Texas Bullpen Podcast

Show Me The Warranto, Chip on the Shoulder, Committee Chaos - Episode 29

• Texas Bullpen

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:15:21

Send us Fan Mail

The guys run through the Texas Supreme Court's decision not to eject state Rep. Gene Wu from his seat, a leaked recording of Ken Paxton about the attorney general race, and the bevy of committee hearings that played out in the Legislature.

SPEAKER_03

As you can tell, we've been really getting along this week. Yes. Yes. We're getting closer than ever to fighting.

SPEAKER_01

Just throwing down. It will be uh live streamed. It will be uh shown on pay-per-view, and uh advertising opportunities will be available for our big Jesus.

SPEAKER_03

Morning all. Welcome to the next episode of the Texas Bullpen Podcast. It is I, of course, Brad Johnson here with uh my Steed Jonathan Ritchie. Do not call me that. That's unhinged. I'm gonna lawyer up. You know what else is unhinged? Some of the quotes we got submitted for Cattle Call we're releasing next week.

SPEAKER_01

Uh if we were one of those old radio shows, we would have a soundboard with like actual cattle sounds on it that I would have hit repeatedly right there. And I almost instinctually instinctually trying to. Yeah, right. Should we have an actual cattle calling competition? We should. Have you ever played Hey Cal? No. So do you know what it is? No. Uh it's where you're just driving down, you know, country roads or whatever, and you roll down your window and you shout as loud as possible, hey cow. Because cows are always drawn to odd noises. That's why like yodeling and stuff exists uh as like a herding thing, because they always will come to noises they don't understand. So you shout hey cow, and it's whoever can get m the most cows to look at them or to respond, like wins hey cow.

SPEAKER_03

It's just country folks, you know, Brad, you won't understand being a in high school we played this game called uh called hostage, where he would draw straws, and the kid who got the short straw would get tied up and thrown in the back of a car and then dropped in the middle of a cornfield, and they'd have to find their way back.

SPEAKER_01

Ah We've had a busy week in Texas Policy. My point is that You're a scary man. Meanwhile, we're down here playing very charming little folksy games with cows. You're over there torturing fellow children. Oh, it was funny.

SPEAKER_03

It was fun. Um but my point is I did not grow up in the big city, so stop insinuating that. Um We're gonna talk today about As you can tell, we've been really getting along this week. Yes. Yes. We're getting closer than ever to fighting.

SPEAKER_01

Just throwing down it will be uh live streamed. It will be uh shown on pay-per-view, and uh advertising opportunities will be available for our big Jesus. So anyway.

SPEAKER_03

Check out Cattle Call next week. Got rave reviews last time. I think y'all will like it again. Uh it'll either be Monday or Tuesday, I think, that we release it. This week's agenda. We're gonna talk the quo warrantow ruling that we had been waiting for for a long time. And actually, Richie was kind of Nostradamus on this last night at the bar. Uh we were talking about it. And sure enough, it foreshadowed the next morning's release of the long-awaited opinion. And uh it went uh Gene Wood's way and not Greg Abbott's way. So we'll get into that. Uh we'll talk the big Paxton recording that we broke this week, him finally jumping in to the Attorney General's race, where as we mentioned last week he'd been pretty quiet. We'll talk Sid Miller once again feuding with Greg Abbott. There is a long line of events. Yes, there's a long line of examples of Sid Miller uh trying to kind of uh thumbing the eye of of the governor and uh he did it again. So we'll we'll discuss that. We'll run through kind of a drive-by of the committee hearings that occurred this week that we were watching. We'll talk the latest update on the lottery guy. Um uh I don't forget what his name is even, but uh grief. Gary Grief. And Gary Grief. Uh he's having a lot of grief right now over uh nominative determinism is a scary force.

SPEAKER_01

It is. And then we'll get for a guy that's not named Richie.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. Then we'll get to uh the exhilarating but also very contentious issue that is 765 KV lines.

SPEAKER_01

It's electric these days. It is.

SPEAKER_03

It is very electric. So let's start off with the Quo Warinto ruling. Um the the court came out and by Quaranto.

SPEAKER_01

This is the quorum break kerfuffle from last session. The special session over redistricting. Yes. All the Dems packed their bags and got out of Dodge, got out of Texas for what, two weeks? Two weeks it was. And it caused a whole lot of uh consternation, we could say. And Governor Abbott sued Gene Woo. The uh Attorney General sued I think like a dozen other of the Including Gene Wu. Including Gene Woo again.

SPEAKER_03

Um which was interesting. There was a bit of a break between the Governor's Office and the Attorney General's office on how to go how to fashion this lawsuit, this attempt to remove a member.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. There was uh some some deaf behind the scenes tension there uh about how and when and who legal arguments and and who and who and why and what and where. Um and so, but now, you know, all that stuff was filed, it was argued, filings both ways, blah, blah, blah. The court has been silent, but now finally, on Friday morning, the rulings came out. And what did you predict last night? I predicted last night that the court would basically say that the issue was moot, that they didn't have to rule on it because everybody's back and doing their thing. Um, and that's basically what the rulings were today. Now, uh, you know, j Justice Jimmy Blacklock issued the authoritative kind of ruling of the court. It's five pages long. We'll probably read some sections of it, and then Justice James Sullivan, who used to be Abbott's general counsel, issued a concurrent opinion that was over three times longer than the rest of the court's opinion, but he used it as an opportunity to kind of start setting the wider historical and legal framework on how this quoarinto action will play out in the future if it happens. Um and so it's very interesting. He talks about how he was scrounging around in the archives, pulling up some of these old cases um from like the early 1900s, late 1800s. Uh and this whole Quo Rinto action goes all the way back to English law in the 16th century and stuff like that. So that was the 13th century. Well, it goes well, the 13th century was when the criminal actions, and then in the 16th century, the original criminal quoanto usage gets transferred over and it becomes a civil action in a different way. And the civil quo ronto is what America imported when we, you know, eagle struck the the old guys. And uh so there's all this little legal finagling and in Justice Sullivan's um issue is proposing to set the record, set the table for that whenever the court has to potentially hear this again, they're able to jump straight to the fact-finding and not have to wrestle around with the intricate legal difficulties surrounding this kind of rarely used, but becoming more common legal maneuver.

SPEAKER_03

So uh with that analysis, it's kind of interesting to think if they had tried this, they being Greg Abbott, had filed this in the 21 quorum break, they would have set the standard then. You know, maybe we don't get the same ruling, but let's say that you did get the same ruling. Well, now you'd have the pretense to actually execute it now.

SPEAKER_01

Well, what's interesting too, and this is something I think that people don't necessarily understand or always realize when it comes to these types of cases, or really law in general, is that it's a progressive building type thing. And if you go back and and it it kind of touches on this, and especially the briefs from uh uh Attorney General Paxton, I think, walk through this a lot, you start seeing that every time something like this happens, the ball gets moved further down the field on the legal issues surrounding this and what can uh certain things happen and who can file what in what court. So, like uh Sullivan talks about this in his brief about you know, there was a lot of uncertainty over can the Supreme Court hear a Quaranto action as an original jurisdiction, or does it have to go through a district court? And who can even file this? Because it it sounds like in certain passages of the Texas Constitution that only the attorney general can file this type of thing, which was part of the reason why the governor filing one was like, wait a second, what's going on here? Why are you doing this?

SPEAKER_03

And did they issue the ruling in this in both cases? They were simultaneously consolidated.

SPEAKER_01

They consolidated the cases because you know they're functionally the same, although the governor had different arguments than the attorney general had. Um, and also Paxson's lawsuit was filed kind of in conjunction and along with statements made by Speaker Burroughs at the time on like if y'all don't return by X date, I'm going to consider this, you know, that y'all are non-users of your office, you're abandoning your office. And so, but Abbott filed his before that, and so it just was kind of a mess if we go back in time and think about that. And there was a lot of people, there were a lot of very smart attorneys all over the state and all over the country trying to figure out exactly how this stuff would work.

SPEAKER_03

Um I think that's an important point to underscore here. You know, first off, I don't think the Supreme Court was uh excited to take up this question.

SPEAKER_01

Probably Jonesing.

SPEAKER_03

No. Which is why it's one reason it took so long. But, you know, also the quorum break, this one lasted two weeks. And there's a lot of um uh you know, belly aching that I've seen about how the court dragged it out for so long. Well, when you have a novel uh conception of law and and suggestion being brought before the court, they need time to consider. Yeah. And it both sides have to submit their p their uh their arguments, the court the justices need to debate it, consider it. And um that takes time and probably longer than two weeks.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, and I mean like just to kind of clarify like the breadth of what everybody is is dealing with, like I think the earliest date when Sullivan is going through his uh historical breakdown on this is the year 1176, which is, you know, almost a m what is that, like a millennia ago? Almost? That's like 900 years ago. Um so there's a lot to like chew through and digest in this. Um and this Quaranto stuff has started to become more prevalent in Texas law because there's some uh uh issues with like the uh there's another case going on or was going on. Uh I think it's still working its way out, uh, where Paxton uh requested records from Annunciation House, this kind of border NGO that was involved in you know alleged uh you know assistance in getting people uh illegal entry into the country, harboring, sheltering, providing uh stuff to illegal aliens. And Paxon tried to look at their records, they countersued Paxon's, I think, sued to strip it of its operational charter through a quo aronto proceeding, if I have that right. Um I'm always so scared when we talk about law stuff, because we have you know a lot of very smart intelligent lawyers and we're just very, you know, we're just boys, we're just joining journalists trying to figure it out.

SPEAKER_03

Um well those if there are any smart intelligent attorneys listening to this who uh decide we have royally screwed something up, let us know.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, but kindly, please. We're trying to sensitive. But uh yeah, so it's all it's all very, very fascinating and interesting. And I think there's an undercurrent as well here of and I think this ties in with the Abbott's recent announcement regarding a statewide prosecutor that would not be in the attorney general's office. There's and you know, Abbott himself used to be Supreme Court Justice, used to be attorney general, has appointed every single justice on the Texas Supreme Court was at one point appointed by Abbott except for one. Justice John Devine is the only one that was never appointed by Abbott to the country. He won election. He won the election. And everybody else has since won an election or is running for office, but the rest of them all came by way of Abbott's appointment. Um and in Abbott's original rule uh uh filing in the Woo case, you know, he talks about how he, the governor, is the one that directs Texas's legal kind of strategy and theories and stuff, which of course Ken Paxton would probably take umbrage at that contention, being the elected executive officer over in charge of representing Texas's legal theories in court. And now we have this new kind of statewide district attorney that Abbott wants to be an Abbott appointee, not an elected office, and not underneath any other elected official. And so uh it's all very interesting to see some of this stuff shake out.

SPEAKER_03

It's a power or tug of war, really.

SPEAKER_01

And of course, right in Sullivan's uh concurrent opinion on this, there's definitely an allusion to like the governor was okay in filing this motion against Wu, even though, you know, the language seems pretty clear-cut that the Attorney General is the one who has the authority to come before the Supreme Court, because the governor is the is not just one among equals, he's a higher level of executive than all the other statewide elected executives. Uh so it's all very interesting. There's I think things afoot.

SPEAKER_03

But uh if we just want to read some of the Yeah, what are the what are the actual parameters of the Black Locke opinion?

SPEAKER_01

So Black Lock writes, this is at the end, uh, and his biggest his big thing is the legislature has the tools within its authority that they're not using yet to resolve this. And we can see that it was resolved because it was only two weeks. You know, that might seem like a long time in the moment, uh, might seem a long time to the legislature, but it's not a long time in the eyes of a court. And so he ends it in saying, you know, and once again, as has so often been the case in our state's history, the robust political dynamics envisioned by our Constitution proved well suited to resolve a contentious political matter on their own, without interference from the court. Whatever wrong may have been committed by the absent House members, the Texas Constitution's internal political remedies, none of which involved the judicial branch, were sufficient to the task of restoring the House's ability to do business. And then the big caveat comes. Should those remedies unexpectedly prove inadequate in a future case, we might have occasion to consider whether any judicial remedy could ever be available in circumstances such as these. But we're not answering any of those questions today. If it happens again, because it's been resolved. Because it's been resolved.

SPEAKER_03

So I I found I chuckled a bit when I saw that section of Black Locke's opinion talking about how the uh remedies allowed for by the Constitution for the House to set consequences and penalties, how that resolved this, because my read on it was that did not resolve this at all. What resolved the quorum break, which of course was them coming back and re-establishing a quorum, was twofold. One, the traditional stresses of being of breaking quorum and being away from home, away from your business, away from your family. And two, the fact that Democ House Democrats in Texas got what they wanted, which was um prodding other states, particularly in this case California, Democratic-friendly states, to start redistricting themselves in order to counteract what Texas Republicans were doing.

unknown

Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01

Well, and BlackLock does mention he says in the end, quorum was restored in two weeks' time without judicial intervention by the interplay of political and practical forces.

SPEAKER_03

Okay. But he first talks about the penalties. The fines didn't do anything to bring back uh members, at least from what I recall. It was those practical and political.

SPEAKER_01

This decision comes right after major players like Wu and I think most of the other ones that were fined have now paid those fines. Which, right, if you're arguing that what they did constitutes abandonment, and then they come back and are allowed to resume office and pay the fines and things like that, that that reinforces, in my mind, Black Locke's contention of like obviously the rules were sufficient. And he says, like, the modest measures employed barely scratch the surface of the house's broad coercive authority to compel attendance. So what that looks like, I don't I don't know. I'm sure um members of the house are cooking up, chefing up something uh to I think rules fight will be interesting perhaps this year, as it generally is. Next year. Yeah, yeah, next year, next this upcoming session. Um so yeah, it's very interesting. And Sullivan's brief I guess kind of puts a finer edge on like, yes, there's appetite on the court to to go after this. And just to kind of like spot read a couple of sentences here, he says, when it comes to breaking quorum, maybe there won't even be a next time. I wouldn't be holding my breath though, given the recent pattern of legislative walkouts. Were it to happen yet again, I believe the next set of quorum breakers had better be ready to pay us a visit.

SPEAKER_03

So Well, that goes back to my other point about if Abbott had tested these waters in twenty-one.

SPEAKER_01

Which wasn't Sullivan his general counsel at that time?

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, I think so.

SPEAKER_01

So this I'm sure some of his thinking was very much developed probably by the research he was doing when investigating this for Abbott at the end of it.

SPEAKER_03

If that had happened, and again, stipulated things the ruling came out the same, yada yada yada. Um of course the court looked different with different people. Nathan Hacked was the chief, not uh Jimmy Blacklock. But if that had happened back then, it might have succeeded this time in a two-week period because you have already would have set the standard, right?

SPEAKER_01

Of course, you know, it's very difficult to be like, yeah, if it followed, because you know there was a different speaker of the House at the time.

SPEAKER_03

Of course, I think Does he make the same statements?

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. Yeah. Um but it's all fascinating, the the cumulative build of Texas's political environment. And I think the next time it will be if and if it's longer, because every time every time each team does something, they get better at it. You know. Um so they were gone for two weeks this year, I mean last session, and they had uh, you know, stops all across the country. They were in New York, they were in, you know, whatever, um Illinois, California at times. It's kind of a statewide tour for for a lot of them. Last time they just went up to DC and it seemed less It was a month-long cornbreak, less organized somewhat.

SPEAKER_03

Um but it was less organized. It was also uh less organized on the Republican side, too.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. So everybody is kind of gathering their their tools for next time.

SPEAKER_03

And another reason that Republicans were so united in this during this spat was because they were so so pissed off about having just been through a corn break a few years before. And I heard from multiple members that. But they're like last time I I was um you know I didn't like it, but uh I was less enraged about it, and this time I'm so done.

SPEAKER_01

Aaron Powell And what was that last one, the one in twenty one?

SPEAKER_03

Was that during special or was that during the special on the elections bill, not the redistricting bill. Uh because of course the redistricting bill back then was a lot less contentious because it was basically almost without exception, but not without exception, incumbent protection across the board, notably um uh uh gosh, uh what was his name? State rep in in Tarrant County um got pushed out by other members of the Tarrant County delegation. They just basically threw his district to the wolves and made it a Democratic district. Um and he was uh very upset with that, of course. But uh overall it was more incumbent protection, and so it was just much a l much less contentious map overall. In reaction to this ruling, Gene Wu said in a statement to us closing, Abbott was wrong, weak, and after all his bluster, he couldn't come and take a damn thing. Uh Abbott's spokesman, Andrew Mahalares, uh, said that um if Democrats abandon their offices again, the governor will bring them right back to the Supreme Court. Posturing on both sides. You know, of course, you know, Gene Wu had a nominal victory in this. Um but it's as we just walk through, it's not as clear-cut as, oh yes, uh lawmakers have a right to break quorum, which was, of course, the case Democrats were making.

SPEAKER_01

Um but it's very much a all right, guys, let's all calm down and we'll come back to this later.

SPEAKER_03

And maybe we will we will. Maybe we won't. But uh, you know, I I think next time things will move faster in whatever manner a decision arrives in. So Yeah. Um anything else on that you want to touch on?

SPEAKER_01

Oh, I think we think we probably got squared it away.

SPEAKER_03

Let's move on to the Paxton recording that we broke this week. So we talked last week about the AGs race and ran through the whole gamut. Um Chip Roy is starting to spend a lot more. Mays Middleton has yet to spend uh to dump at least what we think he might be capable of into this race, though, though now he is starting to spend money. Um it's up in the air. I think the the polling that I've been told about shows a lead for Middleton, but uh not a big one. This thing could go either way, and I think it's really anybody's guess at this moment. Um maybe Mays blows the doors off and runs away with it in the last two uh last week and a half, but maybe not. So um that leads us to uh the recording that was given to us at an event last week. I'm not I haven't found out exactly which event it was, and it might have been the one that Paxton was with Middleton at, but I don't know that for sure. Uh Paxton said was asked by the crowd who he's supporting in the Attorney General's race. And he said he's voting for Middleton and that he is uh he would be very concerned about Chip Roy's.

SPEAKER_01

I could not imagine Chip Roy being in that space.

SPEAKER_03

Yes. So now I mean Paxton, we as we talked about last week, we knew where his camp was. They were all choosing Middleton over Roy. Uh but Paxton himself had not done anything uh on that. He's not said anything publicly. Uh and he I guess he sort of said something publicly here, but it was not meant to be public. Um and then you know, we put it out there and it it made the rounds and it it uh we saw it referenced in text messages for Maze Middleton later, and um it's uh he's finally coming off the sidelines on this.

SPEAKER_01

And uh of no to no particular surprise of I think anybody who is aware of the background and history between those two people, Chip Roy had been Paxton's first assistant attorney general when he took office and uh worked for him for I think uh a year and a half or so, and resigned uh during the first round. Aaron Wrights, who had also worked for Paxton and had been Paxton's openly endorsed pick in the first round, uh said that Chip had been fired from the attorney general's office. And basically what the story that we've heard is that he was practically just forced to resign because of according to Lieutenant Governor Patrick uh being insubordinate. Um and that checks out. I asked uh I asked Congressman Roy about his relationship with Paxton last week when I was on the trail with him, and he said, look, we had uh disagreements about how the office should be run. You know, that's it, that's the whole story. I'm not I'm focused on looking forward. You know, other people want to look back, but that's not me. Uh he, you know, is telling crowds on the trail that he is going to carry on the legacy of Ken Paxton in office. Uh, and of course, Paxton does not want him to be the one to do that. So it will be interesting to see how that but I mean really the lieutenant governor has talking about people coming off the sidelines. Obviously, he last week uh not only just said, yes, I'm endorsing Mays Middleton, but this week he has been much, much more aggressive in his comments about Roy. Uh and he even highlighted, and I think one yesterday or the day before last, Wednesday or Thursday, that uh he Mays Middleton is somebody who will work collaboratively with the other people in Austin, and he doesn't view Roy as somebody who will do that. And of course, that does kind of lean into Royce's argument that the Austin swamp, you know, he calls it doesn't want them and stuff, but it's all very interesting developments in the race as it is heating up as we are going into the final stretch here before early voting starts next week. I yeah, next week. Um and everybody's crisscrossing the state on their GoTV, get out the vote.

SPEAKER_03

GeoTV.

SPEAKER_01

Govd.

SPEAKER_03

Govd.

SPEAKER_01

Got godvz.

SPEAKER_03

Uh yeah, but Patrick came out and and made that statement, and as Patrick does, ruffled quite a bit of feathers on it. Um it's not surprising. Patrick had already endorsed him. Patrick is very much opposed to Roy taking this spot. Um I think I mentioned it last week, but there's a lot of but wants everybody to play nice. But yes, yes. He he he wants everyone to play nice when when it suits him. Um and you know, I mean politics is a full contact sport. All is fair and love and war, and this is war. So uh, you know, it's it's not really off-brand.

SPEAKER_01

But crackles and feints and sleight of hands and flanking maneuvers and whatnot.

SPEAKER_03

Um but this has caused a reaction the other way. And we don't know all the details yet because finance reports aren't out and no one's claiming credit. But Chip Roy's received uh quite a bit of funding in the last couple of weeks. First of all, he's up on TV in a manner that is exceeding what Mays Middleton has spent. And he Chip got outspent by Mays more than two to one on TV. Media buys in the primary. I think it was like 11.5 million to just under 5 million for for Roy. But net right now, this could always change. But right now, Roy is outspending Middleton on TV. Um I don't know what Middleton is spending on direct mail. That may far exceed it. Who knows? We'll we'll find out when the finance reports come out on Monday. But uh it is notable because Roy, he didn't have uh uh huge trouble fundraising, but he wasn't bringing in gaudy numbers. Two million of the dollars he brought in during the uh the primary campaign were a tra was a transfer from his federal account. So he just simply was not swimming in in money. And he's had I know he had some interesting conversations with some big money guys before the primary happened that didn't come. And then um he he f you know finished below Mays in the in the primary, and who knows, maybe that money does end up uh shuttling his way, but something has clearly, and there's a lot of speculation about who that is. Um if it's I'm I was told it's more than one donor. Uh don't know names yet, but um we'll put that out there as soon as we get them. But uh we will know on on Monday. And I think I think it's a pretty good bet that uh the reason that money has come off the sideline is because of things like what Dan Patrick said. Yeah that is irritating.

SPEAKER_01

Well, if there's one thing that gets people off the bench to clear the clear the benches, it's other people saying stuff. And and I mean that's why uh Paxton endorsed in the first round because Cruz endorsed Roy. It's like, okay, well, if you're endorsing somebody, well then I'm gonna endorse my guy. Yeah. And uh punch counterpunch, yep. Yeah. There's I mean, it's just a very natural instinct of well, I'm not gonna let you get away with that, roll up my sleeves and get to it myself. So tit for tat.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Yep. So I think that that race has become the most interesting, you know, obviously. Sleeve long held that opinion. Oh, yeah, we had that opinion in the primary.

SPEAKER_01

We're not bandwagon AG race fans. We were here before it was cool. Howdy everyone, we'd like to thank the sponsor of today's podcast, the Lowy Law Firm. For over 20 years, Adam Lowy has helped injured Texans recover and heal. From car accidents to dog bites, Adam Lowy is there to help and gets results. Go to LowyLawfirm.com to find out more and get a free consultation. Adam, of course, is very well known on Twitter for his commentary and observations on Texas politics, so be sure to give him a follow as well. Thanks to our sponsor, the Lowy Law Firm.

SPEAKER_03

Uh while all the attention or a lot of the attention is trained on the Senate race, this is gonna be the one we're watching most closely uh going into the 26.

SPEAKER_01

We're talking about the Republican runoff, the Democrats have a runoff in this race, too.

SPEAKER_03

Yep. Yep. Nathan Johnson nearly avoided one uh but didn't. I mean now he's facing Jo Jaworski in the primary or the the runoff.

SPEAKER_01

I think what, five dollars has been spent on that?

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, not much at all. Um at least nothing trackable so far. Yeah. And uh I think that kind of tells you that Johnson's feeling good. Um I talked to a couple of his allies um the the other day and they uh they were saying as much. Um it's kind of interesting. Whenever I talk to a staffer or a campaign employee. Everyone feels good.

SPEAKER_01

Everybody feels good. Until they don't. Until they don't.

SPEAKER_03

So we'll see how that shakes out. Early voting begins Monday. I think it runs through does it run through I think Thursday? I don't think it runs through Friday. Uh I don't know. We should probably have that down. But uh regardless, you will have the ability to cast a ballot early next week before the Tuesday, May 23rd.

SPEAKER_01

If you care to participate in the democratic functions of government.

SPEAKER_03

Okay, so uh Sid Miller. If you're into that sort of thing.

SPEAKER_01

Because another one of the big kind of political uh footballs being thrown about is suspension of various gas taxes because of, you know, how expensive it is to fill up at the pump, which going into uh an election season, nobody likes that, especially the people in power. James Tallerico, just talking about the federal level for a second, James Tallerico had called on uh Trump to get rid of it, and then Trump, a few days later, um independently said, yeah, he would be interested in doing a temporary suspension on that. What had happened in the interim, though, is John Cornyn had gone after Taller Rico, um, saying that, you know, it's uh foolhardy gambit, political stunt, all of this very invective language, and then of course, two days later, Trump's like, Yeah, I kind of like that idea. So Cornyn had to double back and be like, Oh, well, I mean, I uh if we're talking about a temporary pause, you know, something like that. Um, and then immediately filed a bill to rename uh highway after Trump. So, you know, fun fun little slip up there. It's tough to get outflanked like that.

SPEAKER_03

Only the best pandering in Texas politics. Only the best.

SPEAKER_01

A wonderful vintage. But at the state level, they've also been mostly Democrats have been calling on Abbott to get rid of the state gas tax. Um, and Sid Miller jumped on it too. And Abbott's response has been, well, you know, I don't have that authority. And Miller uh came in very feisty as he is uh generally want to do, and says, Well, you have the authority whenever you want to on any of these other things where you just kind of click your heels and sign your pen and he mentioned a few in the statement, but I think it's worth revisiting how wild this was at the time.

SPEAKER_03

Sid Miller, along with uh uh Alan West sued Abbott over I think that was the early voting extension.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

And then Miller also sued Dan Patrick in the Senate over their mask mandate in the 21 session. Actually was a it was a what was it? The Senate had a weird setup. They they had a mask mandate that was not official in the rules, but they were enforcing. And then at one point the House, which had an official mask mandate, stopped enforcing theirs, so it was a weird uh discrepancy in both chambers there. But Miller has has sued both of the top dogs in the state. Um and obviously he uh has been very critical of Abbott. He almost ran against Abbott in 22, decided not to. Um but Nil have lost between those two.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. And it uh very interesting arguments from Miller about you know, where does this executive authority begin? Where does it end? What are the type of things you can do in emergency, you know, rule on? And uh I think Miller's probably not the only one asking those questions on the Republican side of the aisle.

SPEAKER_03

So yeah, and uh, you know, he has what what is it now seven months left to uh uh uh poke and prod Abbott as much as he'd like. And um I don't think this is going to happen, but you know, it'd be pretty funny if Sid Miller runs for RPT chair. And by the way, we're supposed to talk about this, and we'll get that next week. We'll talk about the RPT chair race next week. Um but the uh uh Tony Ortiz at Curtin Revolt is trying to get all these all these uh elected officials, including Tony Gonzalez, Sid Miller is among them, uh Doc Chambers, to uh announce bids for Republican Party of Texas chair. I don't think it's gonna happen, but he's trying his mightiest.

SPEAKER_01

Pretty funny. And I was speaking to Tony, he was d down here testifying in one of the committees uh yesterday, the elections committee, uh, and took some very uh unveiled jabs at Alan West uh over his leadership of the Dallas County Republican Party, which he has since resigned from, and over some transparency issues on the Public Information Act request for I think uh ballot applications for candidates. But uh busy week, actually. In the interim, had a lot of different committee hearings. We had one on water, one on schools, one on elections, and one or two others as well that uh occurred. Um which one stood out to you?

SPEAKER_03

Well, I was sitting watching the the education hearing, and that uh it's Did you pay attention or were you on your phone? I was paying attention. But you're also on your phone. I am on my phone right now because I am waiting for a my couch to be delivered to my new apartments I wasn't actually criticizing you for that.

SPEAKER_01

I was setting you up to talk about how they were looking at the phone bands.

SPEAKER_03

I thought you were making a jab as you were want to do.

SPEAKER_01

Um Yeah, so I mean that that came later, but there seemed to be That was like you know, a dad playing like soft pitch with his son and then just getting beamed in the head with violence.

SPEAKER_03

Soft toss? Whatever, I don't know. Soft pitch. Gosh, you heathen.

SPEAKER_01

Um I've tried to hang out with you, and you're just being mean.

SPEAKER_03

So the the education hearing was was interesting. They were talking first about just the state of education, which News Flash is kind of a broad subject to discuss, and it went a bunch of different ways, and some ways that were totally over my head. Uh but overall uh things are getting most areas of student testing are getting worse. Reading is actually the one exception that is above um where above the pre-COVID level of being uh adequate. Mathematics, social studies, science, all still below the student test scores, all still below the pre-COVID um levels. And of course, COVID happened, schools shut down, kids were in remote schooling for a while, it did not work very well at all. Of course, you know, maybe one off student here and there, it suits usually more the more high-performing students, but overall it was a disaster.

SPEAKER_01

Um and is that just those numbers about pre-COVID, post-COVID, is that just public school students or is that correct.

SPEAKER_03

Public schools. Well, anyone in the test, take the star test, uh or whatever we're calling it now. But I believe that's public schools. And uh so they testimony was was discussing that, basically highlighting uh the problems in in schools and what lawmakers need to take a look at later down next year, down the road further. The the basically the the overall message was yeah, this issue is a problem, uh as it has been for a long time, uh, but particularly since COVID, and nobody really knows exactly how to solve this. Um TEA came and testified, they had some interesting uh statistics. We have that on Daily Bowl from I think Tuesday. But uh overall, it's just a it's a quagmire of an issue. And you have all this, especially with this the um education with the freedom counts, that's what we're calling now, the the grant funding for students to go to private school that has caused an uptick in or actually a reduction for public schools. I think there's about 76,000 fewer students in enrolled in public schools than uh last cycle, last school year. And you know that because we are uh enrollment, uh are we enrollment or are we no we're attendance-based funding for schools. Um but as you have students who leave to go to private schools, which the the largest portion of students that received these grant fundings were already in private schools, which is itself a whole other debate that we're not gonna get into here. But um that this of this shift does affect what schools get uh money wise and funding wise. And so that was a touchy subject. Um but school discipline is still a problem. Um we're seeing Teacher retention still being an issue. Uh there's the the income side of that, but also the classroom uh behavioral problem side of it. It's just less appealing to be a teacher than in a long time. So I don't think they solved the state of education at this hearing, but they certainly discussed a lot of the problems. And then as you mentioned, as you referred to on the phones in schools bill, actually that has been a bright spot. And people have seen a lot of improvements in student attention in class because of that. I think that's pretty self-explanatory. You know, when you have these confounding things in front of you all the time, uh it's it's impossible.

SPEAKER_01

We can't even sit here and have a conversation without both of us being.

SPEAKER_03

I know. I know we're addicted. Uh I think we're we can't be saved, though.

SPEAKER_01

We're too far gone. Yeah. Abandon hope all who enter here and what we have over our bullpen door.

SPEAKER_03

Um but for the the youths, the they're not straight youths because they're in school. The youths, they um There might still be hope for them to be able to do that. They and it has worked. And there's a lot of uh it was a bipartisan bill that passed. I think uh James Talerico was a co-author on it. Uh so it it clearly was net was needed. We'll see if there are adjustments that need to be made. But um overall, that's the one I was watching this week uh as far as committee hearings.

SPEAKER_01

But you were Yeah, I was watching the uh uh House Committee on uh water and rural affairs, and you know, water is one of those big perennial issues, but it's certainly exploding in attention because of the uh nationwide attention on Corpus Christi. But and they talked about that, they had a whole panel come up on desalination plants, and there was a lot of discussion not only on you know the seawater desal plants, which is what everybody is really focused on in relation to Corpus Christi, but Texas already has a number of desal plants, so they're just not seawater desalination plants, they are uh groundwater and brackish water desalination plants, and those are inland, you know, because even if there's water in the ground, it might not be uh of standard enough for use in you know homes or even in manufacturing and stuff like that, so they have to be treated as well. But the desal for seawater is something that everybody's looking for as a potential solution. Uh Corpus Christi had for years looked at building one and then stopped building one, but they got a bunch of grants for it, and that was a lot of the battles and fights that uh the governor's been hitting them on and other people as well. But of course, anytime you try to build a seawater desalination plant, especially in a port, bay, or estuary, there are substantial environmental concerns because the uh what you put back into the water is going to be high, a lot more salty. So it's where do you dump this stuff? How do you use that? Can you pump it back into the ground? But of course, if you're pumping, you know, kind of produced water back into the ground, that leads to other issues. Um and so it was a very interesting hearing on that front. But perhaps the kind of sleeper one that was interesting that we talked about in Dele Boule is how do municipalities handle their city-owned water utility and wastewater utility stuff. And just before this hearing, Houston mayor John Whitmeyer had advanced a budget to help solve the general fund deficit. And the general fund is for cities what they use for a lot of their main payments, such as you know, uh police, fire, like it's it's an important fund, and there are a lot of laws that stipulate what type of money can be moved where and how do you do that? So they don't just have one big bag of money, they have different funds, and sometimes those funds have more and less. And so they had a $200 million general fund deficit, and Whitmeyer proposed a couple of different ways to solve that, such as a trash fee. But he also proposed a transfer of, I think it really it wasn't transfer, but having the city-owned municipal uh wastewater and water utility pay a uh right-of-way fee, which you know privately owned utilities do pay, and that's you know, basically to cover the infrastructure where that these utilities uh induce that the city has to pay for. So it's kind of just you know a fee for that. The municipal-owned utility hasn't paid that in Houston, but now they're proposing a 5% uh fee on that, and other cities do this, but functionally what it will look like is it is a transfer from the MOU to the general fund. And there are some people that at the hearing, which was the first panel on this, uh, were kind of drawing some uh uh raising some umbrage about that because it's like why is a municipal-owned entity paying the municipality for something? And so there was a lot of discussion about like, well, that that utility doesn't receive taxes per se. It gets its money through rates, and there are limits on how much rates can do, but they still are incurring costs for the city, and so they're paying the city for this stuff. It it was an interesting policy discussion. I think it's a good window into how complicated it is to run, especially these big cities. And other big cities already do this San Antonio, Dallas, thing uh other I was about to say the line that I say too much. Things of that nature. Um everybody drink. Yeah, right. Um it was a good picture into just how complicated these policy and funding discussions get, and especially in our big cities that are bigger than some small countries and certainly bigger have bigger budgets than some states. You know, I think the proposed budget in Houston was over seven billion dollars or something like that. I mean, and all these budgets have gone up and up and up. Uh but you know, the state budget is, you know, what's it over 40 million billion now?

SPEAKER_03

Um Well, the state is uh goes on a biennium. Yeah. And it was 3 nearly 340 billion.

SPEAKER_01

Um yeah. So on top of that, you have these cities that are before too long gonna have probably budgets in the 10 billions.

SPEAKER_03

Aaron Powell Well, the you know, this does bring up an argument that especially some on the right have made for a while about let's take Austin, who has two municipal-owned utilities, water and electricity, using those funds to under basically underwrite their general fund. And so they have this uh uh pot of money that they can use for all kinds of stuff. And of course, you know, uh right-wingers hate the city of Austin because it's certainly uh left and and uh more liberal than they prefer. Um and then you get things like these weird expenditures on uh art and and whatnot. But something that's allowing these cities, even if they have uh if they have tight general funds to have more spending capability, whether it's on roads or whether it's on uh fatuous art, is the um the these these funds that ratepayers are paying, whether for water or electricity. Houston, they don't have a municipal-owned electrical, but they do water, right?

SPEAKER_01

And so um that just brings up a debate about they can't just transfer funds out of these MOUs willy-nilly. There's already a law that says, you know, the rates have to be capped purely on, you know, they can't be making money, but if you can come up with a reason why the MOU should be paying the city for something, then you can add that on, you know, because then that's what the MOU has to raise in order to operate. So then you can raise the rates, which then you can transfer to the general fund. And then once you go into the general fund, then it's all kind of fungible, right? Means you have more money to spend on something else, uh, is what the argument goes. But it was kind of interesting, it was brought up by I think uh uh Colkhorst. Sorry, I think I said it was the House, it was the Senate that was having this committee. Uh Colkhorst brought up, you know, well, we put so much so many limitations on how much uh you know the the city, the municipality can raise tax rates that maybe we're incentivizing these cities to start using opaque funding tools in order to cover their costs that citizens might not have as much transparency into because it's done via an ordinance versus a vote on tax elections or something like that. And so it's interesting to see some of the more deliberative process of like, okay, we've put all of these limitations on cities and their ability to handle their finances, and now we're starting to see these more circumspect, odd, uh, or maybe not odd is the wrong word, but uh less usual tools that they're trying to come up with. And this is kind of almost leads into some of our discussions we've had about the data centers, like cities, municipalities, counties have a lot of regulations on how they can raise the money that they view is necessary to provide the services uh to their constituents. So, well, data center comes along and says we're gonna pay you this much in property taxes over this many years. That's an appealing offer. Same thing with you know these uh MOUs and and other types of funding mechanisms that the cities have at their uh discretion. Um so it was a fun hearing if you're into that sort of thing.

SPEAKER_03

A classic state sovereignty versus local control fights as so many of these issues end up being, uh particularly when it's a Republican legislature against a big blue city. It's just kind of naturally everyone goes to their corner.

SPEAKER_01

Anyway, one of the witnesses that was talking about how they use this was uh I think the uh city manager, assistant city manager of Sugarland, you know, which isn't one of the big bads in you know the kind of Republican big city type of uh uh perspective. And he was very much talking like this is a way that we need in order to actually lower costs, because if we weren't able to pay the city for certain services, then we would have to get our own IT department, we would have to get our own HR department, we would have to duplicate all of these things, but inside the MOU, which while it's municipal-owned, it acts as a separate entity. Uh it acts more like a a city-owned company, you know. And so it was an interesting perspective uh that the lawmakers were considering there as well, because if you pass legislation and it's specifically targeting the way that these bitty cities do it, it also takes it off the table for these smaller uh municipalities as well.

SPEAKER_03

Uh before we get to the lottery commission issue, I want to touch on another utility-related one, which is uh these 765 KV lines, big power lines that are trying to connect essentially the Permian Basin, which is being increasingly powered, not by gas, but by electricity, which requires a shift in uh the kind of infrastructure that is there to support it, connecting that to Houston. And the proposed lines, this was uh HP 5066, some recent legislature, I can't keep it straight. But this was passed by the legislature as a response to, I think, um certainly URI in 21, the power grid collapse, but also the growing demand that we're seeing in the Permian Basin when it comes to oil and gas operations. It basically comes over from Midland, I think through around Abilene, the Hill Country, over to Bell County.

SPEAKER_01

Well, there's three different lines.

SPEAKER_03

Well, yes, but it it will create one through the hill country. Through the Hill Country down to Houston, or over to Houston. But it's being done in three different segments. Uh and I believe three different companies are doing that. But we saw a couple letters, one letter with a growing number of legislatures sign on, legislators sign on, uh opposing one of the segments. You want to run us through that?

SPEAKER_01

Well, I mean, all three of the currently proposed building lines are facing a lot of resistance by local groups, local people who just don't want this. The Hill Country one specifically, you know, Chip Roy has spoken out against it because they're it's a big thing. It's not just like a little, you know, line that you see in your neighborhood. These are massive infrastructure projects and will have a substantial impact on, you know, the the countryside that they're cutting through.

SPEAKER_03

Basically, people just don't want it running through their property. Yeah. And you know, some some criticisms I have heard from uh lawmakers who are upset about this is that rather than tracking property lines, they're just going right through. Now, these electoral companies have a mandate to serve. They have a mandate to serve both just generally, but also in under the uh previous state code, but also the new law that was passed. So they're being told by the state to build this. And so they're trying to figure out a way to do this the most efficient way possible, cost-wise and uh and land-wise.

SPEAKER_01

But there's these letters now, there's I think several dozen lawmakers that are asking uh just let's put a pause on all of this for right now because yes, we passed this, but we might need to take another look at it because maybe there are better ways of doing this where we don't have to build these massive transmission lines. We can, you know, uh do something else. We can have generation there, we can do this, that, the other thing. And the electrical power generation environment in the state of Texas now isn't what it was then. And there are a lot more complicating factors that are happening now, such as you know, new big uh energy users trying to come onto the grid, you know, data centers. Data centers, et cetera, et cetera.

SPEAKER_03

This this issue is kind of getting, even though it is a separate one, it's kind of getting tied into the uproar over data centers. And um unfortunately for the electrical companies that are uh building these, they're getting hit politically like these data centers are uh and getting blamed for uh having the same uh lack of upfront work done on these projects that data centers have, even though they have done the work upfront. But they're still hitting the same third rail. And um clearly it's it's uh uh touching a nerve with legislators, and uh particularly because their constituents are mad about this.

SPEAKER_01

Aaron Powell Yeah. Nobody wants to get steamrolled by some company that's like we're building right here. Uh and of course, you know, it's totally it's a little bit different with the the electrical companies and stuff, and they're just trying to do what the law is forcing them to do.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, and you know, the other part of this is that it's certainly not the case for everyone whose land this is going through, but it is the case that there are some of these where um really wealthy people who are making money from the Permian and the increased electrification of the Permian are mad that this is going this might go through their ranch properties in the Hill Country. You know, if I was them, I'd be mad too, but like you know, there's a there's a clear uh uh there's a clear problem with that thinking. Um But it doesn't matter. Like they're they're still pushing their legislators to go one way versus the other, and now they have to lawmakers have to figure out what the heck they're gonna do about this. And so um the the thing is all three of these lines for it to work effectively have to all be built. However that happens, whether they alter the course, state of the current course, without one you can't just pause one segment and still have this thing go through okay, and and um adhering to the mandate placed by the legislature.

SPEAKER_01

Well, and some of the the letters that the lawmakers are sending uh are arguing that we really only need two of them, not all three. And you know, it'll be uh something to watch develop because there's certainly a growing uh nadar or whatever of Nadir. No, that's a guy. The if there's a growing conglomerate of people that are voicing very strong concerns about how quickly this is moving.

SPEAKER_03

Um and if if they were to s adhere to the requirements by law by just nixing, let's say, Section 2, there would have to be a significant change in the way they're doing this. Um because, like I said, this is a contiguous or supposed to be a contiguous line from the Permian from Midland to Houston that transports uh power. And of course we didn't mention that these lines are bigger because it is meant to carry more electrons uh along a bigger highway, basically. That way you don't get the congestion problems that we have seen both out in West Texas and in South Texas. So uh that this thing is gonna continue to be a fight. Um, you know, the Hill Country has been the center of a lot of political fights, and this is just another one that we're seeing play out. Um and you know, if Chip Roy wins the AGs race, there might be an even bigger hurdle for these electrical companies in terms of getting this done. Um, because keep in mind, Mays Middleton, Houston area guy, Galveston, of course, but around there. So I don't know what his opinion on this is. We know what Chip Roy's is, but geographically speaking, the priorities are different. And so uh you might see a different uh jux position from him to Chip Roy on this. Uh last one, let's touch on briefly before we close out uh the lottery situation. Um there was an update on indictments against Gary Grief. Can you give us the top lines of that?

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. Former lottery commission got indicted uh by a Travis County grand jury, and then a Travis County District uh assistant uh DA immediately dismissed that indictment. Caused a whole bunch of ruckus. Um everybody's like, what's going on? And the source of this all goes back to the 95 million dollar drawing back in April 2023, where and it kind of led to all of this consternation last session over the lottery commission and courier services and out of state and sometimes out of country, kind of gambling cabals, buying uh millions and millions of dollars worth of tickets to guarantee that they get certain all but guarantee they get certain jackpots and payouts, and is it rigged and all of this stuff. So former Commissioner Grief gets indicted, then it gets dismissed, and then he gets indicted again. And Travis County DA, who is a Garza, who is, you know, one of target number one uh in the state for like the rogue DA we con crime, George Soros funded, you know, liberal non-prosecutors gets lit up over this by Abbott and other people. And then the indictment, carbon copy issued again, and now there's a summons on the case. And Garza has not explained uh yet exactly as of recording this on Friday, what the procedural kind of hiccup or speed bump. Or whiplash is on it. Um but I'm sure we'll continue to get more information as the case now seems to be back on and moving forward. Um but it was something that caused a lot of people's eyebrows to go up and be raised because uh and and I'm sure it was a great like twenty-four hour period for the for him when the indictment gets uh dismissed and you know obviously now they're back into the back into the fire on it, but it's something a lot of people are going to be watching because it was one of the big uh crusades for Dan Patrick last session on reforming this or abolishing it completely. And and the commission is gone now, and it's gonna be a good thing. The commission is gone.

SPEAKER_03

The lottery is under the under TDLR, right? Yeah. Um so we're st I mean it was just it was one part of the broader anti-gambling uh push, particularly from the Senate, but the House uh agreed with it, and I think we saw based on comments from him at the time, Speaker Burroughs is very much skeptical of particularly that, um, but bro gambling overall, though he's not as um against it as as Dan Patrick appears to be.

SPEAKER_01

You know, I gotta say, I think last session I was thinking, and maybe it was two sessions ago, I was very much of the opinion that a lot of Texas lawmakers were becoming more open to gambling. But I th I do not see that anymore. No. I do not see that anymore. And of course, I think a lot of people were very disturbed by the popping the hood on the lottery commission and seeing how potentially open that is to manipulation uh from outside groups. Uh but I just think a lot of the people who are coming in now have stronger thought through reasons opposing any expansion of gambling, sports betting, things of that nature. So it's a definite shift that I've felt over the past few cycles.

SPEAKER_03

Well, the gambling lobby uh or the overall industry itself has kind of been an enemy of itself. Because the whole theory has been generally once you get the camel's nose under the tent, the rest will follow. Yeah. But every different segment of the industry wants to be the camel's nose. We're not just talking about uh resort casinos anymore. And of course, those are. Yeah, where's that?

SPEAKER_01

Uh that's the uh Indian tribe casino out outside of Livingston. Um they already have a gambling center, uh, but it just is bingo or electronic games. There's no cards being played there. But they're breaking ground next month on a temporary casino with another 300 machines that will be on the site and kind of help fund what they're billing as a resort casino, uh, and potentially with like card playing and stuff like that. And of course, you know, there's there's a carve out there for the the Indian reservations in Texas. Uh what's interesting about this one is it's not actually on uh connected reservation land. They bought this land, now it's close to the reservation, but they bought this land back in 2001 and then rolled it legally into their reservation trust. Okay. And uh they got approval from the feds to build it last year, late last year, and so now they're moving forward with some actual infrastructure. And of course, you know, you have the Kickapoo uh casino down outside of Eagle Pass, and there's some some other carve outs there too, but they're building this explicitly as a resort casino, and I think trying to catch this potential wave of sort resort casinos that is being pitched as like the destinations and will have X amount of licenses, and so they would be able to say, look, we've already got this infrastructure here, so you can get us one, if they even need it. Yeah. But there's certainly I don't think they would, but they're looking to well it depends on because there's a lot of legal questions about what type of games these things can have. Okay. Uh and that is still able to be regulated, I think, by the state. But it's there's this session, I would not be surprised if we get some comprehensive gambling legislation to remove some of the uncertainty because you also have the card house up in Williamson County. Got raided, got shut down, is now reopened. Is now reopened because the grand jury no-billed on the on the charges against it for money laundering and being an uh illegal place of gambling.

SPEAKER_03

So there's a lot going on in this sector of policy that is interesting because you know you have the prediction markets, you have sports betting, you have horse racing, you have the Indian casinos, you have all of this other stuff, the card rooms and uh there's there's so many different mouths trying to feed at the same trough that lawmakers, particularly with I think if if if we were just debating casino, resort casinos, it would be a pretty straightforward issue. Of course, you'd have the people that are opposed regardless, and and you know, that's fair fair point for them. But it's it's the amalgamation of all these things, plus the fact that, wait, I thought we'd bann gambling, but the prediction markets are still operating, but also these uh the the reservation casinos, and then also these card houses, and uh now the supports betting guys, and uh we're seeing a lot more problems develop from that uh in terms of personal addictions. It's becoming this morass of an issue, whereas to your point, a few cycles ago, we were really were just talking about resort casinos, and that is no longer the case.

SPEAKER_01

Just a few, just a sprinkling.

SPEAKER_03

Which is I what they would still if they had their way, if the Adelsons had their way, that's what they would want.

SPEAKER_01

And there are other players here too, you know, talk about Gentleman Fertita, who is trying to make a bid to buy Caesars. He already owns Golden Nugget, he's got a gambling, he's the number one uh shareholder in win entertainment as well, you know, becoming a very big national player in uh gambling and casinos, and you know, Galveston guy. There's a new Margaritaville being built in Galveston that sound the alarms. The the plans very much look like you could really put a good gambling floor on one of them.

SPEAKER_03

Um kind of like how the uh the Sands plot in Irving, you know, it's gonna be resort. It has a spot that would be perfect for a casino, but it's just an entertainment thing, yeah.

SPEAKER_01

And the Mavericks, right? Are we going to tear down Dallas City Hall to build a uh resort?

SPEAKER_03

Gosh, tear down that disgusting building. I know. Let me tell you whether you put uh the Mavericks there or not, I don't care. That is a disgusting building.

SPEAKER_01

And there's part of me that like it was the headquarters in Robocop. Like, that's cool. Tear it down. It sucks, it's ugly. Awful eyesores. It's awful, and it's made out of bad concrete. And let's just go back to nice, pretty looking buildings, you know. Um Return. Return. Return. Return.

SPEAKER_03

The Texas Capitol looks so nice. Um, the the complex that they're building over there north of the Capitol looks really cool. I don't know if you've been over there yet. I think things are returning too.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, let's just can it all be art deco or older or you know, just not slabs of concrete. Yeah, just you know. And then you look at the old city council buildings and it's like, man, all these courthouses and then tiny towns down and then build something that's just garbage.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, rant over. Rant over.

SPEAKER_01

Um but even if you do chair down, there's still discussion. Will it be a casino? Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Uh well that that'll do it for us this week. But uh you know, make sure you're law you're uh subscribed to texasbullpen.com to get our various slate of newsletters. Um also the like I mentioned, Cattle Call will be out next week. We'll be blasting that out quite a bit. It we've seen the quotes, they they're pretty funny. And uh not all some of them are too dank to include in this, but too dank to include but but believe me, if you're listening and you wrote wrote those quotes, we saw we enjoyed them, we laughed, uh, but we reserve the right to uh pick and choose, of course. So with that, we'll catch you next week.