Texas boasts the world's eighth largest economy. The Lone Star State is a global powerhouse and the best place in America for business. But there's a hidden tax that threatens our strength. Lawsuit abuse drives up our cost of living, costing Texas families nearly $4,600 every year. To kill the hidden tax, we have to end lawsuit abuse. To protect consumers, lower costs for hardworking Texans, and keep our economy strong. Paid for by protecting American consumers together.
Excuses, excuses. Welcome to the Texas Take Because of You, the number one politics podcast in the great state for going on a decade now. My name is Scott Braddock and his is Jeremy Wallace. If you're not familiar with us, what have you been doing? His work, of course, is at HoustonChronicle.com, and you can find the inside story on Texas politics. at quorumreport.com. Jeremy, this is the portion of the legislative session. And I was talking about this with the famous Evan, our producer earlier.
Because I was trying to remember if Evan had done a regular legislative session with us before. And you know what the answer is? No. So Evan's been with us since what, Evan? It was... 2023, is that right? Yeah, summer of 2023. And we have had multiple producers here. I loved each and every one of them. But Evan has really risen to the occasion during what has been, you know, just a very, I mean, I'm understating it, right? This has been...
a tumultuous time in politics. We've had to adjust schedules and try to figure out how we're going to handle the show and all of that. Some people were upset, not just because we were cursing so much before, but because the show came out on Saturday. And I'll have something to say about the cursing in just a minute. But this is the portion of the legislative session that Evan is not familiar with because he did not do the regular session with us two years ago.
He joined when all of those special sessions were happening, Jeremy. And he remembers that, that we just had one special after another. And of course, Jeremy, you remember it. We were all worn out, right? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. And this is the part of the year of the legislative session. I always tell people, this is when you want to start paying attention. If you're a casual...
you know, observer, you know, don't worry about February. You know, you don't have to listen to me much in March. But when I start talking about legislation at the end of April and early May, listen, there's something happening. There's something going to happen. That's right. And that's for the casual observer. Those are not our listeners. Our listeners want to know everything that's happening all the way through.
Part of why I'm saying this is because over the next few weeks, and I was looking at the legislative calendar coming up. We may have to do some adjustment of when the show comes out. There may be some weeks where it comes out on Saturday. Might even have some where two weeks from now, I could imagine, we might have a show that is published on Sunday.
And we might even have to have one come out on Monday. I'm not predicting that, but things will be in flux. So just watch my social media feed. I'll make the announcements at Scott Braddock on Twitter. And I'll just say, programming note, when you see that tweet, you'll know that I'm letting you know. That we're moving the show around that week. That's very frustrating to people. Now I am, after last week's show, instituting this. We've never done this before.
In nine years of doing the show, Jeremy, I'm instituting a swear jar. for the first time because last week and there's a reason there are already there's some jingle in this already there are already some coins in this because of last week's show We dropped a few. I did. Jeremy might have cursed. I can't even remember now. But the feedback I got was that, wow, Scott.
You were upset. And one of the notes that I got, and as you know, we don't take requests about what to talk about. That's not how this works. We are exercising our editorial judgment all the time. But I am sensitive to feedback. And a few people said, wow, I can't believe how worked up you were about the farming thing, Scott. Well, I was talking about growing up on a farm, my experience there. And Jeremy, of course, hit me with all of this info about what Brooke Rollins was saying.
And I got kind of upset about that. And I'm not sorry either, because check out this feedback I got, Jeremy. The reason I'm doing the swear jar... is just so that we'll think about it. If we're going to curse, money's going to end up in the jar. But...
But the feedback I got was in some ways exactly what I want. People said, number one, It sort of reminded them of our coverage of the Uvalde shooting in this respect, that we were talking about the real-world experiences of Texans having to deal with the situation. And in this case, it's just sort of a disregard for what small family farmers are going through. But I got this note from a guy who I do not know, but people send me notes all the time.
And I thought this was cool. There was this father who has a six-year-old son who listens, and they listen to the show every week together. Which I think is awesome, right? And his father, of course, has to explain to him things that we talked about on the show. Although I think we try to talk in language that anyone could understand, even a six-year-old. Evan, that's the way I try to approach this. I try to, you know, with some of what goes on in politics, that's not that hard.
Because some things are so simple. I wish there was more nuance. I wish there was more nuance sometimes. But this father who listens with his six-year-old, he sent me a note and he said that he appreciated how worked up I was about it.
about farmers but he said you know i would have liked some warning because my six-year-old listens with me every week but then he said check this out jeremy he said that afterward after his son heard me get upset and he was wondering why this is the way he put it in his note He wondered why Mr. Scott was so upset. He sat and he talked with his six-year-old about why. They had a conversation. And I can imagine and I hope that all over Texas.
As we go through these issues and as we give you more context that maybe you haven't heard before about some of these things, that people have those conversations. That's the whole point of this show is to make you think about what's going on.
And to try to put it in some sort of order that you can understand easily because, Jeremy, there are so many things that happen during any given week in Texas politics that it's really difficult to keep up. So I mentioned the brutal schedule of the legislature. I was in, and I may sound amped up, what I've started doing in the mornings now is I do coffee in the morning.
a few cups of coffee, and then I downshift to some hot tea. So I've got some nice chai from a friend of mine who has a shop in Dallas, Rakhasan tea. I'm just mentioning that. This is a Himalayan chai. It's fantastic. But I still need caffeine, just not as much as in the morning. So I'm amped up doing my caffeine all day because I was in a committee hearing until 1 a.m. last night. House Transportation Committee went until about 1 a.m. I think they adjourned around 105.
This is the kind of schedule that we've got. So there was this kid who, as I mentioned, kids involved in politics. I like it. I like that the young people are involved. There was this eighth grader. If you're in eighth grade, how old are you? 11 or so? Is that about right? Something like that? 11 or 12 maybe? Eighth grade? Anyway. So he's testifying before the House Transportation Committee. And the reason that it took them just forever, Jeremy,
is because, and we'll have more coverage about this at quorumreport.com, there were two fights going on. One of them was Houston people fighting with each other about something. And then Dallas people fighting with each other about something. So that went all night until 1 o'clock. This kid is testifying, and he's advocating for Dallas area rapid transit up in DF time.
Because, you know, his family uses the train and it's to their benefit. And they have a piece of legislation that's moving in the legislature now that could threaten that. So this eighth grader. He got through with his testimony and he did a great job. He was an articulate kid. And then when he was done testifying, he asked the chairman, who is former Speaker Tom Craddock, he asked the chairman, he asked him a question I've never heard at the legislature before.
If he could get the committee to give him an excuse note like he would get from the doctor to not be in school the next day because he was going to because he was up. All night. Listen to this. Mr. Craddock, I do have one question. Get behind the microphone. You gotta get behind the microphone. I was not expecting to stay here this late. Well, we weren't either. This may be the first time you ever hear this question, but...
I'm requesting a school note to excuse my absence. I think he thought of that in the moment. Jeremy, the kid had walked away from the microphone and then you heard Craddock say, you need to get back to the mic so we can hear what you're saying. And what he wanted was a note so he could be excused because he is probably. still sleeping like I would like to be.
We'll get that done right away. Go right over there and she'll get that done. Motion to issue school note. That was representing Mitch Little at the end making the motion to issue a school note. And by the way, they also did another cool thing for the kid, Jeremy.
They had the House sergeants go grab one of the flags that has flown over the Texas Capitol and bring it to him. And all of the members of the committee were going to sign the thing with the flag, which is cool. I will let the kid know that as well as he did.
I don't think it's going to increase support for transit at the Texas Capitol. So having said that, here's something else that was going on late last night. And I do want to approach the show this way, Jeremy, and you let me know if I'm on the right track here. Now that the governor's gotten his big thing. of school vouchers, which we talked about a lot last week.
There are other things that are going to be moving through the process. As you said, things are going to move quickly now. And some things that haven't really been on people's radar. So let's give people some examples. Are you good with that? Let's do this. Elections, abortion, and immigration, a few other things that are being debated now. Let's start with elections. In a committee room right up the hallway from where that was happening with the kid getting the flag from the committee.
There was a proposal being debated that has to do with having people prove that they are citizens of the United States in order to be able to cast a ballot in Texas. This is another one of these things that Democrats would call. voter suppression. And I think it kind of goes hand in glove with something happening in Washington. Did you have a note on that, Jeremy? It was something about what Chip Roy is doing.
Yeah, we spoke about this on the show, you know, where Chip Roy was trying to, you know, not trying. He actually successfully passed that save act. which included Henry Cuellar voting with him to make sure that people can prove that they're citizens of the United States in order to get even on the voter registration rolls in the first place.
because they're worried you know this goes back to 2021 right we've been talking about this forever now where republicans are completely convinced that there's A lot of people who aren't legal citizens who are now voting in elections all across the country. There's no real evidence of that. But there's a feeling. And just a feeling sometimes is all you need to pass a piece of legislation. Yeah, a lot of things are done based on the vibes, right? Exactly.
Representative John Busey, a Central Texas Democrat, was asking Representative Kerry Isaac, who's also from Central Texas, she's a Republican, about her proposal to require a person to submit proof of citizenship. to register to vote and they would be looking at some criminal penalties for this, Jeremy. They're really amping this up. And so under her legislation, you would have to have a birth certificate and that would, of course, then have to match your legal name now.
which is not, that's not always the case. Listen to part of their exchange here. They're a natural born citizen and they don't have a passport. So it leaves us about half of Texans that we're dealing with. They only have under this bill, if I'm correct, a passport to prove who they are. Is that correct?
No, I mean, they have the papers showing that they're now a citizen. No, I'm saying someone that was born in the United States. Oh, someone that was born in the United States. Yeah, that maybe got dinged because... For whatever reason, they weren't on one of the other lists to prove their citizenship. A bar certificate? So that's it, right?
Birth certificate, yes. Okay. So Busey points out that this is going to cause all kinds of problems, especially for women. There's a lot of reasons people could change their name, but we know the majority of people that change their name, it's women in Texas that have gotten married. Okay, so... So they go in, I think it's 80% of women in Texas that get married still statistically change their names. So they go in to prove who they are.
but their name is not identical anymore to their birth certificate, and they don't have a passport, so that's the only ID they have. What would happen in that situation? Well, they also usually have a social security number. Do you allow social security cards to prove your citizenship? No, but to change your name on your ID.
And your passport. And I think there's probably a room full of women that have done this. And I think we're all driving with a valid driver's license with our married name. Has anybody had a problem with that? I don't think.
Well, she's laughing at him, Jeremy, but she's also admitting that she's setting up a lot of hoops for people to jump through if their name doesn't match what's on the birth certificate. And when I say people, again, our Republican-leaning listeners would want me to say this. They would say there's only men and only women. And so in this.
story. It's the women who would be the ones who would have most of the problem with this because the name would change a lot. And here's how Busey followed up on that. So you're saying they would have to then go buy another ID, purchase another ID, and... and do something if they get married yeah that usually women are well what if they don't drive what if they don't have a driver's license what if their birth certificate is their id
And they don't want to change their name? Is that what you're saying? No, they change their name. What are they changing their name on? Exactly. I'm sorry. When they got married. On what form? Like a marriage license? Sure. Okay. Do you accept that? Yes. That's proof for citizenship here? That's proof that you are who you are. When you try to prove that you are a citizen? Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to get at is this bill doesn't allow that.
What I'm trying to get at here is I'm hoping we can amend this bill because This bill doesn't allow a lot of substantial IDs. So you see what's happening here, Jeremy, is as Busey is pushing her about what ID would be acceptable to prove that you are a citizen of the United States and therefore eligible to vote. Representative Isaac keeps mentioning documents that wouldn't do the trick.
under her proposal right she said well what about your marriage certificate and he says well can you use that under your proposal she says well no but that's how you would change these other things then you would have to you know go pay a fee to be able to get this document changed in other words
Republicans, who are generally against red tape and bureaucracy, are adding, once again, a whole other layer of it, in some cases, several layers of it, for people to be able to exercise what is a constitutional right, the right to vote. Yeah, and I like how you said it. Think about this as layers of confusion around this issue. This issue is so confusing on so many levels because like, you know, look, this started back in 2016. Every driver's license issued in the state of Texas since then.
is a real ID. And what I mean by that, you know, to get your driver's license since 2016, you've had to be able to prove that you're a citizen. So you have to show your birth certificate, your passport. That's when married women have been having to bring their marriage licenses in to kind of get all that. So in some respects, on the side of the people pushing for this.
Yeah, since 2016, most people who have been issued a driver's license would already have a real ID. This is going to be a problem. Then there's that added problem. There's a lot of people who don't have that idea.
A lot of people – and particularly I think of the difficulty in getting a birth certificate I think is lost on some people depending on where you were raised and how you were born, where you were. It's like if you talk to folks – particularly in South Texas, there's a lot of people in South Texas, because of the way records were kept poorly sometimes, that don't have easy access to a birth certificate.
You know, it's like it's going to take them some time to find that information. And I know a lot of my South Texas listeners are nodding their head to this. It's like it is particularly a problem in South Texas. But beyond that, so you have these layers of, okay, not everybody has access to the documents you want them to have. Some people already have real IDs and are probably getting confused as to who needs an ID, real ID, or who doesn't.
And then you have the federal legislation being thrown on top of all of this while the state isn't talking about the same thing. So there's lots of levels of confusion on this. But the bottom line is people should know that like. If you have gotten a driver's license since 2016, you're probably going to be okay.
Check your driver's license. There's a little star in the corner of it. The gold star in the corner shows you that it's a real license. Exactly. So that's going to be fine when you go to vote. You're going to be able to register to vote with that. You're going to be fine. It's like, but then that next question, what about the people without? And so, and I think that's where people, that's where this debate kind of like.
Falls on the shoulders of people who, for whatever reason, have not got a driver's license yet in the state of sex or other ID, don't have maybe a passport. And so they're going to have a harder time kind of showing who they are and proving to the government that they are, in fact, of this government.
Well, I mean, bring it full circle. That committee that you heard from before was happy to give a document to the kid to be able to get out of school the next day. But what was he there to advocate for? for for transit that means that he he probably doesn't have a driver's license right and people in his family they don't have driver's licenses and so there are a lot of people who don't have the same documents that you have but that doesn't mean that they're not
citizens of the United States, right? And so this just sets up a system where those people would be marginalized and they would not be able to exercise what is, again, constitutional right it's not just something that oh it's something that you're you know it's a cool thing to be able to go do no you are guaranteed the right to do that if you're a United States citizen whether you were born here or naturalized you have the right to go vote
And it doesn't matter if you drive a car or not. And I think that's a – for a lot of people and even a lot of people who listen to the show, that's probably a hard concept to grasp. That there are those people who might not have that because driving a car is not even part of their life.
But in a lot of our inner cities and even in other places as well, I mean, that kid was from Collin County. He's not from a, quote, inner city. He's from Plano area, right? And, you know, they use the train instead and buses instead of.
driving a car. So it's not even those people who some folks might think of as, you know, those folks who are so different from you and me because they're in the quote inner city, like some people might think of. No, these are people in some cases who live in the suburbs. who may not have the quote-unquote proper ID to be able to go and do this under a proposal like this. Well, and another big group that will be without this will be senior citizens who haven't driven for a while.
Right. You know, there are plenty of senior like you'll meet people who like it's been 14 years since they drove. They don't have a updated driver's license. They never did get the real ID when it was put into effect. It's like so those people also are going to have an issue.
You know, like if they don't have, you know, that birth certificate, you know, easily, you know, obtained, you know, you know, for some people that, you know, like, look, there are a lot of groups out there who would try to sell you your own birth certificate for hundreds of dollars. And so you go through these like online portals and stuff like that, and you could lose a lot of money real quick trying to get your purchase ticket from back in Ohio or Indiana or wherever the heck you're from.
You know, but in this case, it's like I think there's a potential of them making life more difficult on senior citizens who don't drive. And I can't imagine anybody in the Republican Party. advocating for this bill, wants to do that, right? Because remember, who's going to be your best voters in this country and in this state? It's always senior citizens. They vote at higher rates than younger people all the time.
And if you're making it harder for them to, you know, your good voter to register to vote, like what a pain, you know, that can't be with the design. Yeah, so another one of the things that's going to come up is abortion. We have talked a little bit about it here, Jeremy, with the proposal to clarify what is legal as a medical exception.
under the state's sweeping ban on abortion but there are several proposals that go further and people said wait scott didn't y'all tell us that they're not going to go further that instead they're going to do this thing that just clarifies what we have But believe you me, there's always more that can be done by conservative Republican legislators like Chairman Jeff Leach in the Texas House, who has proposed creating civil and criminal penalties.
for the use of abortion inducing pills these are the pills that people order online They have them shipped to their homes. He told the House State Affairs Committee this week that the idea is to protect women. In fact, this was this morning in that committee, Jeremy. The bill truly does protect Texas women. That's the heartbeat. That's the intent of the bill.
As I mentioned earlier, the abortion industry in Texas, as a result of the laws that we've passed and what's happened at the federal level, has In many cases here in Texas, virtually all across the board, it's shuttered their brick and mortar operations, but they have shifted tactics. The abortion industry is smart and clever and experienced. We're seeing this in other states, but Texas is leading the nation when it comes to mailing abortion pills.
that are purchased online. Alec said that up to 30,000 abortion pills are shipped into Texas every year. These pills, as you're going to learn in testimony today, not only, of course, if they're effective, terminate the life of the unborn child. by essentially starving the baby in the womb. But they also wreak havoc.
on a woman's body. Democrats often like to point out some of the hypocrisy of Republicans on various things. At the Texas Capitol, they don't have much luck with that being effective, Jeremy. But Sinfronia Thompson, one of the deans of the Texas House, you know, there's two deans.
It's Tom Craddock, who you heard earlier, who used to be the speaker. And by the way, if you think that he didn't have a heart, some people around Austin thought it was funny to say that, you know, when he was speaker, wasn't he dictatorial and just awful? I said, well, you know, maybe he had to not be speaker anymore.
And now he's just super sweet to kids and everything like that, even those he disagrees with. But the other dean is Mrs. T, as she's known, Sinfronia Thompson, a representative from Houston. And she made a quick point to Leach. about the fact that he usually is a tort reform guy. But one of the things that he's pushing here, and this has been the case with several of these abortion bills, Jeremy, is that Republicans are opening the courthouse doors for more lawsuits.
civil lawsuits against providers and others when it comes to the abortion issue. One of the things your bill is going to do is allow us to file lawsuits. Correct. Thank you. Correct, which I don't file a lot of those bills, Miss T. I'm normally the guy that's trying to advance toward reform and cut back on lawsuits, but this bill is a departure from that. Yeah. At the very same time, Republican leadership is pushing, cracking down on lawsuits that they say are abusive lawsuits.
against trucking companies and some other things in this legislative session journey. Yeah, absolutely. And look, when you think the state of Texas has done everything about abortions, you possibly can. Remember, they're also responding to – San Antonio just recently was allowing a fund that they have to help pay for people to go to other states. to get abortions. So they're trying to find ways to help their citizens get access to that care outside of the state.
And clearly that's not going to sit well with the Republicans. You've already seen Ken Paxson talk to me. You've seen legislators kind of pushing issues. So like this is one of those issues where just, you know, it's never over. Right. It's going to always be like every session they're going to find something else. Just when you think, OK, they've banned all abortions. That's enough. Right. No, there's more to do. There are some people in the legislature.
And I'm not saying that they have a huge amount of support, but there are some people in the legislature who, you know, as this bill dictates, want to go after people who try to go out of state. You remember all those towns that were trying to ban people from driving on their road to get out of state. It's like there's always going to be something else to do.
Yeah. And by the way, there are other proposals to go even further, which I'll get to in just a second. But Representative Chris Turner, who's from Tarrant County, a Democrat from North Texas. He asked Leach during the hearing this morning whether this might bring back a century-old law in Texas. This is the 1925 ban, Jeremy, that we've talked about before. And I think this is an important point.
Democrats and others keep pushing back to this point. They keep pushing our focus to this. And I'm not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be one here on the show. Never have throughout the time that I've been doing all of this. But it seems to me that a simple fix for this whole thing about 1925, couldn't the legislature just repeal that one?
And then not have any other lasting effects from that? This keeps coming up. That has been the case on what they call the Life of the Mother Act, which we talked about. And now with Leach's proposal, it's coming up again. Chris Turner said to Leach, hey. Isn't there a chance that some of what you're talking about here is going to take us back to the days of prosecuting women who get abortions? Are you aware of concerns that referencing or amending the 1925 ban in new legislation...
could inadvertently revive that legislation. So I don't know if you were here earlier when I mentioned this in the opening, but let me be very, very clear. that I will never vote for or support, nor would I... remain quiet on any legislation that seeks to criminalize a woman who has an abortion. I appreciate that. I did hear you say that. And not only in word, but indeed, I've proven that.
And that has not and will not change. Now, Leach sounds like a very reasonable Republican about this. And to his credit, I will simply back up what he just said by saying that as the chair of the Judiciary Committee in the House. He's refused to hold hearings on legislation that would, in his words, criminalize the woman who seeks an abortion.
He put out statements saying that he was not going to do that and he didn't. So while he sounds pretty reasonable, let me give you an example of the opposite. If you are unaware of him, and we've mentioned him on the show before, let me introduce you to Representative Brent Money.
from east texas he's pushing a full ban on abortion which has been proposed at the legislature before it's something that chairman leach has rejected and this uh this proposal from representative money includes the death penalty for women who get an abortion in Texas. He gave a speech recently outlining... how he feels about this. My desire is for babies to be saved and for women to be protected from the devastation that occurs through an abortion. And so I have filed House Bill 2197.
House Bill 2197 removes the exception from the homicide code that would allow a woman to abort or murder her own child. And so the purpose of this – people say, well, you're trying to punish the woman. No, we're not. The purpose of criminal law is not to punish people. The purpose of criminal law is not to punish people. I think most people would disagree with that shit.
Oh, hang on. Sorry. So if it's not to punish people, Jeremy, which is – that's an unbelievable statement just all by itself. But go ahead. No, I feel like I have to go to law school because I want to find out if that's true. I mentioned I'm not a lawyer. I'm going to law school, y'all. Jeremy's not a lawyer either. Maybe we need to brush up on all of this. Okay, so Money, he is an attorney.
Right. Is he a lawyer? Let me I'm going to double check that. But he says, because sometimes I can't even tell anymore. He says it's not meant to punish people. Well, then what is it for? The law acts as a teacher and a tutor of what is right and what is wrong. It tells society this is the standard that we expect. And so that's the first thing it does. The second thing it does is it is a deterrent.
to bad conduct. Even for those people who may not agree with what right and wrong is, Maybe they'll be too scared to do the wrong thing if they know that there will be consequences. And then third and finally, it provides justice in the case that the person blows through those first two stop signs.
And it provides justice. And then that justice in turn also acts as a teacher and a tutor and a deterrent to future bad conduct. He did go to law school at SMU, Jeremy, just so that I've got that straight. So the intent here is to teach other women to not do this. What he's saying is that if you put the death penalty in place, let's follow the logic here. Let's use geometric logic. He's saying that if you put the death penalty in place,
And we can figure out how this works, Jeremy, because there is a death penalty for other stuff, right? Yeah. He's saying that if you – this is how insane this is. And I'm not saying he's insane. And I don't – I am so jaded at this point, I guess.
that I'm not 100% convinced that he really believes any of that, that maybe he's just pandering to people. Maybe he does believe it. I'm sure I will have a conversation with him about it at some point. I'm not convinced that it's not just pandering. But let's follow the logic. What he's saying is if you have the death penalty for women who seek abortions, who get an abortion, then the effect of that, it will have a chilling effect and just no women will get abortions. That's what he's saying.
So what does that mean? Shouldn't it follow then that because Texas, which has had an express lane. in its death chamber for people who commit capital murder, that we wouldn't have had to kill any of those people in Huntsville because there is a death penalty for murdering people that people would have just stopped that.
that people just wouldn't do it because we have the most active death chamber in the country, that that wouldn't be the case, right? I mean, you hear how crazy that sounds. I mean, Harris County. has sent more people to death row than some states. In fact, Harris County has sent more people to death row than some countries. Right. I mean, leading the world in that leading the world in that. And we have in Texas.
We have the law of parties, right? So if you're somebody who participates in an act that results in murder, but you don't actually do it. Right. If you drive the getaway car in those cases. So I guess no one is – did people just not hear about the fact – this is what seems so nuts to me. Did people just not hear about the fact that in Texas –
that if you murder people that we kill you back. Did people not hear about that? According to Brent Money, if women just hear that there's a death penalty for having an abortion, then they just won't do it. Yeah, and I – boy, it's such a frustrating topic, right? Because no one law is on its own, right? But remember what this means. This also means like we're talking about in the state of Texas.
There is no exception to get an abortion when you've been raped, right? So we're also talking about a woman who goes out of state to get an abortion because of a rapist. that person is going to be executed under this concept, right? It's just like... And you just – that's a lot to unpack. But it's just like – that's the thing when you're making laws. And I think most of the legislators understand this.
When you're making laws, it's being – it's like a patchwork of stuff, right? You're putting patches on top of the law that already exists. So you're putting this stuff – on top of all these laws that already make it so hard. So a woman who, like, you know, again, what we've talked about mostly. up to this point has been how the law is so convoluted for some people that doctors are not performing life-saving procedures on women.
to help them survive a bad pregnancy, right? It's rough. Like, we're not even having that right now. That's not even clear. And so now you're talking about, okay, so what's going to happen to those women who couldn't get their... hospital to agree to you know do a procedure to prevent a miscarriage or after a miscarriage right like how are you gonna like what kind of paperwork is gonna have to be involved in proving that you didn't commit murder
you know, and send you to death row. I'm just not sure. Like, how do you have this conversation with that confusion kind of going on? It's like how, yeah, it's just a lot to take in. And it's like, and again, I understand like. that lead up going, oh, I don't want to punish women. But at some point, you have to go like... We're already punishing them in a lot of ways, right? It's making it very hard.
For people who legitimately might even be on your side on this overall topic of pro-life, pro-choice, right? They may be on your side, but there are complications in pregnancies that make things happen that you don't have control of. It's like, and those are the people who are trying to figure out what does that mean? What does all this mean? It's like, do I just have to move out of the state of Texas?
And one other thing I want to add to it. We've had women testify to that effect at the legislature. And it adds to this question that really these last two weeks you've seen a lot about if you've been flipping around on social media. Thanks largely to J.D. Vance and President Trump talking about we need to get more women to have babies and children. It's like, well. There's a reason why people aren't having children.
And quite honestly, I've heard it from a lot of women in Texas. It's like part of it is because of what's happened here in Texas, right? You know, it's like there's so much confusion over what's going to happen if that pregnancy goes wrong. here in Texas. And so there's a lot of disincentive to have children right now in Texas. And, you know, to have this discussion to make it even harder, like for if something goes wrong, you know, but it's just that's a lot for people to take.
Yeah, so we're focused a lot so far during the show about the debates happening in the House. And one reason for that, Jeremy, is because debate seems to be something that's happening less and less and less and less. in the texas senate and i want to give you an example from this week where the lieutenant governor dan patrick He expressly just told a senator to stop doing that, to stop debating another senator. Now, I know what he's going to say.
The little governor is going to say, well, hey, it was because it wasn't time for that at that moment that the specific thing that was happening on the floor was not the time for debate. senator nathan johnson a democrat from dallas was trying to ask some questions of republican senator paul bettencourt from houston who's a close ally of the lieutenant governor he was asking him some questions about property taxes And and this is not Senator Johnson's first go around.
I mean, he was just reelected last year and he's already served in the Texas Senate for years. And so I get the sense that he does sort of know when it's OK to debate something on the floor. But Patrick wasn't having it. And in fact. Senator Bettencourt, who I've known for 20 years or whatever, he enjoys the debate, especially about property taxes. He loves getting into it and just talking about it, right? He could talk about it forever. But at some point...
The heavy hand of the little governor struck that gavel, and he told Johnson that this is just not the time for this. Members, this is not a debatable motion. It's the question. Ask them if it was efficient, Mr. President. It's questions. You're turning this into a debate.
I thought that's what we'd do on the Senate floor. I just said to you, you're turning into a debate. If you want to ask questions, feel free. Continue. Okay, I thought we'd debate on the Senate floor. My question is... We do not debate on a motion to suspend. Okay. Is there a later point when I should debate? You can debate whenever you want. I just told you this is not a debatable motion. I've let you go on for about 20 minutes. It's fine.
If you want to ask questions, you debate on amendments and you can speak on the bill. This is not a debatable motion. All right. Ridiculous. I mean, at the point that they were talking, Jeremy, it's and this is all this to get into some semantics. They are allowed to ask questions of other senators about the proposal that they're talking about. And, of course, that can sound like a debate. They're trying to ask substantive questions about it.
Patrick also this week told Democrats that they should not make any political statements. You might have seen this when the Senate agreed to the House changes on the school voucher bill. Senator Molly Cook. In particular, was scolded by the lieutenant governor. And he said, you're not you don't make any political statements here. And then he debated her about it because Cook had said people in her district, which is a Democratic district, don't agree with school vouchers.
And Patrick from the microphone on the dais just said, you know, actually the polling shows there are people in your district to agree with this. So he was telling her that it's not a tradition or that somehow she's breaking tradition to make political statements while he was breaking the tradition of having the lieutenant governor.
and not debate the senators. He was just debating her. So he's allowed to debate the senators, but the senators aren't allowed to debate each other is kind of where we're at right now. And I was thinking about, did you hear how Patrick kind of sounded like, and some people will take issue with this.
He kind of sounded like the old man who's been in the Senate a long time schooling the young senator about how things are supposed to work around here, which is what happens in – you'll appreciate this, Jeremy. It's what happens in Senate.
Right. That happens in the U.S. Senate. It's happening in the Texas Senate. Those who have been around a long time. What was the rule, you know, 100 years ago in the U.S. Senate that, you know, the freshman senators did not speak and they might get physically attacked if they did. Right. That happened. I mean, that's documented, right? So it had me thinking about something that happened. And this, I mean...
This will make you feel old, Jeremy. This happened back in the, and I can remember it like it was yesterday. This was in the 2007 session after Dan Patrick, who was a freshman senator, had just been elected in 2007. And it was a stunt that he pulled. Patrick, he pulled some stunts when he was a senator. And again, there he was schooling Nathan Johnson about debating other people on the floor. He pulled some stunts when he was a senator. Freshman Senator Dan Patrick, Republican of Houston.
When the budget was on the floor for final passage, it had gone through the entire process already. And at the very end, you know, Jeremy, all they do is give some speeches and then they pass it because it's already been through. There's a reason I'm pointing this out. It's gone through the committee process. It's gone through the Senate. It's gone through the House. The House and Senate have worked out their differences, and then they're going to vote to send it to the governor.
Well, on the very last day of the budget process, Patrick walked over to reporters in the media and handed out pieces of paper that these were his proposed budget cuts. He was going to cut as much as $3 billion. He had done his homework. He had found $3 billion worth of cuts that could have been made to that budget in 2007, and he offered it right at the last minute.
And at the time, the dean of the Senate, Democrat John Whitmire from Houston, who, of course, is now the mayor, he really took exception to this. Dare I say, he sounded like an old man lecturing a young senator on how things are supposed to work, right? So here's John – and you can find this on YouTube, by the way. It's a lot of fun. If you go on YouTube, just search something like – and I know I've made reference to this before, but it was such a great moment.
On YouTube, you can search it. Just put in, you know, Whitmire welcomes Dan Patrick to the Senate. And it takes you back to this video that Jeremy, this is why I feel so old as well. This 2007 is 18 years ago. This is almost two decades ago, and it's hard to hear the first piece of this audio, but just listen closely. The main point that I want you to take from it is that some very hot debates have happened on the Senate floor.
that they do get into it on the Senate floor, that they have done it in the past, and that Patrick... as the lieutenant governor has really clamped down on that, that they used to have these great debates shouting at each other. What you'll hear is, listen closely, Evan, and you may have to turn it up a little, Evan, because this is old audio, but I want people to hear it.
You'll hear Whitmire challenging Patrick to go through the details of what his budget cuts are that he wants to make. And you'll hear Patrick saying something about how, I don't need to be lectured by you, old man. Pretty heated. Let's roll it, Evan. It's your time to show this body that you know what you're talking about. Give us the $3 billion in such and take your time. I will take my son and son, and I do know what I'm talking about. And I don't want to be wasted by you.
Sir, I don't have to be lectured by you. The first time he said, I don't need to be lectured by you, you hear another senator go, oh, wow. They were breaking decorum a little bit during maybe, but having the debate. It was Dan Patrick. You know, he was not going to put up with it from this older senator, this old man who's going to tell him how the Senate's supposed to work.
Well, this one is a little bit easier to hear. The audio was preserved in different ways. Whitmire pointed out that Patrick did not give his proposals for budget cuts to other senators and instead – just handed it out to reporters. And Whitmire, of course, is suggesting that what Patrick was doing is just a publicity stunt, which is exactly what it was. You didn't think enough of us to share it with us. You didn't think enough about the budget cuts to share it with us.
You know, you're supposed to hand that out when we're deliberating and finance, and for sure when we come on the floor to pass the budget. Now, all you're going to do, I guess, is to go prepare... For the press. Unfortunately, let me tell you, the press doesn't have a vote. This is the state senate. There's 31 others. This number of the press has a vote. Sir? This number of the press has a vote. Well, I assume you're acting as a senator today. No, the senator will look.
I did my homework. Are you a member of the press out here or are you a member of the Senate? I'm a member of the Senate here. Are you an attorney or are you a senator? I think you're one of the both, one of the same. So when Whitmire, and this is important. When Whitmire said to Patrick, he said, are you acting as a senator or as a member of the press today? Because remember, at that time, Patrick was still a radio talk show host while he was a senator.
Patrick's response to Whitmire in there was he said, this member of the press gets a vote. That was what he said in that debate. He said this member of the press gets a vote. That's when Patrick was a younger man who was in radio. He was in media and got elected to the Senate. And that's how far he pressed with press access in the Senate at that time, that a member of the press should have a vote. It's the same guy who banned members of the press from the Senate floor.
It's the same guy who will now only do interviews with very friendly media, right, and scolds the media all the time about how we get everything wrong. You saw the way that he interacted with some of us during a press conference fairly recently, Jeremy. This guy has...
really walled himself off from anything like that, was something that they did debate in the Senate this week that I thought was interesting, and you pointed out to me, is this impeachment reform after the impeachment of Ken Paxton two years ago. They wanted to change some things up. And who was carrying this? It's Senator Brian Birdwell.
from granbury texas he was appointed by the lieutenant governor to study what should be done differently because as our listeners know the judge in that case thought that the speaker screwed it up and the house screwed it up and they really needed to make some changes to the way the procedure is done. because they felt that it was rushed through the house and then the senate was basically you know, strapped with this burden of having to have a trial about the impeachment of PAC.
Impeachment is neither a criminal nor a civil proceeding, but rather a delicate mixture of both elements of the two within the political realm. The powers relating to impeachment are a vital check in the balances between branches of government. So what are some of the changes they're talking about here, Jeremy? You were following this.
Yeah, absolutely. The biggest thing to know is that this constitutional amendment, if it were to get to the voters, is going to be asking if when somebody is impeached, should they still collect their pay? Because that's one of the things that happened when Ken Paxton was impeached. in May of that year by the house. He did not get paid and didn't have access to his benefits from there until September when he was eventually acquitted.
So during that whole time, he didn't get paid at all. And y'all might remember, we've talked about this, I think a couple of weeks ago, where there is a movement in the house to try to get him back pay for what happened. But that hasn't happened yet. Right. And so this, you know, primarily, you know, first and foremost, would give anybody who's impeached. allow them to collect their pay and benefits still until the Senate has
you know, made a decision. So while they're suspended, they would still get paid. Okay. But the other part to this is like, it, you know, it really makes a move to dictate how fast the house can or can't move. Right. And when they do an impeachment.
You know, the, you know, you know, as you mentioned, you know, Patrick from the start has said, this is was Ram wrote it through. It shouldn't have gotten to us the way it did. They should have taken more time. Like, remember if my memory serves me correctly, it was on a Thursday night. that that committee in the House said they were going to advance the articles of impeachment. And by Saturday, they were voting to impeach Pat.
It was real quick. Can I say one thing about it real quick, just for context, is that you and I are pretty well sourced at the Capitol. Did you know that was about to happen? And I'll take it down another level. Did I know it was about to happen? I mean, when they first rolled it out the few days before, I did not. I mean, they thought – I mean –
That operation was handled in such a way – and this is not a criticism. In some ways, it's a compliment. One of my first standing rules of the Capitol is. and it applies to all of life, actually, is that there are no... secrets in a room of two or more people. And even with two people, it can be difficult sometimes. And they probably had maybe at max, right before they rolled that out, Jeremy, they might have had 10 to 15 people who knew about that. And then they rock and rolled with it.
Yeah, the lightning speed is what the... Birdwell legislation would really address. So what would happen to happen in the next time something like if you advance something to the floor for debate, you're going to have to give three days. for that to happen, to have that deliberation. Then after that deliberation, you would have to take another three days. in order to actually cast the vote to impeach. So you're talking at least a six-day...
element in which lawmakers would be able to read the impeachment articles and then vote after a deliberation. So you're talking about a full week that you're going to need to impeach somebody at a statewide level, at least. in the future versus what we saw happen before. The only thing that makes – quite honestly, the one thing I'm wondering about is how would this have all applied to the impeachment of Paul Ferguson, the governor who was impeached back then?
Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but impeachment in Texas has only happened three times. Including Paxton? Yeah, for a statewide official, it's only happened twice now. Twice, right. So they had Paul Ferguson. Yep.
Pop Ferguson and Ken Paxson. They're in a company of themselves. The other was a judge in – was it in South Texas? But there was a – it was more of a local official. It was a judge that was impeached. But statewide, yeah, it was just – And by the way, if you want to know what class that puts Paxton in, go read about Ma and Paul Ferguson. In some ways, I thought about this the other day. In some ways, it wouldn't be that far afield to say they were sort of the Ken and Angela Paxton of the time.
Power couple, a lot of alleged corruption, a lot of things went down. There's a reason people were impeached. Anyway, go ahead. Yeah, the Pop Ferguson story is wild. It's nuts. Yeah, right. It's a wild story. There's so much about him that he's worth looking up in your local library, kids. Definitely pull him up and read about him. That's how we got Minnie Fisher Cunningham.
You know, I've talked about on the show, like this woman suffragist really gets involved in politics and the attempt to help impeach. uh pa ferguson in the first place he was against suffrage you know suffrage for women and so like you can see it all goes back to that time what a wild time period that was but I've said my piece. When this impeachment thing comes up in the House, I wonder if there might be some amendments offered. And I could imagine one of them being something like this.
that may be the judge in the impeachment trial. should be prohibited from taking contributions from supporters of the person who's been impeached by the house now as i mentioned the judge in the trial would be the lieutenant governor who during the for during you know in the impeachment of paxton He was given... What was the number? Hang on, I've got it in my notes over here. He was given...
$3 million by supporters of Ken Paxton right before he was supposed to preside over the trial. So if there are any concerns about having a corrupt process. You know, when there is an impeachment in Texas and then what happens with the impeachment, what happens with the trial, you would think that might be something that folks might talk about. This came up, Jeremy, sort of came up.
During a committee hearing this week in the House where there's a proposal that's being made that has to do with prompt reporting of political contributions to judges who are. overseeing certain cases. You might imagine that if you were the plaintiff or the defendant in a case, that it might be helpful for you to know if the other side just gave the judge a whole bunch of money.
So maybe you should just get an email that says, oh, by the way, the judge just got this contribution. Not that they can't get the contribution, but sunlight's a pretty good disinfectant. Wouldn't it be amazing if they had a – it would be definitely of note if there was an amendment offered to this in the Texas House.
that I guess maybe just sort of randomly, they could say that if a contribution of exactly $3 million is made, that that has to be immediately disclosed. Everybody has to know about it. And in fact, it disqualifies the judge. They could call it the Dan Patrick Amendment. Well, if there's one thing that we – I think whether you were for or against Ken Paxton's impeachment ultimately in the end, I think the one thing that whole thing taught us is that there are –
going to pull straight from Birdwell here, but like it showed us a lot of the flaws in what we already have on the books about impeachment. There are a lot of... unanswered questions that people had to go through. Again, you're thinking 1917 is the last time we did a statewide And the only other time was in 1975 for that judge, right? And so we have only these two ancient artifacts to kind of build out like, okay, so how do we do this now? What are the rules? It's like all of that hasn't really.
Like even back when Paul Ferguson was being impeached, it was like, OK, so does that make the lieutenant governor the governor? It's like they had to kind of just sort that out on their own and just end up – and that is exactly what happened, who actually became our future governor, William Hobby. But it's like you end up in the situation where you're having to – like, you know, make these rules up. And so I like what Birdwell is doing, at least in the theory of...
look, let's make sure we understand what we're doing next time. Who can be witnesses? Who can't be witnesses? What are the procedures? How fast do we have? Does the guy get paid? All these things I don't think were really fully explored in 1917 when they last did it.
Well, of course. And it's not like we haven't had plenty of corruption in Texas in the meantime. I mean, there could have been other examples where this would have come up. And I have heard from people who say that if they're going to have an impeachment process – then there should be a specifically – that there should be a specific list that's enumerated of things that are impeachable. And I guarantee you...
that a legislative body is not going to want to put a list together like that. And the reason is, and we've heard this a million times, anytime impeachments would come up, it's come up obviously more at the national level. And I'm sure it's happened in other states. I'm just not familiar with it. But what is it they always say? The old saying about what is impeachable is whatever the House of Representatives thinks is impeachable.
Correct. And Birdwell said a version of this in what we played there. He said something about how it's sort of an amalgamation of the – what happens in a legal process versus what happens in a political process. At the end of the day, the impeachment is a political process and legal process once it goes through the Senate because they do have the ability to remove the person from office.
But we talked – you were talking about sort of how unprecedented it was and how people didn't really know what's supposed to happen. The whole thing with Minnie Fisher Cunningham and why that ends up being a story, and people can go back and listen to our coverage or just Google Minnie Fisher Cunningham and Jeremy Wallace. His stories about that will come up. And the thing is that with Cunningham...
The reason that her activism became so important is that the Senate voted to remove the guy, and there's the understanding that the person can't run again. And he just ran again anyway.
That was part of that. They were going to have to defeat him at the ballot box. So these rules are all sort of amorphous and it's an amorphous process. And I don't think that for anybody who wants impeachment reform and they're going to say, oh, we're going to tell the House of Representatives that they can't impeach.
whoever it is the governor the ag or whatever i can imagine that as we move forward the next four eight you know 12 years whatever if there if we do have someone elected statewide who is a democrat and we still have a republican legislature if you think that something like that's not going to happen they'll move to impeach The attorney general or the land commissioner, whoever it is that might be an elected statewide Democrat. I mean, all of this stuff has been.
You know, and whether I like it or not, that's the case that that's going to that we've we've moved into this era now with, oh, Republicans would say we need to impeach Biden. And all the Democrats will say, we need to impeach Trump.
And each would make their case about that. It is definitely something that the House of Representatives nationally or at the state level is going to want to exercise. And since they're the ones who write the rules about how it works, I don't think they're going to rein themselves in.
about how that works is kind of my bottom line on that. This story from the border was interesting. Tell me about this a little bit, and I'll get to some of the TV coverage. Oh, I need to get my – hang on a second, Jordan. Because we're going to look at some coverage from the border. We haven't really traveled down there lately because we've been busy here in Austin covering the legislative session, right? But in Laredo. What was the deal that they're talking about?
giving up some land to the state. Is this for Operation Lone Star? What's going on with this? Yeah, absolutely. So the state wants to get access to some land to build border wall down there. Remember, like, you know, the federal contract was stopped back years ago. And Governor Abbott started doing his own Texas border wall, thanks to the Texas legislature, obviously sending him billions of dollars. And so they've been building wall in different parts.
But Laredo is a totally different beast, right? Laredo has been, I would, in some respects, the pride of that community is about as strong as any place you're ever going to get. And they've been as aggressive as... fighting border walls because, again, you'll hear more of this in the report here, but in Laredo, the relationship with Mexico is one and the same. Oh, of course.
It's one and the same. You're in both those communities all the time. They're as well blended together on the border as any two communities. on the two sides of the border. And so when Abbott started first, he first went to Laredo to try to get an easement so he could build border wall. And they first said no. Get out of here. And so this was the second attempt for them to come back and say, okay, we're just acting for border wall, you know.
at one of the bridges not in the heart of downtown? That's been the key question. It's like, you know, people in the radio don't want, you know, to give the governor any ability or the federal government any ability to build a border wall. through that really nice kind of park area that they've developed along the riverfront there. They have that shopping district. Again, it's a much more vibrant, you know.
Cool looking downtown area. Well, the international bridges, not to cut you off, but the international bridges in Laredo in Webb County heading into Mexico in Nuevo Laredo. The giant flags of the United States and Mexico that are there, the international bridges going over the river, it couldn't be – in a lot of ways, it couldn't be –
a better sort of monument to the partnership between the two countries. Yeah. Right. When you're there. And I remember years ago when I was at KTRH in Houston, I was doing some border coverage. I went down to Laredo. And if you can see what's on this mug that was given to me by the mayor of Laredo at the time, I've got my mug here. You see what it says there, Jeremy? It says, Laredo, gateway to Mexico.
That's what the Chamber of Commerce is pushing there. This is from the Laredo Convention and Visitors Bureau is this mug that, by the way, is what I was sipping my chai tea from. But that's the way they think about it, right? That all of this stuff goes together. So I've got my remote here. Jeremy's talking about the fact that there was some TV coverage of this this week. The mayor of Laredo Now, Richard Trevino, told – what's the station? KGNS.
down in Webb County, that the city is trying to work in a collaborative way with the state now. The idea that most everybody does not want a border wall is well understood. But we have to understand that we have to collaborate with the state and the federal government. To Trevino, what now takes precedence is how that collaboration will take place. Of course, nobody wants a wall in our city to face our sister city in Laredo. So we have to be careful how we collaborate, how we communicate.
And these are things that are being talked about. There's a lot of legalities involved. So that's from KGNS News. Now let me switch over here. I've got my – let me click the button. Let me switch over. to Spectrum News, and they covered the ways in which the Laredo waterfront that Jeremy was talking about is different.
from what looks like a war zone that Greg Abbott has set up in Eagle Pass. Laredo sits on the banks of the Rio Grande with unobstructed views to Mexico, city parks, and neighborhoods. Also enjoyed plenty of green space without border barrier. A stark contrast to Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, where the state of Texas... into a border security militarized zone. And they're still there under emergency declaration. All I can say is, if you proceed down this path, be careful.
City officials tell Spectrum News they do not want a physical barrier on public land. But they will allow the city manager to meet with state officials and listen. That's reporter John Salazar in Laredo for our friends over at Spectrum News. What's up, Jeremy? The key is that that wall area that they're talking about building is over in the Columbia Bridge. That's about 25 miles northwest of the city's downtown.
And what the city manager ended up saying, he told this to our friends at the Loretta Morning Times. Joseph Neib, he ends up telling them that by giving the state this, he's hoping it gives them more leverage to protect other parts of Laredo that are more sensitive to a border wall. And so he was he was trying to explain this to people what's going on. But it still was kind of shocking for me to see any sort of progress on building a border on Laredo. Maybe one of the strongest holdouts to date.
of building border walls along the Texas border. They're giving in. I mean, the political reality is that they're giving in. The Democratic Party has given in. Those are mostly Democrats down there. And they have had some party switches down in that part of the state, but I know some of the top folks are still.
democrats there um but i do think they're being pushed a little bit at least those who are elected are being pushed a little bit more i'll just say to the right uh on this in some ways because they have seen republicans in those areas, right? And it's not that those people were quote unquote, soft on border security before, but they did see this message from President Trump and Greg Abbott resonate with a lot of the voters who have traditionally voted for Democrats.
not just in Webb County in the Laredo area, but also down in the Rio Grande Valley, which are not the same. And if you even act like they are, you're going to get a note about that too. all these places are different um but uh but yeah i think the politics of all that are shifting and so their policy is shifting Yeah, so Donald Trump won the 28th congressional district that Henry Cuellar, a Democrat, now represents.
And that's the first time that's ever happened. So I think a lot of people in Laredo was eye-opening to see Trump actually won that district. Quayre won it too, but it's kind of this warning shot that, oh, wait a minute, this district is not so democratic.
that you can completely ignore this issue in the way they've done it. I don't want to say ignore it. That's not fair. But where they've been able to push this off, they're like, okay, we will allow border wall way out there, but just don't put it in our downtown, please. Right. All right. Let's do the up and down of the week. Damn, Jeremy. Oh, wait. Just say, if you're up, is anything other than this show? I don't even know what to tell you because that was a really great show.
Damn. That counts for the first one. I don't have to. I don't have to. Well, OK. There you go. So every weekday, Jeremy and his newsletter features something that he calls the up and down of the day. Monday through Fridays. And it's just sort of like a stock market report. Who's up, who's down, who's seeing their stock go up, who's seeing their stock go down politically.
Who do you have for the up for this week? On the show, we do up and down of the week. So you have to pick one. So who's the up for the week? Well, I was really close to making it Joaquin Castro because he's been traveling all over the state, showing up in places I didn't expect. I was at a rally with him in Houston earlier this week. So it's like that kind of had me thinking up. But then I saw Dennis Quaid. actually testifying for the Texas House.
He's the actor. He was in some of the great movies like The Right Stuff. you know, Inner Space, which is a personal favorite. What a cool, fun movie that was. Campy. Yeah, absolutely. But he was at the Texas house helping fight for these movie incentives. We've talked about this on the show before. He wants...
filming being done here. What makes him the up, look, a lot of actors have gotten involved in this, but what made this up to me was that he was in New Jersey filming a movie and had to call into the legislature. to make his case, which is the whole point of the legislation, right? Don't have me making a movie in other states when we could be doing a text. We could make Texas a rival to Hollywood. Hollywood has lost the narrative. They are out of touch and out of sync with their audiences.
I don't go to many of their movies, to tell you the truth. I hardly watch the Oscars because I don't care. But this is an opportunity. for Texas. 4568 is an opportunity for Texas in a long-term commitment to become not a leader but the leader in the film and television industry. Not only that, but it's going to create thousands of jobs. It's going to bring home people who are working in the film industry in all these other states.
But 4568 will make Texas truly competitive. That 4568, what he means is House Bill 4568, which is the House version of this.
He's in New Jersey. You know, people said it was Dennis Quaid is calling in on his cell phone. He just shot a little iPhone video, and they played it during the... during the hearing um you know if he's in new jersey and he's shooting a movie couldn't he have gotten film crew to shoot a decent little video instead of just him talking on his on his iPhone that was kind of aggravating to me if it had been Randy Quaid they probably would have done like a whole real production
That's all I'm going to say about that. So, okay. So who's the down this week? Okay, I'm going to go with John Whitmire and not for anything we just had earlier in the show. What's the thought on that? So John Whitmire, so like earlier this week, he ended up going to a fundraiser that Dan Crenshaw, the Republican from Houston, was having. He showed up there. And Democrats are trying to censure him over it. They clearly were upset about it.
And they signed a resolution to admonish him for having the gall to go and hang out with Dan Crenshaw. I, of course, reached out to Whitmire. You know, folks who have covered him in the Senate, like, you know, this is kind of part of his like his his whole deal. Right. You know, as what he told me was like, yeah, yeah. He's a Democrat from Houston. He's been the mayor here now for what going on two years.
But he told me, look, Jeremy, I work with anyone who wants to help Houston. Garbage pickup is not Democratic or Republican. I represent Houstonians. The congressman has been helping Houston get resources, and I need to thank him. So again, remember, this is a stock market report. I'm telling you, he's down because Democrats are pushing his stock down within their own party. You may agree with the concept of what he's doing, right? But he's down. Well, okay. I'm going to argue that he's up.
Because I'm going to give myself a vote on this. So did you see that the Democrats were – what were they calling him about this? They were saying he's the MAGA mayor, right? That he's somehow – but Dan Crenshaw – Right. If he went to I mean, for one thing, there's just no middle ground at all. You can't be a more conservative Democrat like Whitmire. And I guess you're not allowed to be a more more moderate Republican like Crenshaw is. He is cast that way sometimes. Right.
But here's why I would say he might be up. Did you see that, and this is down in the weeds a little bit, but I can explain it very succinctly as a veteran broadcast professional. You have Whitmire, who's trying to get the legislature to get the county, to get Harris County to give the city of Houston 30% of the toll road money that the county gets.
Do you think it might help his cause right at this moment with the Texas legislature that he's being accused of being the MAGA mayor? They probably are cool with that, right? So anyway, great topic. Good points. I have a down of my own, by the way, which is Representative Brian Harrison from Ellis County.
You've seen this, Jeremy. We've barely touched on it on the show, but he's always yelling about how the Texas House isn't doing any work. You've heard him say that over and over. He's tweeting this all the time and all the stupid videos and on and on and on. Well, this week. He didn't bother to show up for work when his own legislation was supposed to get a hearing at the Capitol. Listen. The chair now lays out House Bill 872 and recognizes Representative Harrison to explain the bill.
This is Representative Harrison here. Representative Harrison. Okay. Let the record reflect that Representative Harrison is not present. House Bill 872 will be removed from the agenda. Sad story, Jeremy. He wasn't there. And here's the thing. This happens all the time. Again, this is down in the weeds. But if a representative is busy doing something else at that moment, like maybe voting in a different committee because they get double booked all the time, that happens a lot.
What anyone with friends in the legislature would do is ask one of their buddies to lay out the bill for them, that they would go and do – they would help them out. They would just get an assist from that person. But Harrison has even pissed off those people like – Tony Tenderholt and I think Nate Schatzline to a certain extent and some of the others who are described as house insurgents, but they don't agree with this guy who's always preening for the camera.
It sounded so much like Ferris Bueller's day off, right? It sounded like the roll call. Bueller? It's like, I love it. It's like, well, we'll end with a classic 80s music. How's that? Absolutely. All right. Check out Jeremy's newsletter where you can find the up and down each day, Monday through Friday. The newsletter link is the post that is pinned at the top.
of his ex page. And that's Jeremy S. Wallace. You can follow me as well at Scott Braddock. You should be a subscriber at HoustonChronicle.com and QuorumReport.com. And we'll see you next time.