TribCast Live: North Texas and the Legislative Session

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:14):
Hello, and welcome to the Texas Tribune Trip Cast. I
am Matthew Watkins, editor in chief of the Texas Tribune,
and we are live from the campus of the University
of Texas at Arlington, our second straight live trip cast,
joined as usual by co host and politics reporter Eleanor Klibanoff.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Hello, Eleanor, Hello Matthew.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
Good to see you on the road again.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
Exactly has been fun So in our Austin podcast, I
believe a college student came up to you afterwards and
said that she really loved the podcast because she loves
millennial humor, and.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
That was offensive to me.

Speaker 4 (00:53):
In fact, what she said was she's getting all of
her friends to listen to it because gen Z loves
millennial humor. And I was like, well, whatever gets I'm listening.
You know, I like to think of myself as also
one of the young people, but apparently.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
That is a myth.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yes, well, I took it as an invitation for more
dad jokes.

Speaker 3 (01:12):
Matthews like, we think I'm a millennial.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
Amazing, So we are very pleased to be joined for
this episode by two state representatives. First, we have it
is his district. We are in his domain. State Representative
Chris Turner, a Democrat from Grand Prairie. Thank you for
being here, Thank you for having me. Great to be here,
and we also we are near his district, not quite
there a state Representative Mitch Little of Republicans Lewisville, and.

Speaker 5 (01:36):
It's good to be here with you. Thank you so much.
I'm playing the road game, Chris is in the home game,
and I will try to contribute to the millennial humor.
I'm on the cusp between gen X and millennial.

Speaker 3 (01:47):
But you know, all generations welcome. We're being listened to
by the youth.

Speaker 6 (01:52):
You should know, surely gen X no millennial humor here.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Yes, right, Well, you know we need someone to balance
this out here. Okay, So let's we're here to talk
about the legislative session. It's impact, what happened, some of
the politics, and maybe look a little bit forward. So
I want to start off just by talking about some
of the big ticket items. I think, more than anything,
this legislative session was an education session, an issue where

(02:19):
education was kind of at the forefront. It was something
we were talking about in the lead up to the session.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
One of the.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Biggest bills being HB two and eight point five billion
dollar infusion into the school system. And you know another
major bill that has sort of in some ways dominated
legislative politics for years now, the school voucher education Savings.

Speaker 2 (02:40):
Account program that passed this session as well.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, we have a yes
vote and a no vote on the voucher bill.

Speaker 5 (02:48):
That's how that went, right, Chris, which one was? Which?

Speaker 3 (02:51):
Tell us?

Speaker 6 (02:53):
I think he was a yes. I was definitely an.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
And two yeses on HB two right, yes, yes, all right,
I want to let's start. We're on your home turf,
so let's start with you. Representative Turner. Let us kind
of help us understand from your perspective what this legislative
session meant for education in this state overall.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
I mean, in your.

Speaker 1 (03:17):
Opinion, I think there's good and bad, right, but what
should our big takeaway be?

Speaker 2 (03:22):
You know, now that it's all all said and done.

Speaker 7 (03:24):
Sure, well, thanks again for having me. It's great to
be here, and thank you all for doing this at
u T Arlington. So there was definitely good and bad
from my perspective. So we'll start with a good. The
eight and a half billion dollars additional to our public
schools is definitely a good step for public education this stay.

(03:47):
And just to remind everyone, you know, in twenty nineteen,
which has now been six years, we had landmark public
school finance reform in the form of House Bill three
that really increased funding and also made a lot of
reforms that they funding work better for our public schools.
But a lot has happened since then. We had a
global pandemic, we've had high inflation, and there has not

(04:09):
been a subsequent funding increase to our public schools in
the six years since. So that's what made House Built
two so very important this year. While it was an
important step forward, I'm gonna temper my enthusiasm just a
little bit by pointing out two things. One, despite the

(04:29):
eight and a half billion dollar additional investment, that does
not get us back to twenty nineteen levels of funding
because of inflationary pressures. It would really take almost probably
a little more than twice that amount to get back
to twenty nineteen level. So that's number one. Number Two.
I think that the bill the House passed in April

(04:51):
was again it could have been more. I think it
was structured well, and it was structured around an incre
in the basic allotment, which is the foundational funding mechanism
we use for our public schools. We'll say it changed
a lot in the Senate, it changed a lot coming
out of the Conference Committee. I think it's still a
good bill, but I do think it's a little overly

(05:12):
prescriptive in how the funds are allocated and gives less
flexibility to our school districts than I would like to see.
But on balance, it's a good step forward. I think
the key thing is we need to not take another
six years before we address public school funding again. This
needs to be something we prioritize every two years. On vouchers, essays, Look,

(05:36):
I'm strongly opposed to taking public funds and putting them
into private schools, and I think that, you know, we
have a constitutional obligation in our state to provide for
a free and efficient system of public schools. That's what
our constitution says, and I think vouchers flies in the
face of that, and data from other states indicates vouchers
have not been successful in improving outcomes and call have

(06:00):
ballooned in the out years, and that is what I
fear is going to happen in Texas if we don't
have serious guardrails on this, but obviously it had the
votes to pass this time. It has passed, and we'll
see how it works. But ultimately I do not think
it is going to make a significant difference positive difference

(06:20):
for education in our state.

Speaker 3 (06:23):
So that was the good and the bad for you?
Was it good and good on education?

Speaker 5 (06:28):
I didn't see anything bad. So as we look at
the eight billion dollar bill that came out of the
House on HB two, it got another half billion dollars
added to it when it came back over from the Senate.
Only the eight and a half billion dollars was more
cabined by its use, so it is compartmentalized as opposed
to simply dumping more dollars into the basic allotment. We
know that the money will get to classrooms. We know

(06:49):
that it will get to teachers, so I think that's
a wonderful thing. HB three obviously provides some more educational
options for families, and it's not going to be something
that every single family in Texas is going to be
able to access. It's a program and it's still a
government program, and we'll see what improvements it makes if any.
I think I look at the grand scheme of all

(07:12):
the bills that were targeted education, and for me, there
was a lot to be excited about. Especially Tasby and
Taska were also very excited about the school discipline bills
and their ability to get their hands around some of
the things that were going in the classroom. We have
SB twelve, which was the Parents' Bill of Rights. I
think there's going to be a significant impact there bringing

(07:34):
the Ten Commandments in prayer time back into schools, making
that possible for families to integrate that into their students learning.
It's a wonderful thing. I also was able to successfully
pass out of the House Bill forty six twenty three,
which in sovereign immunity for students who were sexually abused
in the school system, which I think is important. There

(07:54):
are a lot of things in the session that were
targeted at education. I think it's a comprehensive overhaul of
some things in the past that haven't worked.

Speaker 6 (08:04):
You know.

Speaker 5 (08:04):
We also ended the affirmative defenses for educators on harmful
display of content to minors in the school system, and
I think that was also an important step.

Speaker 1 (08:14):
I wonder do you agree with Representative Turner's assessment that
there's more work that needs to be done in this realm.
What's your assessment of kind of how schools should be
feeling about their financial situation now.

Speaker 5 (08:26):
Well, my school districts seem to be excited about the
infusion of capital into the system, and I think it
will make improvements. I think we constantly have to be
diligent to determine whether what we're doing at the state
level is actually reaching and improving student outcomes, because at
the end of the day, it's about outcomes. Are our
students improving or not. It's not just about injecting cash periodically.

(08:49):
Are we getting the intended result? And I think we'll
see improvements in the results as a result of this investment.

Speaker 1 (08:55):
Okay, another big measure that passed that got a lot
of attention is getting a lot of tension is the
ban on THCHC. This, as people may know, we have
seen all these stores and shops pop up all across
the state, big cities, rural areas, pretty much everywhere you
can imagine selling you know, substances with THHC. They're you know,

(09:18):
not I guess marijuana, but hemp like substances that can
get you high, like marijuana, the legislature moved to ban them.
There is a push by some people to get Governor
Rabbit to veto this bill. I'm interested to see whether
the y'all think that's at all a realistic possibility. But
it was interesting, you know, for you two House members,

(09:40):
because if you looked at past sessions, it seemed like
the House was going in a different direction in marijuana,
like maybe being more open to expanding medical marijuanna, which
also happened this session I should acknowledge, but also, you know,
even exploring ideas of decriminalization. Then we come around and
take this very dramatic measure in a little you voted

(10:01):
for this measure. I wonder if you could just tell
us a little bit about why why you felt like
this was a good idea.

Speaker 5 (10:06):
Yeah, it's an it. SB three was an interesting prism
for how you view this topic. And on the Republican side,
so not on Christ's side, but on the Republican side,
you have this interesting schism between what i'll call conservatism
and a more libertarian bent, and so not everyone on
the Republican side is in agreement on SB three. I

(10:28):
voted for it because I heard the stories. So there
it's very impactful when you can hear families that have
a child that was that was actually impacted by THHC
induced psychotic disorder from synthetics that are sold in stores
that are completely unregulated and that children can walk into

(10:48):
the store and buy it. In fact, they did. They
did kind of a sting operation or test kids going
into smoke shops who they weren't even asked for ID.
They're selling them to underage kids, and it's highly addictive
and highly dangerous and completely unregulated. So on one end
of the spectrum you have the synthetics which are extremely dangerous,
seriously affecting young people. On the other end of the spectrum,

(11:10):
you have what i'll call it low grade THC edible
stuff that you saw in Governor Patrick's press conference. And yeah,
I'm not going to throw anything at you guys today.
You'll see that my hands are empty. I didn't bring
anything with me, no props. But so there is a
schism in philosophy of adults saying, well, why can't we

(11:31):
when in reality the people who are most negatively affected
by this are young people, And so the question is
do you address that with the band? So we've decided
to start with the band. You saw the bill that
came over the House. It was a clean band when
it came overt of the House, and the committee substitute
was about a million pages long, very complex, and it
was amended back to a ban on the floor. Fortunately,

(11:55):
I think there was enough momentum there to resolve that issue.
The more libert Harry inside of our party is going,
how dare you This isn't this isn't good. This is
you know, our liberties are being impinged. Reality. If you
go to these package stores where they're selling alcohol, liquor,
et cetera, a big percentage of their profits are coming

(12:16):
from THC oriented products and they're upset about it. Certainly
there are a lot of adults that are upset about it.
My principal focus is are these synthetics harming Texans? And
I think the answer to that was a clear.

Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yes, Representative Turner. I mean, there was a lot of
blowback to this. It's also true though, I mean it
didn't really seem like this was what the legislature intended
when they passed you know, the original hYP law, right,
The idea was never for these you know, these substances
to be sold and these stores to pop up all
over the state. Am I wrong on that?

Speaker 5 (12:49):
No?

Speaker 6 (12:49):
I think I think that's fair to say. I don't
think that.

Speaker 7 (12:52):
I don't think this industry was contemplated when when the
hemp law was passed in twenty nineteen, I say that,
you know, I sit on the State Affairs Committee and
we had a sixteen seventeen hour hearing earlier in session
on at Center Bill three as well as a house
build that also sought to ban most forms of HEMP, and.

Speaker 6 (13:16):
We heard a lot of a lot.

Speaker 7 (13:17):
Of powerful testimony from both from people who supported a
complete ban, from parents, moms in particular whose children have
been adversely affected. We heard the law enforcement perspective. We
also heard from a lot of veterans who have found
some comfort, some treatment really in being able to access

(13:42):
certain THHC products to help address both physical and mental
scars from their time and service. We heard from a
lot of business owners and talk about you know, how
they are running responsible businesses and in what the LEFE
sites are in ended up doing was going to disrupt
a business that employs tens of thousands of people in

(14:04):
our state. I think what came out of the House
State Affairs committee that Chairman Ken King put together on
a bipartisan basis, addressed a lot of the very legitimate
problems around him and represent a little articulated them. Well, yes,
kids should not be able to access this stuff. Absolutely,

(14:26):
there should not be products marketed to kids, you know,
in the form of looking like a bag of chips
or a bag of M and ms. We should absolutely
ban all that. We need to ban the synthetic garbage
that's out there, which is I think has been proven
to be harmful in many cases. But can you can
you do that and then regulate an industry that obviously

(14:50):
has some benefit to some adults in our state and
allow it to continue to operate. And that was sort
of the approach that came out of our committee, and
I think that was the approach that made the most
sense to address the bad actors, address underage and some
of the bad products out there, but be able to
have an industry still be able to survive. So that

(15:12):
was the approach I took. Ultimately, you know, the Senate's position,
the Lieutenant Governor's position won out, and yeah, the Governor's
got a big decision to make. I will not take
debate and try to predict what he might do. That
was my questioning about I'm good at predicting with the government.

Speaker 5 (15:29):
The fascinating thing to me about this was what it
revealed is going on with our veterans in our state.
So this was an issue where veterans kind of came
to the forefront pretty aggressively toward the end of the session.
And we have all these we have all these piecemeal
approaches to addressing what is a very serious problem with
our veterans coming home from service in foreign countries is

(15:52):
they're dealing with post traumatic stress, they're dealing with TBI
traumatic brain injury. And we had little piecemeal bills designed
to rest like we have the Ibogain initiative that was passed,
and I think that was an important thing to do.
There was another bill as well with a different type
of chemical treatment, and then it really came through with
the thcpiece. And what was interesting to me was my

(16:14):
friend David Lowe on the four arguing, I'm a veteran,
I came home with injuries, i came home with post
traumatic stress. Don't use me as a pond for explaining
why this should be available to self medicate. And so
you've got him on one side as a veteran saying
this is this is not good, and a bunch of
other veterans going, actually, this is really helpful. We need

(16:36):
to really get to the bottom of that issue. The
problem in the legislative session is things happen so quickly,
and these are complex, very serious issues that are being
addressed in a matter of days. On the flour.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
I want to we talked a little bit about education already.
There were some other big kind of expenditures from the
legislature that will have I think big impact on the
future of the state. Water being a key one. Right,
two point five billion dollars you know, appropriated this session
toward water. Assuming voters I think it's probably a fairly
safe assumption, assuming voters passed a constitutional constitutional amendment this November,

(17:15):
we'll talk about another billion dollars each year for the
next twenty years. So really we're talking about more than
you know, twenty two point five billion dollars committed towards
water in this session. You also had a big investment
in our energy grid five billion dollars to the Texas
Energy Fund to create more power to ensure that our

(17:36):
grid can handle the growth of the state and these
new industries that are demanding AI, bitcoin mining, those types
of things that are demanding a ton of energy in
the state. I had a conversation with a Republican yesterday
where he made the case to me. You know, he said,
he said, not you, the text Tribune, but the media
in general. And I was like, okay, focused so much

(17:59):
on I appreciated the not you, but you know, anyways.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
I'm just being polite. You're standing in front of him.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
But I mean, he said, you know, the media focuses
so much on these social issues, some of these you know,
things like THHC. The big story of this legislative session
is the investment that the Texas legislature made into the
future of this state this year. I'm curious, as a Democrat,
do you agree with that assessment? Is that the story

(18:29):
we should be telling about this most recent legislative session.

Speaker 7 (18:33):
Well, I think I think both stories are important to
I think, you know, in terms of long term investment,
I think, yeah, there's some good things to talk about.
I think water to me stands out as a really
good accomplishment done on a bipartisan basis, that is taking
a long term approach to addressing a long term challenge
in our state and and I think that was one

(18:55):
of the most positive things to come out of this
session without a doubt. And I would add from a
North Texas perspective, we beat back in a attempt that
seems to happen every two years to kill the Marvin
Nichols Reservoir, which is critical to our long term water
planning for those of us here in the Dallas Fort
Worth region. So that was a really important win for

(19:17):
our region. But as you're telling that story about long
term investment, I will say on the Energy Fund, the
five billion dollars that you've mentioned, there was five billion
dollars allocated two years ago, another five billion dollars in
this budget. In my view, it's a boondoggle and is
that we're lighting money on fire in the Texas Energy Fund.

(19:38):
This is something that if you talk to electricity generators,
which is what this fund is designed to do, is
to get more generation in the state of Texas, they
will tell you, and they have told us in State
Affairs Committee in the last two sessions, we do not
need this financing is not the issue. And frankly, when
this was originally passed two years ago, interest strates were

(20:00):
still at historically low levels, so access to.

Speaker 6 (20:04):
To low interest loans was not the issue.

Speaker 7 (20:08):
The issue is how how our electricity market is structured
and in our de regulated market, our generator is able
to come in and be able to make a profit
and a return on investment for their shareholders, which is
ultimately how they make a business decision. And the legislature
still has not fully addressed that. And and that's the

(20:31):
and that's a difficult issue to address. And it's easier
to say, well, we're just going to take ten billion
dollars and put it in this energy fund and problem solved,
but it is not. It is not solving the problem.
So I think that's that's an important issue that is
going to continue to fester until we really figure this out.
I will say, thirdly, on transportation, UH, that's an area

(20:53):
where again we need some long term planning, long term thinking.
Not a lot seemingly happened in the transportation UH area
this session.

Speaker 5 (21:02):
UH.

Speaker 7 (21:02):
And I would just say being in a in a
you know, the fourth largest metro area in the country
that we're in the heart of right now. From a
Texas from a state wide transportation playing perspective, we have
got to as we continue to upgrade capacity and safety
of our roads and highways. Uh, we have also got
to get serious about mass transit in the state because

(21:25):
the growing population, we cannot we cannot pour enough concrete
to keep up with it. And we've got to have
a comprehensive statewide or at a minimum, regional approach on
those issues.

Speaker 2 (21:38):
All right, I want to talk a little bit about
politics here.

Speaker 6 (21:41):
Why why.

Speaker 5 (21:44):
You want to?

Speaker 1 (21:44):
Okay, you know, let's have some fun the we we
came into this session. Well, let's let me do a
quick history here. Right at the end of last session,
there was a lot of backlash against the speaker daide
feeling at the time, in part because of what happened
with es A school vouchers, in part because of the

(22:05):
impeachment of Kim Paxson.

Speaker 4 (22:06):
Something you're gonna have to catch represent a little up
on that. I think he wasn't there last session, so
I actually think no.

Speaker 5 (22:11):
I recall that were watching it on the news, the impeachment.
I remember it. You were there.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
Representative Little of course, represented Kim Paxson in the impeachment trial.

Speaker 5 (22:25):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (22:26):
Yeah, the millennial humor they're talking about.

Speaker 1 (22:31):
You know, there was a big push to remove that speaker,
which then uh led to for a brief period of time,
a very open race, and that led to a race
between Dustin Burrows, the current speaker, and another candidate who
was supported by what we would maybe call the right

(22:53):
wing of the party. Right in that race, I believe
we have a Dustin Burrows vote and a non Dustin
Burroughs vote. And I'm curious because we then went through
a legislative session that many have talked about, including Lieutenant
Governor Dan Patrick, as perhaps the most conservative legislative session

(23:13):
we have been through. I wonder whether each of where
each of y'all stand now, no refunds, Chris, the Dustin.

Speaker 3 (23:22):
Burroughs, we might just have switched seats on this.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
Speaker decision that was made at the beginning of the session.
You got your mic up, so let's start with you.

Speaker 5 (23:33):
Totally fascinating how that had played out. Obviously you'll you'll
probably know I'm a freshman. Chris has been doing this
this like seventh term, right, eighth term. My goodness, you
very experienced, you know what you're doing. You've actually been
through this multiple times. This was my first time to
be exposed to it. You know, you you go into
politics or you're going into the Texas House thinking that
things are going to be one way and they end

(23:56):
up being another. I mean, I didn't know how much
I would like Chris and Terry Mason, Salomon and some
of the other folks that are that are here, and
it's it actually is very easy to work with one
another as professionals. But you don't know going in what
it's going to be like with the new speaker either
is he going to carry quote unquote carry water for

(24:16):
the Democrats? Is he going to shut down Republican ideals?
I was pleasantly surprised with the number of Republican Party
of Texas priority bills that we passed, as well as
some other important legislation. It things did not go the
way that I thought they were going to go, Matthew,
What did they go the way you thought they were

(24:36):
going to go?

Speaker 2 (24:38):
Kind of.

Speaker 3 (24:40):
You've also been doing this about how many eight sessions?

Speaker 5 (24:42):
Matt Yeah, yeah, he's been doing it longer than me.
But so.

Speaker 1 (24:50):
When you say things did not go the way you
thought they were going to go, I I taken that implicit.
Is it you mean it went better than you thought
it would.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
Is that right?

Speaker 5 (24:58):
Yeah, it went a lot better than I thought it would.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
So let me ask you this.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
I mean, do you think Dustin Burroughs should be speaker
next time around?

Speaker 5 (25:08):
Okay, all right, that's Dustin Burrough's hype team. That was
just intro music exactly.

Speaker 3 (25:13):
He's coming out, folks.

Speaker 5 (25:15):
Well, I'll just say it from not from a an
evaluative standpoint, just a normative statement. He's going to be
the speaker again. And I think he probably earned the
right to be the speaker again based on the results.
So I found, as someone who did not vote for

(25:36):
him and should have been pushed to the margins, I
found that he was very receptive to our initiatives and
ideals in the House. And I think the results not
only incentive Bill's past, but a house Bill's past bear
that out.

Speaker 4 (25:54):
Well, I'm just curious on that, like going forward, do
you feel like, and I mean I've heard this from
other members. You know that you know your freshman term,
you come in really from the perspective of like almost
the you share the same perspective as many people that
you represent too, like don't have that insider view, and
then you go inside and you realize, like you said,
there's a lot more collaboration, there's a lot more working together.

(26:15):
Do you think going forward that will change anything in
sort of how you think about the role, how you
talk to voters, sort.

Speaker 5 (26:21):
Of how you are about the speaker's role.

Speaker 3 (26:23):
No, about like they about my role, about your role.
That this has been you know that there is more
room for collaboration, that it's less.

Speaker 5 (26:31):
My role in ideology didn't change what I was pleasantly
surprised by. I think I had in my mind the
vision that everything that happens on the House floor is
the product of what the Speaker wants. And when you
see it play out in real life that there are
negotiations going on led by Tony Tenderholt from the Conservative

(26:51):
Caucus with the Speaker's office, and there are negotiations going
on between the House Democrat Caucus and the speaker. You
see that there is so much important stuff going on
on any given day, and the Speaker has to manage
it all simultaneously. It's a much bigger, more difficult job
than I realized I might go in. I might go

(27:12):
on to the floor on any given day with three
things that I'm really focused on. His office has to
be focused on everything that goes on, so it's very complex.
But my role didn't change or my attitude didn't change.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
Do you think, I mean one of the reasons this
happened was because an unhappiness among the right wing of
the party among the voters right, do you think the
voter's opinion has changed or do you think there's going
to be backlash for the people who Backburrow Us?

Speaker 5 (27:39):
Oh? I wouldn't, don't. I don't think I could speculate
on that. Here's the problem from my perspective, speaking only
for my party. My party's problem are the Republican representatives
who vote with Chris and Salmon and all those representatives
instead of voting with me. Okay, that has nothing to
do with the speaker and Chris.

Speaker 6 (28:00):
We like those people.

Speaker 5 (28:01):
I know you. I know you do. That's why we
need to get rid of them. So on our side
of on our side of the Ledger, our problem is
fidelity to the values that the party espouses that they
run on behalf of if they if they want to
express fidelity to some other ideology, they can run under
that system. Our problem with the previous speaker was not

(28:24):
poor communication or poor leadership. It just was total infidelity
to our value system. You know, nobody sent the Speaker
there to impeach the Attorney General who was sitting. They
did send the Speaker there to help manifest the Republican
Party of Texas's priorities. And none of that happened in
the previous two sessions meaningfully. So I see this as

(28:46):
tremendous progress.

Speaker 6 (28:49):
All right, So we're to start here, So, so some context.

Speaker 7 (28:53):
So Speaker Burrows is the fourth Speaker I've served under,
Speaker Joe Strauss, Dennis Bond, and Elen and now Dustin Burroughs.
They're all Republicans, and you know what, they're all pretty different,
different shades, different maybe wings of the party, but all.

Speaker 6 (29:12):
Pretty conservative people.

Speaker 7 (29:14):
And guess what, in a Republican majority in the House,
not to mention the Senate, and with a Republican governor,
Republican things are going to happen. And that has happened
every session I have been there. There's an all And
so what my I guess my after action review of
Speaker Burrows is, I think it was basically what more

(29:36):
or less would I expected it to be. He's a
conservative guy, and the House Republican caucus got more conservative
in this last election. People like Mitch and some of
his classmates came in and they're shade more conservative, or
maybe several shades more conservative than the people they replaced.

(29:56):
And frankly and my party lost two seats in the
last selection, so there were ideologically the House shifted to
the right in a couple of different ways. And so
that said, you know, it's it's a fallacy to think that, well,
you know, Speaker Feeling, who who I like a lot

(30:19):
and respect a lot, was somehow this moderate to liberal speaker.
Under Speaker Feelings speakership, the legislature passed unlicensed Carrie, passed
a complete and total ban on abortion in this state,
and a horrific anti voter bill in twenty twenty one

(30:41):
that the Democratic Caucus broke quorum over for five weeks.
So while I like Speaker Feeling a lot of really,
from my perspective, bad things happened while he was speaker.
And I could say the same about Joe Strauss, who
I like a lot as well. But you know, under
Joe Straus, who passed Sanctuary City, we passed Campus Carrey

(31:02):
open carry. So so the point is in a Republican
majority legislature and a Republican Speaker, and a complete Republican
control of state government. There's gonna be things that happened
that are, you know, from my perspective, really far out there,
pretty far out there on the right, and this session
was no exception to that. Now, the question is how

(31:25):
did Speaker Boroughs run the House? I think he ran
it well, uh and he I think gave every member
the opportunity to have a voice and have a role
in the process. Whether you're a freshman Republican coming in
to reform things like like Mitch, or whether you're a
Democrat who you know is trying to play some defense

(31:47):
and get a few things done for your district, like
like I was. You had the opportunity, and that's what
a good speaker is supposed to do. And I think
by large he allowed that environment to happen. So that's
my thumbnail sketch.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
I'm curious.

Speaker 4 (32:05):
I mean, you've been now eight terms. I mean the
House has certainly only gotten more conservative. As we've just discussed,
we've seen, you know, coming out of the last election.
I don't think there's signs necessarily that that is a
trend that's going to meaningfully swing in the other direction anytime,
you know soon the makeup of the Chamber likely isn't changing.

(32:27):
How have you seen, like the Democrats role change in
the time you've been there, and what do you see
as the future for the party in terms of even
just within like the House Chamber, like getting things done.

Speaker 7 (32:37):
Sure well, and I'll disagree slightly on that because I've
seen it ebb and flow in the time I've been there.
So in twenty seventeen, it was Joe Strauss's last session
when we passed sanctuary cities and a lot of other
really bad stuff that year, you know, Democrats were we
had fifty five seats in the Chamber, and then the
twenty eighteen election came around and we picked up twelve
seats and we go up to sixty seven. And if

(32:59):
you to Democrats who have served since at least twenty nineteen,
I think we would all say, to a person from
our perspective, that was absolutely the best session we've ever
been a part of. And part of that was Part
of that credit goes to Speaker Bonna and how he
ran the House that session, But a lot of it
has to do with just there was an electoral backlash

(33:20):
to the Republican Party in twenty eighteen, and the Republican
leadership in the Capitol adjusted accordingly in that session, and
that was a much more bipartisan and I would argue
productive session in twenty nineteen. And so looking ahead to
the next session, here we are. Of course, twenty eighteen

(33:43):
was President Trump's first midterm election. We were coming up
on his second midterm election. And I won't predict. You know,
the political environment is changing so quickly right now, but
historically the president's party loses seats in a midterm election. Uh,
we as Democrats can't count on that, and we need

(34:05):
to go out there and recruit good candidates. We need
to work hard, and we need to make our case
to the voters. But there are several opportunities around the
state for Democrats to pick up seats in this next election.
So that's that's number one. But in terms of how
we uh navigate the process, it's it's a mixture. On
On the one hand, Uh, there's things that we know

(34:27):
Republicans are going to bring to the House floor and
then we're just going to have a big partisan fight
over because and we know what the outcome is going
to be so vouchers would be the probably the best
example of that in this In this most recent session,
we knew after this last election the votes were there
to pass pass vouchers, and that would have happened, I think,
irrespective of who the speaker was. So we've got to

(34:52):
go and make our best case as to why this
is bad policy and and hopefully be able to to
translate that into some electoral success for us going forward.
But at the same time, we're not there just to
do that. I mean, every member of the legislature, Republican

(35:13):
or Democrat, is there to get something done, whether that's
a big policy issue they want to work on, whether
it's a little thing for their district or some of both.
And so Democratic members are trying to figure out how
do we work within this system to get things done
for our district, whether that's getting something in the budget
or getting a local bill passed, or whether this is
a policy area I really want to work on and

(35:33):
I've got some expertise in it, and so I'm going
to use my expertise to help advance policy for the
state of Texas. And by and large, I think members
of the House Democratic caucus punch way above our weight
in terms of what we've got in terms of numbers
in the Chamber, and we're able to get a lot done.
If you look at the budget, if you look at
some of the policy decisions that were made, some of

(35:55):
the bills that were going to pass that were mitigated
and made less harmful.

Speaker 6 (36:00):
I think Democrats had an outsized influence in the session.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
So I'm going to paraphrase a question from Sarah from
New York, New York Fort Worth Man.

Speaker 6 (36:11):
A big audience.

Speaker 1 (36:15):
That asks, but I'm gonna ask it in my own way,
which is a representative little You and the Speaker have
one thing in common, Well, you have lots in common,
but one of the things you have in common is
that the biggest donor to Republican elections in the House
right now, Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
Seems pretty mad at both of y'all.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
And I heard that that came across my feet exactly.
There's been some reporting today quoting a letter that seems
to strongly hint an interest or a willingness to support
primary challengers to folks like you and and maybe even
the Speaker for what happened with Senate Bill thirty.

Speaker 5 (36:59):
Chris is laughing. This is no laughing matter. Chris stopped laughing.
Oh yeah, well they're mad at me too.

Speaker 4 (37:06):
We should just briefly say this is Texans for Lawsuit Reform, right,
which is like one of the largest his you know,
Republican donors brought this bill SB thirty to and that
you you know, this reporting from the Houston Chronicle and
the Texas Tribune showed, you know, played a role in
killing or you're neutering to a certain degree, used.

Speaker 5 (37:24):
To really aggressive words killing and neutering.

Speaker 3 (37:27):
Yes, that's the let's back up sensationalist media for you.

Speaker 5 (37:31):
Let's see it is. You guys are tabloid. All right,
Let's back up a couple of steps. So that bill
that came over from the Senate came over almost unanimous
Senate Bill thirty. It was, in my view, the most
significant rewrite of civil jurisprudence maybe in the history of
our state. Okay, by the time it came out of.

Speaker 3 (37:50):
Okay, who's being sensationalist now.

Speaker 5 (37:53):
I'm just telling you the truth. That's what it was.
The page the bill was about probably twenty five pages long.
Did made major major changes to both civil an appella
jurisprudence as it relates to personal injury cases or really
any case involving noneconomic damages. And then we had an
opportunity to work on the bill. I was invited to
work on the bill. I did work on the bill.

(38:13):
We got it to a place where he could come
to the House floor, and we had an amendment go
on by seventy two to seventy vote, and Joe Moody
carried the amendment. I helped him with the amendment. And
let me explain to you the reason. The reason was
not politics, It was not lawsuit reform versus trial lawyers.
It was is this good for the civil justice system

(38:34):
which I practice in and which a lot of my
constituents practice in too, And if any of them actually
get injured, they're going to live inside of that system.
And the question I had to ask was is this
good for the people of Texas? And I decided that
we needed to have that amendment on. Joe Moody carried
the amendment. It passed by the most narrow margin possible.

(38:57):
If it had been a seventy one to seventy one vote,
it would have failed. It passed seventy two to seventy.
The amendment goes on, and he thought, Okay, this is good,
and then I voted for the bill. The bill passed out,
so it goes over the Senate and goes to Conference committee,
and they want to strip the amendment out. I was
on the House side, one of five conferees, and I

(39:17):
was a swing vote there on the conferees, and no,
I didn't vote to take the amendment out because I
don't think it's good for civil practice. I've been practicing
in the courts of this state and all over the
United States for the last twenty one years. I've got
a pretty good feel for what the rules of evidence
are and are not and when you try to massage
the rules of evidence to get in information in cases

(39:39):
where that may not be relevant or maybe more prejudicial
than pro but I have a problem with it. And
so if we had started this discussion literally in January
when the bill was filed instead of, oh, I don't know,
maybe a day or so before the deadline on second reading,
we could have had a more fulsome conversation about but

(40:00):
what the rules of evidence should be massaged to do
and what they shouldn't be massaged to do. So now
we're in politics, right, We're out of the legslative session.
We're no longer making policy. And the political kickback or
the political recoil from this is we don't like those
people because they worked on our bill. The only reason,
I will tell you, I'm one of the only reasons

(40:21):
that that bill came to the fore period. And Marklehood
is too, and Speaker Burrows is too. And so the
question people of Texas should be asking is is this
good for the people who live in my district? And
we decided that as it was written it was not.
So is their political recoil from it? Probably? And I'll

(40:43):
just tell you they spent probably a cost ten million
dollars against me in the primary. That won't be anything new.
If they want to find a primary challenger, the people
who live in my district will decide who represents our district.
And I'm fine with that outcome.

Speaker 1 (40:56):
So one last question, as we were talking about primaries
is which primary will you be in? Because we of
course also have a Attorney General's seat that will be open,
and your name has been floated as a possible candidate there.

Speaker 2 (41:11):
Will you be running for that?

Speaker 5 (41:12):
You'll be the fourth or fifth to know. Matthew, Okay, this.

Speaker 3 (41:16):
Wounds us, wound shoe, we want to be first.

Speaker 5 (41:21):
I invited first to the trip cast. Okay, now the
shoes on the other foot. Actually, to be fair, Eleanor,
I'm on the trip cast because I bothered Matthew on
the floor and I said, I listened to the trip cast.
Why you inviting me?

Speaker 4 (41:33):
And Mitch you did representive little did a little bit
invite himself onto.

Speaker 3 (41:37):
The trip cast, which I love.

Speaker 5 (41:38):
I I was just getting coffee at Starbucks and you
guys asked me to come up here on the tram.

Speaker 4 (41:42):
I'll say, consider that an open any lawmakers that want
to invite themselves onto the trip cast.

Speaker 2 (41:46):
You know, we've got to see.

Speaker 5 (41:48):
What was the question again?

Speaker 3 (41:49):
Are you are you running for Attorney General?

Speaker 5 (41:52):
Yeah, I'll decide that when it's proper. I think here's
the thing. I just came out of a really traumatic experience.
You know, Chris, it's traumatic, isn't it. Yeah? I mean,
so you've done this eight times. This is the first
time I've done it. Where you're you're up until two
in the morning, you're back on committee at eight am,
and it's like that for literally weeks and weeks and weeks,

(42:14):
and so you get out of it and you come
home and you try to reacclimate to your life. I'm
trying to, you know, drive my daughter to dance, go
to my son's baseball games, fix all the things at
our houses that are broken in our absence.

Speaker 6 (42:27):
You have a list as well, Yeah, yeah, I do.

Speaker 5 (42:30):
I have a list. I'm about halfway down it. But
what I was going to say is the people. Here's
the thing, Matthew about this race. The people of Texas
need to hire the best lawyer that they can hire,
someone who's fought in the courtrooms of this state, in
the courts of appeals, in courtrooms in other states. This

(42:50):
is not a role where the people of Texas can
afford to hire someone and expect them to gain new
skills that they do not already have. And so hopefully
the voters are going to evaluate that race. I don't
know whether I'll be in it. I've had several conversations
with my wife and my kids about it, and other
people too who have been very thoughtful in asking me

(43:11):
whether I want to be in it. I will tell
you and the many many people who listen to the
trip cast, that it would constitute a gigantic sacrifice and
totally upend my life and the law firm that I've
helped build for the last twenty one years. And if
I decide to do it, you will know that I'm

(43:31):
extremely serious about it. Is that kind of answer your question?

Speaker 2 (43:36):
Okay? Good?

Speaker 4 (43:38):
Matthew would like to leave it there, But I actually
have something that we would like to share, and we
would like, actually represent Turner, you to be the judge
of this, which is that we have a long running
outstanding question at the Texas Tribune, which is that And
I did bring props and let me I'll go with
you with the real.

Speaker 5 (43:58):
This is a major breach of decorum. I agree.

Speaker 4 (44:01):
Are Matthew and Representative Little separated at birth?

Speaker 3 (44:05):
This is a question we have.

Speaker 4 (44:06):
This is a photo we have where they look, This
is Representative Little, where they look remarkably similar.

Speaker 5 (44:12):
Okay, so this is from eighteen, and this is him in.

Speaker 3 (44:16):
An astronaut costume that Twitter created.

Speaker 5 (44:20):
This is from twenty eighteen. I've got less hair now
than I did then, but this suit still fits. So
I'm proud of that. Great. I'll just say I don't
I don't know if we were separated at birth. But
I like him a lot. We could have been thank you.

Speaker 1 (44:32):
I like you too, and this, so you know, is
something that Rinzo Downey has been pushing in the newsroom
for a very long time, that we look very much.

Speaker 5 (44:40):
Yes, well, he didn't tell me about that. I saw
him every day for the last several months. He didn't
tell me that.

Speaker 3 (44:45):
I asked him for the copy of the photo. He said,
Oh my.

Speaker 6 (44:47):
God, I am not saying this similar.

Speaker 8 (44:53):
I am not thank you for your honing something, thank
you for your honest I will say Mitch wore some
very uh neutral appropriate socks here at ut Allington today,
whereas Matthew is wearing hats.

Speaker 6 (45:07):
And I think I think there's a rule against that.

Speaker 5 (45:11):
TA socks. Can we get him some UTA socks? Allright?

Speaker 1 (45:14):
Thank you to I actually did have a moment when
I was sitting up here and I was like, I
can't believe I'm wearing these socks. I can't believe that
the background of these socks is that they were a
giveaway at trip Fest. There's a little goodie bag they
do for speakers, and we have about like twelve longhorns
on staff, and they all gave me the aggie. There
the Aggie socks that came from the giveaway. So basically

(45:35):
these are the only songs I wear.

Speaker 4 (45:37):
So what I'm hearing you say is we need UTA
to become a part of trip Fest and get us
all socks. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (45:43):
Well this has gone completely off the rails.

Speaker 3 (45:45):
Absolutely cast usually does, yes.

Speaker 1 (45:49):
But thank you both for being here. This has been
a great conversation. I really appreciate y'all. Thank you, and
this concludes the Texas Tribune Tribe Cast.

Speaker 6 (45:57):
Thanks Guessing, Thank you all.