Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

89th Texas’ Legislative Session: An Overview of Needed Policy Discussion

by Leave a Comment

The legislative session has started with a nasty intraparty speaker race that is certain to leave at least some bad blood in its wake.  Just like the speaker race, the legislative session presents both an opportunity and a challenge for conservatives. Over the next posts, I will take a look at key legislative issues that will (or at least should) be discussed this session —from school choice to property tax relief, water policy, insurance reform, and more.

Before diving into these specific topics, it’s important to take a step back and assess the political landscape that brought us to this point.

Was It a Red Wave or a Rejection of Biden-Harris?

November’s election results require a deeper analysis. Was this truly a red wave, signaling a broad ideological shift to the right? Or was it simply a repudiation of the extreme policies of the Biden-Harris administration?

Let me start off by giving credit to HCRP.  I often am critical (though with a constructive intent), so need to acknowledge the great outcome we had in Harris County this session.  Harris County had a sharp rightward tilt.  This is all the more impressive given how much more robust the democrat’s ground game is, and how it was unique among the big counties.

Turning to the importance of the November results, red wave or repudiation of blue madness matters because it determines how conservatives should approach governance. If voters were simply rejecting inflation, crime, and border chaos rather than actively embracing hardline conservatism, then the priority must be demonstrating that conservative policies work—not engaging in ideological purity tests that alienate potential allies.

Populism and the Far Right Are Not the Same

One of the biggest miscalculations in Republican intra-party fights is the assumption that populism and the far right are one and the same. They are not.

For example, take the bipartisan lack of sympathy for the murder of United Healthcare’s CEO—a reaction that highlights growing populist resentment toward corporate power and wealth concentration. That’s not a left-wing phenomenon. It reflects an increasing divide between everyday Texans and the elite, even within industries historically aligned with conservative interests. Populism is about fighting for the common man—not just enforcing rigid ideological orthodoxy.

Another example is the Texas House Speaker election, where the republican caucus appropriately tried to break the cycle of a republican speaker elected with a majority democrat votes. That failure wasn’t just a power struggle within the party—it reflected the reality that rank-and-file Texans, even conservative voters, are not as far right as the loudest voices in the Republican caucus.

If Texas Republicans misread the moment and assume voters are demanding a hardline, purity-tested agenda instead of practical, results-driven governance, they will squander this opportunity to solidify long-term conservative gains.

This is especially true in the context of Harris County.  Again, a masterful job occurred locally. The other big counties didn’t see the same results we saw here.  This is an opportunity to hold on to gains, at least at the county wide judiciary level.

Just like the speaker race, this session will test whether Texas Republicans can govern effectively while balancing ideological differences. The challenge is to focus on conservative wins that benefit all Texans rather than internal party fights that drain momentum.

The Big Tent Approach: Winning Without Alienating

This legislative session is a pivotal moment to make gains among moderates, independents, and disillusioned voters who have lost faith in progressive governance. But outreach must be intentional.

Conservatives cannot afford to let the loudest voices dominate the conversation—especially when those voices prioritize ideological flexing over policy victories. We are the big tent. That means embracing those who are willing to work with us, not pushing them away over minor differences.

Texas is leading the nation in economic growth, energy independence, and responsible governance—those are the issues that matter. Talking points don’t lower property taxes. Grandstanding doesn’t improve infrastructure. Twitter fights don’t make schools safer.

What’s Ahead in This Series

Over the next several posys, I will be diving into the key legislative battles that will define this session:

  • School Choice & Special Education Funding – Can Texas expand educational freedom while protecting vulnerable students?
  • Water Resources – Examining Houston’s potential deal to supplement West Texas water supply.
  • Budget Surplus and Property Tax Relief– Is property tax relief the best use of the budget surplus?
  • Economic Stimulus – Exploring smarter ways to use the surplus to boost long-term economic activity.
  • Insurance Reform – Addressing the pressing need for changes in Texas insurance laws.
  • Criminal Justice Issues – Looking at the reforms on the table and their impact on public safety.

This session offers a rare opportunity to solidify Texas’ conservative leadership by focusing on real issues that impact people’s lives. The question is: Will we rise to the occasion?

 

I had originally intended to release these one a day, but with the upcoming winter storm I will release them all in short order to be on the safe side.

Examining the Property Tax Battle Part 3

by

In part two the political history and optics of the situation were examined.  Next is examining how this fight can partially define the party going forward, and the consequences of the fighting, and some final thoughts.

Defining the party

The democrats were going to use the issue to try and inflict harm on the party.  If a plan had passed in the regular session their ability to have an argument take root would have been limited.  Now, with the battle being waged so intensely and publicly the conditions are set for the democrats to use this as a messaging tool to say this is who the party is.  The longer this battle drags on (not counting a pause for the impeachment trial) the more effect the democrat messaging becomes.

The potential messaging is easy to see.  If the House plan passes the democrats will use Lieutenant Governor’s messaging that the House plan favors business and the wealthy over everyday Texans.  This is gift wrapped to stick since it is the same message that is being used now.  They don’t even have to create the argument – they can use the statements and say this is who won the fight for the party and what they represent.

If the Senate plan prevails the attack will be different.  Whatever it may have been; now it will be a version of look how dysfunctional the republicans are.  That message is less effective, but with the great message discipline within the democrat party it will cut through the background noise of the next cycle and be an issue.  I do not think we should let the democrat response dictate which plan passes, but we do need to be aware that the longer and uglier this battle becomes the more the end result defines the party.

Consequences

The time to avoid negative consequences has passed.  What was a great win for the party now will have negative consequences.  The everyday Texan, regardless of political affiliation, likes having more money in their pocket because of political action.  Sure, democrats may argue the money could have been better spent, but in the end that message won’t resonate since it is in the context of people having more money in their pocket.  Property tax relief is a winner.  Now, the damage has been done and the political windfall that comes from passing relief is lessened by how it passed.

Other, more dangerous, consequences are of greater concern.  Infighting creates bad blood.  Look at how well Harris County Republican Party ran with Gary Polland was at the head of the party.  While open infighting isn’t the main reason subsequent chairs haven’t had success; it has made opposition messaging easier and caused bad blood that has hurt the party.  The same will follow on the state level.

Governor Abbott’s vetoes are going to make the problem worse.  Not only have significant intraparty divisions occurred and taken hold, but the vetoes and soliciting pushback against Lieutenant Governor Patrick are going to create bad blood among people who are negatively impacted by the vetoes.  This group is going to remember what happened, and be motivated to do something.  No idea how that something will manifest, but even if it’s just not donating and having a long memory a direct negative effect will follow.  A motivated, unhappy, group of individuals who are already involved in the community in some way is a problem.  It’s one that will have to be resolved, and could make a noticeable difference in the next primary cycle.

One other significant consequence is possible.  Lieutenant Governor Patrick is probably the only person who could mount a significant primary campaign against Governor Abbott.  They are both up for election in 2026, and Lieutenant Governor Patrick has already said he will run for reelection in 2026.  Does this change the office he intends to seek?  If so, this impacts the top two races on the ballot, and creates significant divisions in the party.

Concluding Thoughts

On the merits the Senate plan should prevail.  I own both a home and a business so see both sides of the issue, and side with Lieutenant Governor Patrick on the issue.  While neither plan significantly impacts appraisals, and other legislation is needed to address this aspect, people are being taxed out of their houses.  As a matter of political governance the Senate plan affords some relief to businesses, but helps homeowners the most, which is both a greater good and helps people becoming a political winner.  Also, the dollar amounts saved by homeowners are more likely to be spent as discretionary income creating economic benefits to small businesses, many of which are still hurting from Covid.

Of more concern, though, is the damage that the infighting has caused.  Of all the principles, Lieutenant Governor Patrick has come out the least damaged and holds the moral high ground.  He is trying to help the everyday Texan, and has continued to work to pass legislation in the special session despite the House adjourning sine die after one day. To the extent anyone looks like the adult in the room he does.  He also has a change to seize the narrative by judiciously using the impeachment trial to create a space for everyone to cool down before the tax plan is taken up again.

County parties are going to be hurt by what has happened in Austin.  The county parties need to start making the messaging relatable – reduction rather than compression as an example.  More importantly, they need to take the time to shore up relationships with anyone who is hurt by the infighting and remind them that the county party is not involved in the fighting and relies on continued support.

No one wins here, but hopefully enough damage control can take place to limit the amount of harm that occurs.

Examining the Property Tax Battle Part 2

by

In part one the dueling property tax plans and the positioning of the House, Senate, and Governor were examined.  Next is examining how we got to this point and the optics associated with the impasse.

Politically how did we arrive at this impasse

The current battle is unusual because the Governor and Lieutenant Governor have usually kept any dirty laundry behind closed doors.  This is good governance.  Doubtless there have always been significant differences between the two, but they were always able to work it out behind closed doors.  Part of the problem is the two have distinctly different governance styles.  Lieutenant Governor Patrick has a radio show background and isn’t afraid to mix it up.  He is a strong leader and a strong personality.  With the exception of Covid, Governor Abbott was, at least publicly, more of a facilitator and wielded his influence and power in a gentler manner.  He also is a strong leader, but he led from a quiet confidence businesslike approach.  His staying out of the debate between the House and Senate plans is a great example of the facilitator businesslike leadership he uses.  Only this time it didn’t work.

Governor Abbott is the only person who can call a special session.  However, he’s not a legislator and Lieutenant Governor has a history of forcing Governor Abbott’s hand to call a special session over issues.  Part of this is because of the Hobby rule.  Senate bills have to be taken in order during the special session, and it requires suspending the rules to take bills out of order.  This means the minority party has more influence and can stop legislation that would otherwise pass out of the Senate.  The Hobby rule doesn’t apply in the special session since only the issues of the call of the session.  In order to make sure items he wanted passed would pass Lieutenant Governor Patrick would not allow necessary legislation pass in regular session so a special session was necessary.

The tension has now come to the surface and it is not being contained.  We probably never will know how this came to be.  Maybe it’s pent up frustration on Governor Abbott’s part from Lieutenant Governor Patrick forcing his hand regarding special sessions.  Maybe it’s a residual effect of how Governor Abbot governed during Covid, and he now holds the belief that if compromise can’t be reached brute political force is acceptable.  Maybe it’s Lieutenant Governor Patrick and Speaker Phelan have come to have personal animosity given Speaker Phelan’s decidedly more moderate bent.

Optics

 No way to sugarcoat it; the optics of the battle are horrific.  This is an ugly intraparty fight, and it is being fought in a manner that is laid bare for the public to see.  The way this has transpired likely leaves some permanent damage.  On the surface level, it looks like petty politics.  Everyone agrees that property taxes are too high, but intraparty fighting is keeping relief from reaching Texans.  It looks like the adult version of my two year old twins fighting over who gets to bring me my boots when we are going for a walk.  The everyday Texan sees a failure to compromise on how a shared goal to help them is preventing relief.  While not accurate, it will be viewed by some as a battle for who gets credit for delivering the tax relief.

Governor Abbott looks especially bad.  Not only was he unable to assert himself as leader of the party, but he also has engaged in significant executive overreach.  By making the special session call where it only can consider compression he effectively has acted in a legislative capacity declaring the legislative policy.  This is an affront to the separation of powers.  Making matters worse, the veto campaign to compel action is an exercise in brute political force.  No one likes brute political force.  The everyday Texan may not remember the vetoes next cycle, but individuals who are impacted by a veto will.

No one wins the optics battle, but opportunity exists to come out looking more like a statesman going forward, as well as the opportunity to look more childish depending on how the situation develops.  Lieutenant Governor Patrick has the best opportunity to emerge looking the best.  He has to conduct the impeachment trial.  This affords him the opportunity to publicly strike a cooperative tone and say he is consulting with the Governor regarding subsequent special sessions and the impeachment trial.  Ever better, he has the opportunity to control the situation by saying he is calling the trial in the near future to give everyone a chance to step back and let tensions regarding the tax plans cool down in hopes of a path forward.  Whoever starts looking like the adult in the room comes out looking  better.

Next, a look at how the issue will partially define the party going forward, and the consequences of the fighting.

Examining the Property Tax Relief Battle Part 1

by

The property tax relief battle has been fascinating to watch… in a train wreck you can’t turn away from type of way.  The legislature had a great opportunity to bring relief to Texans and score a great fiscal and public sentiment win for the Republican Party.  The longer, and uglier, the battle has become the more it will come to define the party for the next election cycle.  What follows is a three part series on the issue.  I had been meaning to post as they were written, but Kenshin has been in the hospital 12 days and counting this month leaving time a precious commodity.  So the series will be posted all in one batch.

The Battle Lines

The House and Senate have plans that partially overlap, but also have a significant difference in focus for who will benefit from the plans.  This is set against the backdrop of campaign promises to reduce property taxes.  The short version of the difference between the plans is the House plan is a plan to “compress” (surely the messaging could be better) the amount of property taxes school districts could assess.  The Senate plan has an element of compression, but would also expand the homestead exemption.  Governor Abbott supports the House plan.

The battle lines are reducing taxes for everyone on all property versus a smaller universal reduction and skewing the difference towards homeowners in the Senate plan.  More simply, though not totally accurately, the messaging is relief for homeowners versus business.  The democrats likely will amplify the homeowner versus business theme leaving that the messaging the public remembers next cycle.

This is set against the backdrop of Governor Abbott wanting to completely eliminate property taxes over time, and Lieutenant Governor Patrick believing the complete elimination of property taxes is impossible.  Senator Huffines, when he challenged Governor Abbott in the primary, also wanted to eliminate property taxes, so some work has been done regarding the feasibility of the idea.  However, I’ve never seen anything showing both how this could be accomplished beyond a conceptual mechanism, and how the state will maintain necessary funding levels should the income stream used to reduce the taxation slows.  To that end, until such a time as both ability and contingency aspects can be addressed Lieutenant Governor Patrick’s position is the more realistic approach.

The Regular and Special Session

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The question applies to the dysfunction that emerged in the regular session and has carried over to the special session.    Governor Abbott, at least publicly, stayed out of the difference between the two plans in the regular session.  When it became clear that the two chambers would not be able to reach a compromise significant dysfunction ensued.  No need to rehash what has happened.  Suffice it to say the party is significantly fractured and it appears the divide will continue.

Once the regular session ended, Governor Abbott immediately called a special session, and gave an exceptionally restricted call.  He basically said pass the house plan, and you aren’t allowed to consider the Senate plan.  Speaker Phelan had the House pass their legislation on the first day and then adjourned sine die.  This was a direct challenge to Lieutenant Governor Patrick, and the Senate.  By adjourning sine die the House signaled no negotiation and no compromise.

Obviously, this was not well received across the Capitol hallway, and the Senate did not pass the House bill.  The House’s action seems particularly ill conceived with the Senate having the option of conducting Attorney General Paxton’s impeachment trial at a time of their choosing.  They can choose to effectively delay any subsequent special session by conducting the trial and forcing the House and Governor Abbott to wait.

Meanwhile, Governor Abbott decided to apply maximum pressure to the Senate, at the expense of creating collateral damage.  He engaged on a veto threat campaign   (which has been at least partially carried out) that is vindictive appearing.  Bills were vetoed with the specific language saying they could be reconsidered in a special session once property tax reform has passed.  Additionally, Governor Abbott appears to be soliciting individuals who would benefit from the bills under veto threat to call Lieutenant Governor Paxton and apply pressure.  While Governor Abbott has publically stated he wants the two chambers to work out their differences as the special session progressed this is not possible under the call of the session, and the vetoes and solicitation to apply pressure doesn’t exactly sound like wanting to facilitate a compromise.

Next, a look at the political history that brought us here and the optics of the situation.

Cassy Garcia is as unique as a taco! No Bueno Biden!

by

From the InBox:

Texas Congressional Candidate Cassy Garcia Launches “UNIQUE AS A TACO” T-Shirt and Merch

SAN ANTONIO (July 12, 2022) — Following Dr. Jill Biden, Ed.D.’s gaffe-filled visit to a “Latinx IncluXion” conference in San Antonio where she said Hispanics are “unique” as tacos, South Texas Republican congressional candidate Cassy Garcia ­launched her campaign’s merch store, NoBuenoBiden.com. Store visitors can buy a “UNIQUE AS A TACO” t-shirts, bumper stickers, and other merch that will be unveiled in the coming days.

“Jill Biden said the quiet part out loud yesterday. Woke Democrats don’t know us or our culture. Their understanding of Hispanics goes no deeper than a taco. Unfortunately for them, we’re voters,” said Cassy Garcia.

Garcia, a South Texas native who was recently labeled a “far-right Latina” by The New York Times for attending church with her family, also pushed back against liberal media bias against conservative Hispanics.

“CNN and The New York Times attack me because I’m fighting for the people of my community. Hispanics want a strong economy, safe communities for our families, and an end to the chaos at the border — not the radical policies of Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats, like Henry Cuellar.”

Recent surveys show Democrats struggling with Hispanics nationally and in Texas. According to a July 2022 New York Times poll, Joe Biden’s approval rating with Hispanics nationwide stands at 32%. In Texas, Biden is at 30% among Hispanics.

###

This is how Republicans win. Laugh a little. Have principled policies. Laugh a little more. Let people know that you want them to enjoy life. Laugh loud and laugh often.

Paxton attacks Guzman – why?

by

I received an interesting email from the Ken Paxton campaign this morning. It’s the first one that I have received that has him attacking Eva Guzman in his quest to remain the Texas Attorney General. Why?

It’s easy at first glance to think that she is gaining on him in the polls. I doubt that. Sure, she may have gained a few points in polling with her television advertising blitz but she isn’t playing to be the front runner, she’s trying to get into a runoff. So why would Paxton start attacking her?

First, here is a body of Paxton’s email:

Theme of the Day: Eva Guzman Is Too Woke for Texas 

Eva Guzman was “woke” before many progressives even caught on to the popular trend.

~ In 2016, Eva Guzman led the planning efforts for a taxpayer-funded “woke” gathering called Beyond the Bench: Law, Justice, and Communities Summit, an event particularly focused on “racial” and “implicit” bias in the criminal justice system and promoting the principles best known now as “Critical Race Theory.”

~ The conference attendees and hosts developed a list of controversial “Big Ideas” to “spur action,” ideas that come from the woke ideology that is now pervasive, such as mandating training on the cognitive and implicit bias from “all stakeholders in the criminal justice system.”

~ While parents worry that their children will be subjected to divisive “Critical Race Theory” programs that seek to divide us further on racial lines, Eva Guzman’s conference suggested as one of their top five “Big Ideas” developing an app geared towards children to recognize bias at “a really young age.”

~ Another highly ranked suggestion outlined by the conference Guzman hosted was to require every institution “to have a racial and bias audit that is public for accountability.”

Here’s the bottom line: Texans can’t trust Eva Guzman to defend our conservative values because Eva Guzman simply doesn’t share our values at all. Her “woke” agenda has no place in Texas.

Here’s where Team Paxton needs your help. We need you to share Eva Guzman’s woke record with your friends and followers on social media. Share the suggested post above on your social media accounts and make sure this critical update makes it across the Lone Star State. We need to make sure conservatives across Texas know the truth about Eva Guzman before the upcoming primary on Tuesday.

Pol. Adv. Paid for by the Ken Paxton Campaign

His campaign also produced a Facebook video on Guzman’s wokeness.

Okay, so Guzman is woke. Or maybe she’s just a Latina that was trying to prove that she was not the typical Republican. Who knows?

The more interesting thing to me is how campaigns work in the final days of an election cycle. The email above is based on an “article” on Townhall.com titled Republican Primary Challenger to Texas AG Helped Organize Summit Promoting CRT Ideas on ‘Implicit Bias’ by Rebecca Downs which clearly comes from oppo research handed to Ms. Downs by the Paxton campaign. Once again a campaign is using Townhall.com to push their talking points. Why does Townhall continue to do that? Content, what else?

And back to the question, why? In talking to several ‘insiders’ (not from the Paxton campaign) the latest polling is showing that Paxton isn’t going to make the 50% plus 1 vote to avoid a runoff.

The polling also shows that Guzman is sneaking up on George P. Bush for second place and that Gohmert remains at the back of the pack.

If those polls are accurate, it’s pretty clear that Paxton would rather face Pee Bush in the runoff. Pee is so far removed from the grassroots level of Texas politics that if he does squeak into a runoff with Paxton, he’ll get blown back to Florida where he belongs.

On the other hand, Guzman might well have a shot at Paxton in a runoff. Paxton’s ethical problems are clearly on the minds of Texas Republicans if he does get dragged into a runoff. Traditionally, the most conservative person in a statewide Republican primary usually wins (see Cruz, Patrick). But between those ethical problems and Guzman’s ability to get funding from the more liberal/moderate contributors in the Republican Party, she might be able to put a scare into him or in a longshot actually win the runoff in an upset.

I wouldn’t bank on her winning but it is plausible. It’s also plausible that by attacking Guzman now he can pull a few votes away from her and avoid a runoff altogether. I don’t see that one happing but again, who knows?