April Legislative Update 2024

Registration for State Convention is Opened

Convention.texasgop.org/register

Delegate Fee $79

Gala: $250

Congressional Luncheon: $85

Attorney General Paxton Sues Harris County Over Basic Income Program

Paxton is asking the court to stop the county from issuing payments under the program and deem it unconstitutional.

Charles Blain | April 9, 2024

Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that the state is suing Harris County over its “Uplift Harris” guaranteed basic income pilot program that the county launched at the start of the year.

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, Paxton said:

This scheme is plainly unconstitutional. Taxpayer money must be spent lawfully and used to advance the public interest, not merely redistributed with no accountability or reasonable expectation of a general benefit. I am suing to stop officials in Harris County from abusing public funds for political gain.

In a response to the filing, Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee issued the following statement:

When corporations are given taxpayer dollars Republican leaders in Austin call it “economic development.” When governments use federal dollars to actually help people, Republican leaders in Austin call it socialism. I think the message Harris County residents have for AG Paxton is to lead in a way that’s going to help people or get out of the way. I will vigorously defend the county and this program in court.

The program was funded using $20.5 million in federal relief aid to give 1,900 families, who are 200 percent below the poverty line, $500 per month for 18 months. Applicants were required to live in one of the predetermined zip codes and could receive the money through direct deposit to their bank account or a prepaid debit card.

The lawsuit cites the state constitution, which prohibits local jurisdictions from granting public money to an individual, and says that lottery-based selection is unconstitutional because it awards benefits based on arbitrary factors.

Paxton is asking the court to halt the county from issuing payments under the program and deem it unconstitutional.

Center for Immigration Studies Determines Initial Destinations for Illegal Alien Flights

Commercial flights bringing illegal aliens into the country have used Miami as their main hub, with Houston serving as a distant second.

Amelia McKenzie | April 5, 2024

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies, Florida has been reported as the top landing zone for illegal aliens, having received 326,000 in Miami as of February.

According to CIS Senior Fellow Todd Bensman, the Department of Homeland Security refuses to acknowledge these flights.

This admissions program—designed by DHS in October 2022—is supposed to reduce the southern border crossing numbers by flying illegal aliens into the U.S. and releasing them on parole. Each illegal alien is also eligible for a two-year renewable work authorization in multiple cities.

These flights land all over the country, with Houston being the second highest receiving destination at 21,964 foreign nationals and Los Angeles in third with 8,382. Citizens from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Ecuador are eligible for these commercial flights.

On March 23, U.S. House lawmakers signed a letter urging President Joe Biden to end these flights. The letter highlights their “grave concerns over the Biden administration’s actions to fly approximately 320,000 illegal immigrants from Latin American airports to 43 cities across the United States.”

Additionally, the lawmakers point out more than 50 terror-watchlisted individuals have been encountered at this point in Fiscal Year 2024.

“Public knowledge of where these flights deliver migrants should matter to local, state, and national leaders in cities struggling with migrant influxes, who could use the information to financially plan for their care or petition the federal government to stop the flights,” CIS Senior National Security Fellow Todd Bensman wrote. “The information may also hold implications for litigation by Texas, Florida, and other states that have sued to stop the parole programs on grounds that the administration’s illegal abuse of the narrow statutory parole authority has directly harmed them.”

Texas is currently asking the courts to reconsider its lawsuit against the Biden administration over its parole program that was dismissed earlier this year.

13 GOP Lawmakers, Nominees Roll Out ‘Contract With Texas’ Demands for Next House Speaker

The signatories want the letter to serve as the bare minimum for any potential speaker candidate.

• BRAD JOHNSON

Rep. Brian Harrison (The Texan/Mazlin Jordan)

Update

Since its publication, 10 more potential legislators have signed the letter. They are Ben Bius in HD 12, David Covey in HD 21, AJ Louderback in HD 30, Katrina Pierson in HD 33, Alan Schoolcraft HD 44, Helen Kerwin in HD 58, Keresa Richardson in HD 61, Andy Hopper in HD 64, David Lowe in HD 91, and Cheryl Bean in HD 97. Each is in runoffs and haven’t yet secured the party nomination.

With the incumbent Texas House speaker engaged in a contentious runoff election, a group of 13 Texas legislators and presumptive representatives released a list of 12 requirements for a House speaker candidate to gain their vote.

Dubbed the “Contract with Texas” — inspired by the 1994 “Contract with America” pushed by soon-to-be Republican U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich — the letter outlines 12 demands including removing the current House parliamentarians, establishing a GOP-only supported speaker majority, and ending the practice of Democratic committee chairs.

The full list of demands are:

1. “Only solicit support for Speakership from Republican members.
2. End the practice of awarding Democrats with committee chairmanships.
3. Ensure all GOP legislative priorities receive a floor vote before any Democrat bills.
4. Replace the current liberal Parliamentarians with staff committed to only offering advice on adherence to House rules, not to advancing their personal ideology.
5. Limit the Speaker to two terms to reduce their power over individual members.
6. Ensure there are no longer any Democrat-majority committees.
7. Stop parliamentary abuse by requiring only substantial adherence to House rules to keep hyper-technical points of order from killing good legislation.
8. Allow audio/video recording of all House proceedings, including point of order debates.
9. Start substantive work as soon as Session begins to end delays that kill priority legislation.
10. Reform the Calendars Committee to increase transparency and accountability.
11. Select a Republican as Speaker Pro Tempore
12. Decentralize power by prohibiting the distribution of political funds from the Speaker.”

The current members who signed the letter are state Reps. Brian Harrison (R-Midlothian), J.M. Lozano (R-Kingsville), Nate Schatzline (R-Fort Worth), Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington), and Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands).

Each of those five has called for a change from the current Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont), including Lozano who is unlike the others politically — significantly more moderate in his voting record — and who serves as a current committee chair.

The other signatories are all presumptive legislators, those who’ve secured the GOP nomination to run for their respective seats in November: Brent Money, House District (HD) 2

• Janis Holt, HD 18
• Matt Morgan, HD 26
• Wes Virdell, HD 53
• Mike Olcott, HD 60
• Shelley Luther, HD 62
• Mitch Little, HD 65
• Don McLaughlin, HD 80

Of those, McLaughlin is the only one who has a really up-for-grabs district; HD 80 is rated R-51% by The Texan’s Texas Partisan Index. Depending on how the runoffs fare, their numbers could increase. Keresa Richardson, challenger to state Rep. Frederick Frazier (R-McKinney) in the HD 61 runoff, voiced support for the letter after its release.

Harrison, who announced the letter alongside Schatzline on Dallas radio host Mark Davis’s program Monday morning, told The Texan, “There is a need to reform the Texas House. A lot of people want to spend time talking about [Democratic] chairs or [Democratic] parliamentarians. I view those as symptoms.”

“The root problem is far deeper. And it’s rooted in corruption, contempt for the voters, and a betrayal of the people.”

Some of these items have been discussed frequently: a ban on Democratic committee chairs, changing the parliamentarians, excluding Democrats from vote-whipping discussions, and advancing the GOP legislative priorities before action on anything else, to name a few.

But others have gotten less airtime. Limiting a speaker to two terms would be an ode to the days when speakers of the House generally served only one term. Another item — recording all House proceedings, including point of order debates — is an intriguing idea.

Most House proceedings are recorded and available on the chamber’s website. Everything with testimony is recorded and streamed online, but some committee meetings, particularly when legislation is voted out of the body following public consideration, occur off-camera. The powerful Calendars Committee also convenes off-camera when it sets floor slates — meetings that usually last five minutes at most as the calendar is already prepared and rarely debated.

Roll is called. Votes are cast. And the calendar is set.

The jockeying over placement on a calendar, which can involve deal-cutting but for the average bill is often about whether the author advocated enough, occurs behind the scenes. In the Senate, the calendar is not used formally like in the House. Rules are suspended to bring up desired legislation thanks to a “blocker bill,” brought to the floor in an order determined behind the scenes.

Also practically off-camera are the scrums next to the dais when members argue over points of order, or procedural challenges to bills intended to point out parliamentary flaws and prevent passage.

As it is, the chamber’s microphones cannot pick up the discussions, but reporters in the bullpen can hear some.

The most-discussed example of this was a point of order on House Bill 20, a chamber priority border bill in the 88th Legislative Session that Democratic members killed at a deadline, suggesting that the bill authorized the state to declare war — a power it didn’t actually have.

But that wasn’t the only example. Points of order had a bit of a renaissance last session, particularly in relation to background and purpose statements deemed lax and baseless by the parliamentarians. One maneuver by state Rep. John Bucy (D-Austin) sparked a run-on point of order during the 2023 regular session, ramping up frustration with the application of parliamentary procedure that had already been boiling.

Transparency behind the arguments and rulings on these points of order is the general idea, but whether it’d have that effect, or if it’d move the conversations further off-screen, would be something to watch if that change is implemented.

Harrison et al. want this list to serve as a basis, the bare minimum from which candidates for speaker would start when whipping support. And more than anything, the group of signatories have established themselves as a voting bloc in the whipping to come.

With the Republican caucus split so significantly now — with plenty of time to coalesce — the largest current voting bloc is the Democratic caucus, which holds 64 seats with pickup opportunities in November.

Asked if any other current incumbents had been approached to sign the letter but declined, Harrison said, “Here’s the most important thing on that: 13 is a huge number and most people thought we wouldn’t have even 10. It’s a huge number and it’s going to grow.”

Regarding whether enough has changed within the House GOP caucus to secure the commitments laid out in the letter, he added, “The right question is ‘are current Republicans in the House going to do the will of the people that elected them?’ And I’m willing to do everything I can to make sure that me and other conservatives in the House, that our answer is yes.”

So far, the field for speaker is only a population of two: Phelan and state Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress).

Oliverson announced his run last month, committing to many of the things on the above list and stating them as the baseline for any prospective candidate, while Phelan finds himself in a contentious runoff against challenger David Covey.

There is a lot more jockeying to come in the nascent race for speaker with more names expected to jump in, particularly after the runoffs — and Harrison suggested names “that probably haven’t even thought of running for speaker yet” would likely jump in.