The primaries and runoffs are completed, and we have a full slate of candidates for the fall elections from both parties. While there were not many surprises, the margin of General Paxton’s win was probably larger than some might have expected. Senator Cornyn and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee spent in excess of $100 million against General Paxton but that did not seem to deter his supporters. After entreaties from both sides President Trump did finally endorse General Paxton about a week before election day. It certainly may have added a few points to the final numbers for General Paxton but clearly Senator Cornyn and the Senate Republican Campaign committee saw the writing on the wall well in advance of election day and spent every dollar possible to drive up General Paxton’s negatives, all to no avail. Going forward, the biggest benefactor of that large spend will be State Representative Talarico, the Democratic nominee for US Senate. While the negatives brought up by Senator Cornyn’s campaign did not seem to impact Republican primary voters, it remains to be seen how more moderate and independent votes respond to those same issues. Both campaigns should have sufficient resources to get their messages out, but clearly Representative Talarico is ahead in the messaging, thanks to Senator Cornyn’s efforts. Current polling (obviously very early) has Talarico ahead but within the margin of error. We should expect a tightly contested very bombastic few months between now and November.
Republicans should win the remainder of the statewide races, most of the Democratic nominees will have minimal funds to get their names out much less develop messaging enough to appeal to independent voters. Further down the ballot in State Senate and State House races may be a different matter, these local races will be highly contested and expect the Democrats to pick up several seats in the Texas House and perhaps hold on to the surprise Senate seat they got in a recent special election in Tarrant County. While not much of a structural change in the Senate, expect the Speaker to have a smaller margin in the House coming into next session. All of this is subject to change based on what is going on at the Federal and internation level most of which has little to do with what happens in each of these regions specifically but if people are feeling the pinch or gas prices are high they want to blame someone, and it is usually whomever is currently in office.
The House Natural Resources committee conducted a hearing yesterday on several Interim Charges. Items on the agenda included agency updates on HJR 7 and SB 7 implementation and the current capacity of the various finance programs overseen by the TWDB. Much of the hearing was otherwise dedicated to discussions on DATA CENTERS.
With more than 120 witnesses and a hard stop at 8 pm, a significant number of public witnesses were not heard despite a 2-minute testimony limit on each witness. With those who are unfamiliar with House and Senate committee testimony, time limits are common to allow as many attendees as possible to speak. It would be fair to say that most if not all of the public comments were anti data centers. Many individuals had personal stories to tell regarding the impact these facilities have had on them specifically and their communities in general. Data center industry representatives were also present to give the opposing view that “all is well, they are being transparent, etc. However, some of the most compelling testimony given on data center behalf was regarding national security.
Yet the overwhelming call from the public was the request for some type of moratorium on new data center construction. Clearly, based on the questions and comments from many of the committee members present they have all received considerable input from their local constituents on these centers and the request, even demand that something be done to slow or limit their proliferation.
The other notable group of witnesses were local county officials, county judges and commissioners. Their message was straightforward, “we have no authority to limit or even influence these developers, please give us something.”
It was yet another compelling hearing on water, I think I am seeing a pattern here. If you have the time and inclination, you can watch the hearing at Texas Legislature Online (capitol.texas.gov).
Based on the questions and comments from both elected officials and the public, I think we can expect 2 significant types of legislation next session.
- More counties/communities seeking creation of GCDs
- Some effort to give counties very limited authority over certain types of development
Establishing GCDs is always tricky. Every session there are several proposed, most don’t pass. This issue could bring opposing sides to the GCD question together.
Counties have often sought limited “zoning” authority, the Texas legislature has always, regardless of the administration said no. There just has never been an appetite for allowing this type of local authority. It remains to be seen whether this issue is the one to crack that barrier but listening to the questions and comments from the committee members, expect to see legislation filed (and heard) that gives counties some type of narrow/limited authority to interject themselves into specific types of new developments. Passing a bill is a different question, certainly urban members will have an opinion on the possible expansion of county authority.
Stay tuned, this issue is just getting started.
Kyle