Connect with us

Texas News

Texas Freedom Caucus Member Exposes Legislative Gridlock and Backlash: A Deep Dive into the Inner Workings of Texan Politics

Published

on

Texas Capitol Building

The Texas Freedom Caucus, a group of staunch conservative lawmakers, has long been a prominent force in the Lone Star State’s political landscape. With influential members such as Chairman Rep. Matt Schaefer and Vice-Chairman Briscoe Cain, this caucus advocates for a robust conservative agenda.

Recently, a member of this caucus, State Rep. Brian Harrison (R–Midlothian), ignited a political firestorm with his candid interview, where he revealed the inner workings of the Texan legislative process and the roadblocks preventing the passage of key conservative legislation. Harrison’s comments not only exposed the challenges facing conservative bills but also triggered a heated debate within the Republican ranks.

The Texas Freedom Caucus: A Beacon of Conservative Values

Before delving into the details of Brian Harrison’s revelations, it’s essential to understand the significance and role of the Texas Freedom Caucus. Comprising a select group of lawmakers who identify as unwavering conservatives, this caucus has made a name for itself by championing a range of issues that resonate with their conservative constituents.

Their mission extends to fiscal responsibility, limited government intervention, and the defense of individual liberties. Members of this caucus have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to a conservative vision for Texas, often leading the charge against legislation they deem contrary to their principles.

As of the most recent information available, the Texas Freedom Caucus members include:

Rep. Matt Schaefer (Tyler), Chairman, Briscoe Cain (Deer Park), Vice-Chairman, Rep. Cody, Rep. Gary Gates, Rep. Brian Harrison, Rep. Richard Hayes, Rep. Carrie Isaac, Rep. Terri Leo-Wilson, Rep. Nate Schatzline, Rep. Valoree Swanson, Rep. Steve Toth, Rep. Ellen Troxclair, Former Rep. James White, Former Rep. Bill Zedler.

Harrison’s Revelations: A Glimpse into the Legislative Process

During an eye-opening interview with Chris Salcedo, Brian Harrison didn’t hold back. He shed light on the challenges conservative legislation faces within the Texas legislature. One particularly striking example he provided was the fate of legislation proposed by State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R–Brenham).

Kolkhorst’s bill aimed to prevent hostile foreign countries, including but not limited to China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea, from acquiring land in Texas. Harrison’s criticism revolved around the apparent reluctance to pass legislation designed to protect Texan interests from foreign investment.

Harrison’s revelations exposed a series of critical stages in the legislative process where bills can meet their demise. These stages include committee reviews, floor debates, and ultimately, the governor’s signature. The bottleneck often occurs during committee reviews, where chairmen appointed by House Speaker Dade Phelan wield significant influence.

In the Texan legislature, committee chairs have the power to decide whether a bill receives a hearing, a crucial step toward its eventual passage. Harrison pointed fingers at these committee chairs, alleging that they played a significant role in stalling conservative legislation. This revelation begs the question of whether chairmen appointed by Speaker Phelan are fulfilling their duty to impartially evaluate proposed bills or if they are influenced by political considerations.

Harrison’s interview highlighted another essential aspect of Texan politics—the Calendars Committee. After successfully navigating the committee review process, bills must proceed to the Calendars Committee, where they face another hurdle. The Calendars Committee, led by Republican Dustin Burrows, decides whether a bill can even reach the House floor for debate.

Harrison’s pointed query was, “Why was it so important to him (Dustin Burrows) to protect the right for unvaccinated Texans to have their careers destroyed?” This question resonated with many conservatives who have been closely following the debate over COVID-19 vaccine mandates and their potential impact on individual freedoms.

Rather than directly addressing the substance of Harrison’s accusations, Dustin Burrows chose an unexpected path—attacking Harrison’s background as the former chief of staff to the United States Department of Health and Human Services during the Trump administration. State Rep. Jeff Leach (R–Plano) also joined in, highlighting Harrison’s previous career as a dog breeder. Other members, including State Reps. Jared Patterson (R–Frisco) and Cole Hefner (R–Mt. Pleasant), engaged in social media posts that criticized Harrison.

This approach raised eyebrows among many observers, as it appeared to divert attention away from the core issue—why conservative bills were not advancing through the legislative process. Rather than addressing the concerns about the fate of these bills, personal attacks clouded the discussion.

Harrison’s Resolute Response:

Despite the backlash and personal attacks, Brian Harrison remained resolute in his commitment to representing his constituents and advocating for conservative values. In a statement, he said, “My constituents—200,000 Texans that I’m honored to support—not only do they deserve, but they are demanding bold, conservative leadership from their elected officials who are not too afraid to tell them the truth. They want to know what’s going on behind their backs in Austin.”

Harrison’s response resonated with many who view him as a principled representative who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right, even in the face of adversity.

Texas Freedom Caucus’s Reaction: Silence Amidst the Storm

Surprisingly, members of the Texas Freedom Caucus, to which Harrison belongs, have largely remained silent in response to the backlash against their colleague. The caucus, known for its vocal advocacy of conservative values, has not issued a collective statement or taken a unified stance on the recent developments.

This silence has left some observers puzzled, as it raises questions about the caucus’s internal dynamics and the extent to which members are willing to confront challenges within their own party.

Brian Harrison’s revelations have not only exposed the intricacies of the Texan legislative process but also triggered a broader discussion about the state of conservative politics in Texas. As the Lone Star State grapples with critical issues, including land ownership regulations and COVID-19 vaccine mandates, Texans are left wondering whether their elected officials will prioritize their interests over political infighting.

The fallout from Harrison’s interview underscores the challenges that conservative lawmakers face when attempting to advance their agenda. It also highlights the need for transparency, accountability, and open dialogue within the political sphere.

As the political debate continues, Texans will be closely watching how their representatives navigate the complex terrain of Texan politics, and whether they can find common ground to address the pressing issues facing the state. The coming months and legislative sessions will undoubtedly provide further insight into the fate of conservative legislation in the Lone Star State.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Featured

Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures $1.4 Billion Settlement with Meta Over Unauthorized Biometric Data Capture

Published

on

Texas vs Meta

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has successfully negotiated a $1.4 billion settlement with Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) over allegations of unauthorized biometric data collection. This settlement, the largest ever obtained from a single state’s action, underscores the importance of protecting privacy rights in the digital age and sets a new precedent for holding technology giants accountable.

Background and Context

The roots of this historic settlement trace back to 2011 when Meta introduced a feature known as Tag Suggestions. This feature, designed to improve user experience by making it easier to tag individuals in photographs, operated by using facial recognition technology to automatically identify people in photos uploaded to Facebook. While the feature was promoted as a convenience, it also involved the surreptitious collection and use of biometric data without users’ informed consent.

Biometric data, which includes unique identifiers such as facial geometry, is considered highly sensitive due to its permanent and unchangeable nature. Recognizing the potential for abuse and the need for stringent protections, Texas enacted the “Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier” Act (CUBI) to regulate the collection and use of such data. Under CUBI, businesses are required to inform individuals and obtain their explicit consent before capturing their biometric identifiers.

However, Meta’s implementation of facial recognition technology violated these legal requirements. The company turned on the Tag Suggestions feature by default, capturing biometric data from millions of Texans without proper disclosure or consent. This practice persisted for over a decade, impacting virtually every user who uploaded photos to the platform.

The Legal Battle

In February 2022, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against Meta, accusing the company of violating Texas’s biometric privacy and consumer protection laws. The lawsuit argued that Meta’s actions not only breached CUBI but also constituted deceptive trade practices under Texas law. The primary allegations included:

  1. Unauthorized Biometric Data Collection: Meta collected biometric identifiers from Texans without their informed consent, a clear violation of CUBI.
  2. Deceptive Practices: By failing to disclose the true nature and extent of its data collection practices, Meta misled users about the privacy implications of using its platform.
  3. Privacy Violations: The unauthorized use of facial recognition technology posed significant privacy risks, given the sensitive nature of biometric data.

Attorney General Paxton’s office emphasized the significance of the case, noting that it was the first lawsuit brought and the first settlement obtained under Texas’s CUBI Act. The legal action aimed not only to secure justice for affected Texans but also to send a strong message to other companies about the importance of complying with privacy laws.

Settlement Details

After two years of vigorous litigation, the parties reached a settlement agreement in 2024. Meta agreed to pay the state of Texas $1.4 billion over five years, marking the largest privacy settlement ever obtained by an Attorney General. This settlement dwarfs the previous record, a $390 million settlement a group of 40 states obtained from Google in late 2022.

The settlement includes several key provisions designed to ensure future compliance and protect Texans’ privacy rights:

  1. Consent Requirement: Meta must obtain explicit, informed consent from users before collecting any biometric data. This includes clear and conspicuous disclosures about the types of data being collected and the purposes for which it will be used.
  2. Data Deletion: Meta is required to delete all previously collected biometric data that was obtained without proper consent. This includes data collected through features like facial recognition.
  3. Transparency Measures: Meta must implement enhanced transparency measures, providing users with easy access to information about the data being collected and how it is being used. This may involve updates to privacy policies and user interfaces.
  4. Compliance Audits: Meta will be subject to regular compliance audits to ensure adherence to the new data collection practices. These audits will be conducted by an independent third party, with the results reported to the Texas Attorney General’s office.
  5. User Control: Meta must provide users with greater control over their biometric data, including options to opt-out of data collection and to request the deletion of their data at any time.
  6. Training and Policies: Meta is required to implement comprehensive training programs for its employees on data privacy and biometric data handling. Additionally, the company must establish and enforce internal policies to ensure compliance with the new requirements.

Statements and Reactions

Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the settlement as a significant victory for Texans and a warning to other companies. “After vigorously pursuing justice for our citizens whose privacy rights were violated by Meta’s use of facial recognition software, I’m proud to announce that we have reached the largest settlement ever obtained from an action brought by a single State,” Paxton stated. “This historic settlement demonstrates our commitment to standing up to the world’s biggest technology companies and holding them accountable for breaking the law and violating Texans’ privacy rights. Any abuse of Texans’ sensitive data will be met with the full force of the law.”

The legal teams involved in the case also played a crucial role in securing the settlement. Keller Postman and McKool Smith served as co-counsel to the Texas Attorney General’s office, with Zina Bash, Sam Baxter, and Jennifer Truelove leading the litigation efforts. Their aggressive litigation posture and expertise in privacy law were instrumental in achieving this landmark outcome.

Implications and Future Impact

The $1.4 billion settlement has far-reaching implications for both Meta and the broader technology industry. For Meta, the financial penalty and mandated changes to its data collection practices represent a significant shift in how the company handles biometric data. The settlement serves as a wake-up call, highlighting the need for transparency and user consent in data-driven business models.

For the technology industry, the case sets a new standard for privacy protection and regulatory compliance. It demonstrates that state governments can and will take decisive action against companies that violate privacy laws, regardless of their size or influence. The settlement may encourage other states to enact or strengthen their biometric privacy laws, leading to increased scrutiny of data collection practices nationwide.

Privacy advocates have lauded the settlement as a major step forward in safeguarding consumer rights. The case underscores the importance of robust legal frameworks to protect individuals from unauthorized data collection and misuse. As digital technologies continue to evolve, ensuring that privacy laws keep pace with technological advancements remains a critical priority.

Conclusion

The $1.4 billion settlement between Texas and Meta marks a historic moment in the fight for digital privacy. It reflects the determination of Attorney General Ken Paxton and his team to hold technology companies accountable for violating privacy rights and sets a powerful precedent for future enforcement efforts. As Texans benefit from the strengthened protections and increased transparency resulting from this settlement, the case stands as a testament to the importance of vigilant oversight and robust legal safeguards in the digital age.

Continue Reading

People

Daniel Miller and the TEXIT Debacle: The Incompetence that Doomed a Movement

Published

on

Daniel Miller

In the expansive realm of Texas politics, Daniel Miller, the dynamic President of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), has been a fervent advocate for the TEXIT movement since its inception in 1996. Recognized on major news networks and international outlets, Miller’s charismatic stance on Texas independence has positioned him as a central figure in the Lone Star State’s political landscape. As the face of the TEXIT movement, Miller’s leadership warrants scrutiny, delving into both successes and challenges that shape the narrative of his tenure.

Background History of Daniel Miller:

Daniel Miller, a sixth-generation Texan, brings a unique blend of tech consultancy and entrepreneurial spirit to the TEXIT movement. His political journey, however, is marked by setbacks. In the 2012 House District Republican primary, Miller faced a formidable defeat against Allan Ritter, securing only 27% of the votes. Undeterred, he ventured into the 2022 Texas Lt. Governor primary, yet the outcome echoed his previous loss, with Dan Patrick commanding 76% of the votes and Miller securing a distant second with just 7%. These early challenges in Miller’s political career provide context for the hurdles he would later navigate in steering the TEXIT movement toward its goal of Texas independence.

The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM):

The TNM, under Daniel Miller’s leadership since its evolution in 2005, has become a pivotal force in Texas politics, not because of Miller’s involvement, but in spite of it. Evolving from a faction of the old Republic of Texas, the TNM’s mission is explicit: “the complete, total and unencumbered political, cultural and economic independence of Texas.” Operating as an unincorporated association, the TNM’s focus on peaceful political advocacy, education, and the pursuit of a statewide referendum sets the stage for the TEXIT movement. Miller’s role extends beyond advocacy, as he testifies on legislation and participates in conferences globally, solidifying the TNM’s status as a formidable political entity.

Series of Failures:

Referendum Mishaps:

The handling of the TEXIT referendum became a critical juncture in Miller’s leadership. He failed to understand the law and submit ballots on time. He failed to understand the legal requirement for wet signatures. And technical glitches on the petition website likely meant that many more signatures could have been obtained. These missteps not only delayed the movement’s momentum but raised questions about the TEXIT leadership’s competence and preparedness.

The technical failure of the petition website was particularly problematic. For days, perhaps weeks, programming errors plagued the platform, preventing individuals from completing the registration process. The system’s incapacity to rectify errors disenfranchised countless individuals. The severity of these issues questioned the TEXIT movement’s technological infrastructure and its ability to navigate complex legal processes. We should also mention that this is actually the type of business that is Miller’s main job … and it failed miserably.

TEXITCON Press Restrictions:

The TEXITCON event, which was a great idea that was long overdue, faced a critical misstep under Miller’s leadership – a failure to allow free press opportunities. The Texas Liberty Journal’s attempts to secure a press pass were met with complete silence, pointing to a broader issue of restricted media coverage and public awareness. Access to the event would only be possible if one paid for admission. This is not how the press operates and any amateur event organizer would know this. This communication breakdown not only hindered media engagement but also raised concerns about the real motivations of the event. Was it about awareness and organization? Or was it just about making money?

This press restriction holds broader implications. Limited media coverage restricts the dissemination of information about the TEXIT movement’s goals, progress, and activities. The absence of a robust media presence opens the door to misinformation and limits constructive public discourse. In a movement where public perception is pivotal, stifling media access has far-reaching consequences, potentially isolating the TEXIT movement from valuable feedback and alternative viewpoints.

Legal Troubles and Financial Irregularities:

a. IRS Closure of 501c(4):

A significant episode under Miller’s leadership was the closure of TNM’s 501c(4) status by the IRS in May 2023. This move may signal legal troubles or it may once again represent incompetence. In the very least it represents a lack of transparency as no mention of this has been made by the TNM. The closure raises questions about the internal governance and financial practices of the Texas Nationalist Movement Inc. as well. Did they stop being a non-profit? Where is the money from the online store going?

The IRS closure unveils a broader challenge in managing the legal aspects of the movement. As a key advocacy organization, maintaining compliance with federal regulations is paramount. The closure not only tarnishes the image of the TNM but underscores the importance of robust governance mechanisms in movements of this nature.

b. Business Registration Shell Game:

Further scrutiny reveals a concerning practice – the shelling of the Texas Business Registration through another company, “TNM Protective Services, LLC.” This maneuver introduces an element of opaqueness into the organizational structure. Coupled with the inactive status of the “Texas Nationalist Movement Foundation Inc”, this prompts questions about organizational transparency and accountability.

The use of multiple entities and the status of these entities raise concerns about financial practices and organizational integrity. Advocating for political, cultural, and economic independence necessitates a level of transparency that aligns with the movement’s core values. The complexities in business registration demand a closer examination of the TEXIT movement’s financial strategies and its commitment to ethical conduct.

c. Lost Domain Name

When Miller launched his book in 2020 “Texit: Why and How Texas Will Leave The Union“, the back cover of his book listed his domain as www.DanielMiller.com. Sometime after the publication he lost control of his own domain. This often happens when the owner fails to pay the renewal fee to their domain host. Generally, domain names run about $15.00 / year but when the owner fails to renew a domain, ‘squatters’ can jump in and grab it. Often, they will then jack up the price and hope that the owner will pay to have it restored. For common names, or names of celebrities, the fee can go up quite a bit. In this case, DanielMiller.com is currently offered for sale at $79,888.

Few in their right mind would pay such a fee and such a domain name is only valuable to a person who shares this name…that’s a pretty small market. This appears to be the case for Miller who has subsequently registered the domain www.DanielOMiller.com … adding the ‘O’. But the question remains, how does one fail to renew their own domain name? What does it say about a person’s management skills that they would fail at such a simple task? Miller has not returned our inquiry so we are unable to get his side of the story.

The Elusive Financial Trail:

The uncertainty surrounding the online TEXIT product store adds another layer to this financial opaqueness. With little information available about the revenue distribution and the company handling these transactions, questions linger about the accountability of the TEXIT movement. Transparency in financial matters is not just a legal requirement but a moral obligation, especially for a movement that seeks to empower Texans in determining their destiny.

Conclusion: A Call for Renewed Leadership in the TEXIT Movement

As we meticulously examine Daniel Miller’s leadership of the TEXIT movement, a pattern of failures and incompetence emerges, raising serious questions about his ability to steer the movement forward after over two decades. The challenges faced, from referendum mishaps to the restrictions on press freedom and legal and financial irregularities, paint a concerning picture of the movement’s current trajectory.

Delayed ballot submissions, a lack of understanding about legal requirements, and technical failures on the petition website, showcase a level of incompetence that is detrimental to a movement striving for Texas independence. These missteps not only hinder the momentum of TEXIT but also cast doubt on Miller’s capacity to navigate the intricate legal and technological landscape that such a movement demands.

The press restrictions observed at TEXITCON further underscore a deficiency in leadership. In a movement that claims to champion transparency and democratic principles, stifling media access raises serious concerns about accountability and openness. The lack of media engagement limits public awareness and stifles constructive discourse, hindering the movement’s ability to gain broad support.

The IRS shut down the  501c(4), a move that typically happens after a company fails to turn in its forms for 3 consecutive years. The questionable business registration practices that hide who is running the company reveal an unsettling lack of governance and transparency. For a movement that advocates for the political, cultural, and economic independence of Texas, such financial opaqueness is not just a red flag; it is a fundamental betrayal of the ideals the movement professes.

After more than 20 years under Miller’s leadership, it becomes imperative for the people invested in the TEXIT movement to critically assess its direction. The numerous failures and shortcomings raise a pivotal question: Is Daniel Miller the right leader to guide the movement into the future? A movement takes more than passion to succeed, it takes leadership, experience, and competence. Perhaps it is time for the people to seek out a new representative who can bring these fresh perspectives and a strategic understanding of the complexities of politics.

Moving the TEXIT movement forward requires adept leadership that can learn from past mistakes, adapt to challenges, and effectively navigate the intricate web of politics, legality, and public relations. The vision of a free and independent Texas is too significant to be hindered by the failures of the past. It is time for the people to seek a leader who can reinvigorate the movement, inspire confidence, and, most importantly, lead Texas toward a future that aligns with the aspirations of its people.

Continue Reading

Election

The Lone Star Shake-Up: Challengers Abound in Texas House Districts

Published

on

Texas Legislature Interior

Filing Deadline Closes with a Slew of Contested Races for March 5 Primaries

Austin Texas – The deadline for filing to run in the March 5 Primaries closed on December 11, 2023, Texas sees a multitude of contested races across the State. The political arena is set for an exciting primary season with both familiar faces and new challengers vying for a place on the ballot.

A remarkable surge in political engagement has led to an extraordinary level of competition, with numerous districts witnessing a multitude of candidates vying for their party’s nomination. This historic phenomenon signals a vibrant and dynamic political landscape in the Lone Star State, reflecting a diverse range of voices and perspectives eager to contribute to the state’s legislative decisions. The sheer volume of contested primaries underscores the intensity of the political climate, showcasing a heightened interest and involvement from both seasoned politicians and newcomers alike. As voters prepare to head to the polls, the significance of this historic moment is sure to shape the future trajectory of Texas politics.

In the lead-up to the Texas elections, some key districts are becoming focal points of political tension, with incumbents encountering robust challenges from determined opponents.

District 21: Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan Faces Strong Opposition

Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan finds himself in the eye of the political storm as he contends with challengers David Covey and Alicia Davis in District 21. Phelan’s reputation has taken a hit, particularly following his failed attempt to impeach Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Censured by multiple Republican parties across the state, including Travis, Smith, Tarrant, Harris, Orange, Ellis, Dallas, and Montgomery counties, Phelan’s leadership is under intense scrutiny.

Republican Party of Texas (RPT) Chairman Matt Rinaldi expressed his discontent, stating, “This Speaker has done more political damage to his own supporters than any in recent history. He’s making it clear that he doesn’t intend to change a thing unless he’s removed.” With mounting opposition, Phelan’s political future hangs in the balance.

House District 80: Eight Challengers Vie for Nomination

House District 80 is witnessing a crowded field with no less than eight contenders vying for the nomination, five from the Democratic side and three from the Republican camp. The Democratic candidates include Cecilia Castellano, Rosie Cuellar, Teresa Johnson Hernandez, Carlos Lopez, and Graciela Villarreal. On the Republican front, contenders are Don McLaughlin, Clint Powell, and JR Ramirez.

Currently held by Democrat Tracy King, this South Texas district encompasses Uvalde, Pearsall, and extends south to Laredo. The diverse pool of candidates indicates a fervent desire for change and new representation.

District 68: Republican Incumbent David Spiller Faces Dual Challenge

In District 68, Republican incumbent David Spiller is navigating a challenging path as he contends for the Republican nomination against Kerri Kingsbery, while also facing an unlikely Democratic challenger, Stacey Swann. Kingsbery, endorsed by Ken Paxton, stands out as a formidable contender with a potential to unseat Spiller.

Kingsbery’s advocacy for prioritizing Republican legislative goals has garnered support from the conservative base. The race in District 68 underscores the broader theme of a changing political landscape, with candidates seeking to align with the priorities of their constituents.

These pivotal contests are part of a larger landscape of challenges across various districts. For a comprehensive view of all districts and candidates under challenge, refer to the detailed table available below. As the election season unfolds, these districts will be closely watched, offering voters the opportunity to choose representatives who resonate with their values and expectations for effective leadership. The outcome in these key races, along with others in the state, may well shape the future direction of Texas politics.

DistrictDemocratRepublican
District 1.Gary VanDeaver (i)
..Dale Huls
..Chris Spencer
District 2Kristen WashingtonJill Dutton
..Brent Money
District 4Alex Bar-SelaKeith Bell (i)
..Joshua Feuerstein
..Cole Hefner (i)
..Dewey Collier
..Jeff Fletcher
District 7Marlena CooperJay Dean (i)
..Joe Mcdaniel
..Bonnie Walters
District 8Carolyn SalterCody Harris (i)
..Jaye Curtis
District 11.Travis Clardy (i)
..Joanne Shofner
District 12Dee Howard MullinsJohn Slocum
..Trey Wharton
District 14Fred MedinaRick Davis
..Paul Dyson
District 15.Steve Toth (i)
..Skeeter Hubert
District 17Desiree VenableStan Gerdes (i)
..Tom Glass
District 18.Ernest Bailes (i)
..Janis Holt
..Stephen Missick
District 19Dwain HandleyEllen Troxclair (i)
.Zach VanceKyle Biedermann  
District 20Stephen WymanTerry Wilson (i)
..Elva Janine Chapa
District 21.Dade Phelan (i)
..David Covey
..Alicia Davis  
District 22Christian Manuel (i).
.Luther Wayne Martin III.
.Al Price Jr..
District 23Keith HenryTerri Leo-Wilson (i)
.Dev Merugumala.
District 24.Greg Bonnen (i)
..Larissa Ramirez 
District 26Daniel LeeJacey Jetton (i)
..Jessica Huang  
..Matt Morgan
District 28Marty RochaGary Gates (i)
..Dan Mathews
District 29Adrienne BellJeffrey Barry
..Alex Kamkar
..Edgar Pacheco Jr.
..Trent Perez
District 30Stephanie BasshamBret Baldwin
..Jeff Bauknight
..Vanessa Hicks-Callaway
..A.J. Louderback
District 33.Justin Holland (i)
..Dennis London
..Katrina Pierson
District 34Roland Barrera.
.Solomon Ortiz.
District 37Ruben Cortez Jr.Janie Lopez (i)
.Alex Dominguez.
.Jonathan Gracia.
.Carol Lynn Sanchez.
District 39Armando Martinez (i)Robert Cantu
..Jimmie Garcia
District 44Eric NormanJohn Kuempel (i)
..David Freimarck
..Greg Switzer
District 45Erin Zwiener (i)Tennyson Moreno
.Chevo Pastrano.
District 52Jennie BirkholzCaroline Harris (i)
.Angel Carroll.
District 53Joe P. Herrera  Hatch Smith
..Wes Virdell
District 55Jennifer LeeHugh Shine (i)
..Davis Ford
..Hillary Hickland
District 56Erin ShankPat Curry
..Devvie Duke
District 58.DeWayne Burns (i)
..Helen Kerwin
District 60.Glenn Rogers (i)
..Mike Olcott
District 61Tony AdamsFrederick Frazier (i)
..Chuck Branch
..Keresa Richardson
District 63Michelle BeckleyBen Bumgarner (i)
.H. Denise WootenCarlos Andino Jr.
..Vincent Gallo
District 64Angela BrewerLynn Stucky (i)
..Elaine Hays
..Andy Hopper
District 65Detrick DeburrKronda Thimesch (i)
..Mitch Little
District 66.Matt Shaheen (i)
..Wayne Richard
District 67Jefferson NunnJeff Leach (i)
..Daren Meis
District 68Stacey SwannDavid Spiller (i)
..Kerri Kingsbery
District 70Mihaela Plesa (i)Joe Collins
..Steven Kinard
District 71Linda GoolsbeeStan Lambert (i)
..Charles Byrn
..Liz Case
District 72.Drew Darby (i)
..Stormy Bradley
District 74Eddie Morales Jr. (i)Robert Garza
..John Mcleon
District 76Suleman Lalani (i)Dayo David
..Summara Kanwal
..Lea Simmons
District 77Alexsandra Annello.
.Norma Chavez.
.Vincent Perez.
.Homer Reza.
District 80Cecilia CastellanoDon McLaughlin
.Rosie CuellarClint Powell
.Teresa Johnson HernandezJR Ramirez
.Carlos Lopez.
.Graciela Villarreal.
District 83.Dustin Burrows (i)
..Wade Cowan
District 85.Stan Kitzman (i)
..Tim Greeson
District 86.John Smithee (i)
..Jamie Haynes
District 87Timothy GassawayRichard Beyea
..Cindi Bulla
..Caroline Fairly
..Jesse Quackenbush
District 88.Ken King (i)
..Karen Post
District 89.Candy Noble (i)
..Abraham George
District 91.Stephanie Klick (i)
..David Lowe
District 97Diane SymonsCheryl Bean
.Carlos WalkerJohn McQueeney
..Leslie Robnett
District 99Mimi CoffeyCharlie Geren (i)
..Jack Reynolds
District 100Venton Jones (i).
.Barbara Mallory Caraway.
.Sandra Crenshaw.
.Justice McFarlane.
District 107Linda Garcia.
.Christine Roman.
District 108Elizabeth Ginsberg  Morgan Meyer (i)
.Yasmin SimonBarry Wernick
District 109Aicha Davis.
.Victoria Walton.
District 112Averie BishopAngie Chen Button (i)
..Chad Carnahan
District 115Scarlett CornwallisJohn Jun
.Cassandra Garcia Hernandez  .
.Kate Rumsey.
District 118Kristian CarranzaJohn Lujan (i)
.Carlos Quezada.
District 119Elizabeth Campos (i)Brandon Grable
.Charles Fuentes.
District 121Shekhar SinhaSteve Allison (i)
.Laurel Jordan SwiftMichael Champion
..Marc LaHood
District 128Charles CrewsBriscoe Cain (i)
..Bianca Gracia
District 130Henry ArturoTom Oliverson (i)
.Brett Robinson.
District 131Alma Allen (i).
.James Guillory.
.Erik Wilson.
District 133.Mano Deayala (i)
..John Perez
District 138Stephanie MoralesLacey Hull (i)
..Jared Woodfill
District 139Rosalind Caesar.
.Jerry Ford Sr..
.Mo Jenkins.
.Angeanette Thibodeaux.
.Charlene Ward Johnson.
District 142Harold Dutton Jr. (i).
.Joyce Chatman.
.Clint Horn.
.Danyahel Norris.
District 146Shawn Thierry (i)Lance York
.Lauren Ashley Simmons.
.Ashton Woods.
District 149Hubert Vo (i)Lily Truong
.David Romero.
Continue Reading

Trending