurred to me that as the youthfulest one here this is my first summer in years where i don't just have a summer vacation that's for the sun right because i've been in school up until 2020 um wow you make us sound so old when you say that as the most youthful one

here you know as the one here that's not on the brink of death yeah we're all on the brink of death that neutrality we're all born a story great yeah memento mori but yeah so I'll probably show with them this summer we typically take a big vacation so hopefully that's gonna happen again but like I said I don't have three whole months for the first time in a while. Welcome to the real world. Brad. I know. I am excited about going on a road trip back home.

I haven't been there in a while. Winston and I are going to hit the road. My, his goose, my maverick. Am I getting that right? I don't know what you're saying. I don't know what you're saying either. It's a Top Gun reference. Oh, okay.

Gotcha. So, yeah, we're going to hit the open road and drive the 19 hours back to the Great White North. In one day? We'll see. I'm going to try. I'm going to try. So I'm looking forward to that. And obviously continuing to cover the fallout. It's a little too loaded of a word, but I'll go with it.

The fallout of the legislative session. We'll see how things actually unfold, what the responses are by the stakeholders and how these laws actually affect the average person. So with that, we will conclude. Thanks, everyone. And we'll catch you next time. 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.