Texas News
Blackout in Texas – Root Cause
Abbott calls for resignation of board members responsible to Power Grid.
02/17/2021 – Texas
As consumers, we often don’t think about the sources of our electrical grid. Until that is, the lights go out. The unprecedented winter storm of 2021 has caused nearly 4 million homes to lose power in Texas. But the deadly storm is only partially to blame for the blackouts. Usually, we find that storms cause a break in the distribution of power. As such, power lines become physically broken and brave crews are sent out into the elements to restore power.
Understanding How Power is Generated.
It may be an oversimplification but many people are under the false belief that there is some sort of battery station somewhere that delivers electricity to their home when they need it. Aside from the technical aspects of electricity storage within the wires and transformers themselves, which can deliver power to a single wall switch without delay, there is no actual “battery” storage of our electrical grid. It would simply be physically impossible to store the 86,000 megawatts of electricity needed by Texas customers. In reality, power is generated on demand. And that’s the root of the problem in Texas.
According to ERCOT, 24.8% of the generating capacity in Texas comes from wind farms. At least 50% of the wind farms were knocked offline in the great Texas Blackout of 2021. It turns out that the blades were not designed with de-icing mechanisms and they simply seized up. At the time of construction, it was determined that such additional cost was not worth the benefit in a state that rarely sees such conditions.
Clearly, the over reliance on wind power in a state that is rich in oil & gas is a problem that is a result of politics, not technology. However, the windmills were not the only factor in the blackout.
One nuclear reactor and several coal-fired plants went offline, but “Texas is a gas state,” Michael Webber, an energy resources professor at the University of Texas, told The Texas Tribune. And “gas is failing in the most spectacular fashion right now.” Instruments and other components at gas-fired power plants iced over, and “by some estimates, nearly half of the state’s natural gas production has screeched to a halt due to the extremely low temperatures,” as electric pumps lost power and uninsulated pipelines and gas wells froze, the Tribune reports.
But technical failures are only a symptom. This blackout was the result of poor decisions by politicians and mismanagement by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers — representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and 680+ generation units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 8 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities.
(Description from ERCOT website.)
In an interview with the Houston Chronicle (02/16/2021), Governor Greg Abbott stated that board members of ERCOT needed to resign and he called for a restructure of ERCOT. Currently, ERCOT has a 16-member board of directors. The current chair is Sally A. Talberg, who lives in Michigan and just took over as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Bill Magness of Austin, TX has been the President & CEO since 2016. Magness will likely have more to answer for than Talberg.
On the same day that Abbott conducted an interview for the Houston Chronicle, Magness told WFAA that more than 70 of the state’s 680 power plants were not working. “The amount of demand that it’s put on the electric system far exceeds any extreme forecast we’ve had in the past,” Magness said. “We need to recalibrate based on what we’ve seen with the storm system.” But Magness provided no explanation as to “why” they weren’t working or whose responsibility it was to keep them online.
Meanwhile, much of Texas is still without power as of this printing and ERCOT is providing little comfort to those in need.
Featured
Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures $1.4 Billion Settlement with Meta Over Unauthorized Biometric Data Capture
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:
- Unauthorized Biometric Data Collection: Meta collected biometric identifiers from Texans without their informed consent, a clear violation of CUBI.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
People
Daniel Miller and the TEXIT Debacle: The Incompetence that Doomed a Movement
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.
Election
The Lone Star Shake-Up: Challengers Abound in Texas House Districts
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.
District | Democrat | Republican |
District 1 | . | Gary VanDeaver (i) |
. | . | Dale Huls |
. | . | Chris Spencer |
District 2 | Kristen Washington | Jill Dutton |
. | . | Brent Money |
District 4 | Alex Bar-Sela | Keith Bell (i) |
. | . | Joshua Feuerstein |
. | . | Cole Hefner (i) |
. | . | Dewey Collier |
. | . | Jeff Fletcher |
District 7 | Marlena Cooper | Jay Dean (i) |
. | . | Joe Mcdaniel |
. | . | Bonnie Walters |
District 8 | Carolyn Salter | Cody Harris (i) |
. | . | Jaye Curtis |
District 11 | . | Travis Clardy (i) |
. | . | Joanne Shofner |
District 12 | Dee Howard Mullins | John Slocum |
. | . | Trey Wharton |
District 14 | Fred Medina | Rick Davis |
. | . | Paul Dyson |
District 15 | . | Steve Toth (i) |
. | . | Skeeter Hubert |
District 17 | Desiree Venable | Stan Gerdes (i) |
. | . | Tom Glass |
District 18 | . | Ernest Bailes (i) |
. | . | Janis Holt |
. | . | Stephen Missick |
District 19 | Dwain Handley | Ellen Troxclair (i) |
. | Zach Vance | Kyle Biedermann |
District 20 | Stephen Wyman | Terry Wilson (i) |
. | . | Elva Janine Chapa |
District 21 | . | Dade Phelan (i) |
. | . | David Covey |
. | . | Alicia Davis |
District 22 | Christian Manuel (i) | . |
. | Luther Wayne Martin III | . |
. | Al Price Jr. | . |
District 23 | Keith Henry | Terri Leo-Wilson (i) |
. | Dev Merugumala | . |
District 24 | . | Greg Bonnen (i) |
. | . | Larissa Ramirez |
District 26 | Daniel Lee | Jacey Jetton (i) |
. | . | Jessica Huang |
. | . | Matt Morgan |
District 28 | Marty Rocha | Gary Gates (i) |
. | . | Dan Mathews |
District 29 | Adrienne Bell | Jeffrey Barry |
. | . | Alex Kamkar |
. | . | Edgar Pacheco Jr. |
. | . | Trent Perez |
District 30 | Stephanie Bassham | Bret Baldwin |
. | . | Jeff Bauknight |
. | . | Vanessa Hicks-Callaway |
. | . | A.J. Louderback |
District 33 | . | Justin Holland (i) |
. | . | Dennis London |
. | . | Katrina Pierson |
District 34 | Roland Barrera | . |
. | Solomon Ortiz | . |
District 37 | Ruben Cortez Jr. | Janie Lopez (i) |
. | Alex Dominguez | . |
. | Jonathan Gracia | . |
. | Carol Lynn Sanchez | . |
District 39 | Armando Martinez (i) | Robert Cantu |
. | . | Jimmie Garcia |
District 44 | Eric Norman | John Kuempel (i) |
. | . | David Freimarck |
. | . | Greg Switzer |
District 45 | Erin Zwiener (i) | Tennyson Moreno |
. | Chevo Pastrano | . |
District 52 | Jennie Birkholz | Caroline Harris (i) |
. | Angel Carroll | . |
District 53 | Joe P. Herrera | Hatch Smith |
. | . | Wes Virdell |
District 55 | Jennifer Lee | Hugh Shine (i) |
. | . | Davis Ford |
. | . | Hillary Hickland |
District 56 | Erin Shank | Pat Curry |
. | . | Devvie Duke |
District 58 | . | DeWayne Burns (i) |
. | . | Helen Kerwin |
District 60 | . | Glenn Rogers (i) |
. | . | Mike Olcott |
District 61 | Tony Adams | Frederick Frazier (i) |
. | . | Chuck Branch |
. | . | Keresa Richardson |
District 63 | Michelle Beckley | Ben Bumgarner (i) |
. | H. Denise Wooten | Carlos Andino Jr. |
. | . | Vincent Gallo |
District 64 | Angela Brewer | Lynn Stucky (i) |
. | . | Elaine Hays |
. | . | Andy Hopper |
District 65 | Detrick Deburr | Kronda Thimesch (i) |
. | . | Mitch Little |
District 66 | . | Matt Shaheen (i) |
. | . | Wayne Richard |
District 67 | Jefferson Nunn | Jeff Leach (i) |
. | . | Daren Meis |
District 68 | Stacey Swann | David Spiller (i) |
. | . | Kerri Kingsbery |
District 70 | Mihaela Plesa (i) | Joe Collins |
. | . | Steven Kinard |
District 71 | Linda Goolsbee | Stan Lambert (i) |
. | . | Charles Byrn |
. | . | Liz Case |
District 72 | . | Drew Darby (i) |
. | . | Stormy Bradley |
District 74 | Eddie Morales Jr. (i) | Robert Garza |
. | . | John Mcleon |
District 76 | Suleman Lalani (i) | Dayo David |
. | . | Summara Kanwal |
. | . | Lea Simmons |
District 77 | Alexsandra Annello | . |
. | Norma Chavez | . |
. | Vincent Perez | . |
. | Homer Reza | . |
District 80 | Cecilia Castellano | Don McLaughlin |
. | Rosie Cuellar | Clint Powell |
. | Teresa Johnson Hernandez | JR 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 87 | Timothy Gassaway | Richard 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 97 | Diane Symons | Cheryl Bean |
. | Carlos Walker | John McQueeney |
. | . | Leslie Robnett |
District 99 | Mimi Coffey | Charlie Geren (i) |
. | . | Jack Reynolds |
District 100 | Venton Jones (i) | . |
. | Barbara Mallory Caraway | . |
. | Sandra Crenshaw | . |
. | Justice McFarlane | . |
District 107 | Linda Garcia | . |
. | Christine Roman | . |
District 108 | Elizabeth Ginsberg | Morgan Meyer (i) |
. | Yasmin Simon | Barry Wernick |
District 109 | Aicha Davis | . |
. | Victoria Walton | . |
District 112 | Averie Bishop | Angie Chen Button (i) |
. | . | Chad Carnahan |
District 115 | Scarlett Cornwallis | John Jun |
. | Cassandra Garcia Hernandez | . |
. | Kate Rumsey | . |
District 118 | Kristian Carranza | John Lujan (i) |
. | Carlos Quezada | . |
District 119 | Elizabeth Campos (i) | Brandon Grable |
. | Charles Fuentes | . |
District 121 | Shekhar Sinha | Steve Allison (i) |
. | Laurel Jordan Swift | Michael Champion |
. | . | Marc LaHood |
District 128 | Charles Crews | Briscoe Cain (i) |
. | . | Bianca Gracia |
District 130 | Henry Arturo | Tom Oliverson (i) |
. | Brett Robinson | . |
District 131 | Alma Allen (i) | . |
. | James Guillory | . |
. | Erik Wilson | . |
District 133 | . | Mano Deayala (i) |
. | . | John Perez |
District 138 | Stephanie Morales | Lacey Hull (i) |
. | . | Jared Woodfill |
District 139 | Rosalind Caesar | . |
. | Jerry Ford Sr. | . |
. | Mo Jenkins | . |
. | Angeanette Thibodeaux | . |
. | Charlene Ward Johnson | . |
District 142 | Harold Dutton Jr. (i) | . |
. | Joyce Chatman | . |
. | Clint Horn | . |
. | Danyahel Norris | . |
District 146 | Shawn Thierry (i) | Lance York |
. | Lauren Ashley Simmons | . |
. | Ashton Woods | . |
District 149 | Hubert Vo (i) | Lily Truong |
. | David Romero | . |
-
Election3 months ago
Guerra vs. Guerra: The Battle for Texas House District 41
-
Featured3 months ago
Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures $1.4 Billion Settlement with Meta Over Unauthorized Biometric Data Capture
-
Featured3 months ago
Exposing the Hoax: Walz Drinks Horse Semen
-
Featured3 months ago
Corporations Are Not People Act
-
Election3 months ago
Kamala Harris’s Record on Marijuana: A Tale of Hypocrisy in the Pursuit of Power
-
Featured3 months ago
Reimagining Personal Property Rights in the Digital Age: The Case for Data Ownership
-
Election3 months ago
Fourth Time’s the Charm? Gene Wu Faces Libertarian Challenger Lee Sharp Yet Again in District 137
-
National3 months ago
Wendy Bell Exposes Busloads of Supporters Hidden from Public View at Kamala Harris’ Campaign Stop
You must be logged in to post a comment Login