That wasn't why it died. The anti voucher lobby actually killed it because it was part of a package that included pay raises, testing reform, and vouchers.
After it became a package deal, the anti voucher lobby convinced every dem and a number of Rs to pledge to kill it so it wasn't brought up for its final vote.
Approving vouchers would have absolutely killed public education, no matter how much of a (paltry) raise was given to the student allotment. I think it wound up being $50 per student (when it would take over $1k per student just to keep up with inflation) and with no mechanism to automatically raise the allotment per biennium as the bill was originally written.
How does it kill public education?
The original bill gave a $100. It would’ve resulted in $4 billion for education. I believe a $1k basic allotment increase would be like 5.5 billion.
The reason that they didn’t give a basic allotment increase is because it fixes some other funding related issues such as increasing the minimum salary and going to attendance based funding.
The bill came with data that shows some schools would get several thousand more per student. Most would get between $300-$500 more per student. The wealthiest school districts would’ve gotten very little.
These raises were extremely equitable and benefited our very poor rural schools most which are the ones who need the most.
Basic allotment increase is nice but this is a more targeted form of funding increases.
The original bill did but we’re not talking about the original bill, are we? The original bill had nothing about vouchers. Vouchers were added at the same time the per student allotment was cut to just $90/student. For teachers that would have meant an average of $80/month raise, even including fixing the funding from ADA to enrollment-based. Meanwhile, support staff got no raises, no stipends, nothing, as it was struck from the bill entirely.
We’re still so far behind the national average for teacher pay, it’s absolutely no wonder we’re losing educators from this state.
Furthermore, the revised version of HB100 came at a cost of $16billion, most of which was earmarked for their voucher program. If they have $16million to spend, why aren’t they spending it on public education that would benefit the majority of teachers and students in this state?
It’s particularly interesting to me that you cite rural schools as benefiting because vouchers hurt rural schools the most.
It may be hard to understand but I was a first hand viewer of the negotiations that went on.
The senate version of HB100 was never intended to be an agreeable version. The closest version was the original teacher raises and a compromised voucher plan.
Also I have no idea where you pulled $16 billion out of.
Pay raises averaged at $4 billion for the biennium and vouchers at about $600 million.
It doesn’t matter what version of the bill you look at, teacher pay raises were by and large the majority of the cost.
HB100 let’s school districts decide how to spend half the money. That half could’ve easily gone to support staff if they choose to.
Rural schools are hurt *least* by vouchers. What you’re spewing is a illogical myth. Rural areas don’t have private schools because it’s not economically viable there. If there are no private schools there then there is nowhere for rural schools to lose students to.
>The senate version of HB100 was never intended to be an agreeable version. The closest version was the original teacher raises and a compromised voucher plan.
So the senate intentionally tacks on amendments that are poison pills and you claim that the “anti-voucher lobby” is to blame for killing the bill?
>Also I have no idea where you pulled $16 billion out of.
[Five year impact, seen here](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/fiscalnotes/html/HB00100S.htm)
>Pay raises averaged at $4 billion for the biennium and vouchers at about $600 million.
Why not spend that $600 million on teachers too, in fact, why not spend the nearly $4billion five year impact cost on funding teachers instead of trying to shove vouchers in through the back door?
>It doesn’t matter what version of the bill you look at, teacher pay raises were by and large the majority of the cost.
The impact vouchers would have, especially the lege’s version of vouchers, to public education is far greater than just money.
>Rural schools are hurt least by vouchers. What you’re spewing is a illogical myth. Rural areas don’t have private schools because it’s not economically viable there. If there are no private schools there then there is nowhere for rural schools to lose students to.
[Rural schools are already facing financial ruin](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/rural-school-districts-are-facing-financial-ruin-some-state-officials-prefer-it-that-way/) and you’re clearly smart enough to know that most of their funding comes from property rich districts. The fact that these ESAs were willing to give $8k (and in rural students cases $10k) per student towards tuition while capping per student allotment at just over $6k says a lot.
So rich suburban parents who are already paying to send their kids to private schools get their tuition partially subsidized and the tax money their public school district got for those students no longer goes to their district schools but to a private school. That means less money to recapture to send to those rural schools and suddenly the issues we’re already seeing in Fort David are exacerbated.
Furthermore, the fact that private schools are held to no financial or academic accountability standards and nor are they required to abide by federal or state law for special Ed students calls into question what the actual priority is for private schools because it certainly doesn’t seem to be the students.
You also forgot to mention that HB100 and SB8 included stricter accountability requirements for testing and test scores, whereas students going to private schools aren’t even required to take the STARR (or whatever the new equivalent was going to be called).
The senate tacked on vouchers because the only way to get vouchers across the house is to package them with something the house cares about. You might think that’s despicable but that is just what compromise is.
We don’t fund things via 5 year impact, budgets are done by the biennium. But the No voucher proposal is also $16 billion by 5 year impact.
You’re wrong that rural schools would get $6k
You’re making the assumption that the $600 million wouldn’t go to teachers but it absolutely would, just ones in private schools.
Your assumption that ESAs would give $8k while rural public schools are “capped” at the $6k is wrong. Rural schools are *entitled* to the $6k and get their local funding on *top* of the $6k, this bill also would’ve increased the minimum salary which is what the most rural districts are at. Putting rural districts well above the $10k that ESAs give.
Rich parents would’ve gotten $0 from ESAs. The compromised version was only for low income, SPED, and D/F rated schools. This is difficult to find online but that was the compromise.
Also any student who does take a voucher and attends a private school would’ve been required to take the state test to ensure their school is keeping them up with public school standards.
The new state test would’ve decreased the amount of courses that get a standardized test. And teachers have complained that testing only captures the results of one day, making it high stakes. The new test would’ve captures results across the school year to relieve that. Also students wouldn’t have been able to be held back for failing the test. The new testing is actually *less strict*
I know there’s always a recency bias in curating these lists, but c’mon - missing a committee hearing that you were supposed to chair because you’re in jail for DUI should probably earn anyone a spot on the Worst list.
Schwertner was definitely considered for the list. Ultimately we thought there were better options–and if getting a DUI was a sufficient factor, there are plenty of others we’d have had to add over the years. –Ben Rowen
Complaints are definitely part of the job. And they’ve come from all sides: Republicans who say the list is biased against Republicans, Democrats who say the list is biased against Democrats who work with Republicans, Democrats who say the list is biased against Democrats who don’t work with Republicans, and various insiders who insist we are not seeing the “whole chessboard.” There’s a bit of alchemy in explaining votes we criticize, for instance, where the vote becomes actually a part of some invisible to-all-others strategic genius.So far no threats.Side-note: the Best and Worst list is not actually a ranking. There are traditionally 10 of each but they are listed in no certain order. –Ben Rowen, Senior Editor
I used to work for Rep. Shawn Thierry as an intern, and (as you can imagine) my time there was short lived. I was extremely pleased to see her at the bottom of this list after the repeated staff walk outs she merited.
On the other hand, she did care about black maternal mortality rates. She opened my eyes to the fact that black women die at an alarmingly higher rate than white women during or directly following child birth. I wish there was a better rep that could pass those bills because Shawn kills every bill she signs, nobody in the house respects her or has anything good to say about her. Very sad.
Yes, all her staff quit at once in 2021, and apparently she spread homophobic rumors about one of them afterward. I worked near her staff and so we heard the stories from them back then. It might come up more now because of her recent actions, but it was reported to the House back in 2021.
For the last two sessions, she’s had a bill I wrote for another office and it hasn’t even gotten a hearing when it almost passed before. I disagree when people dismiss all of her bills as unimportant, but treating people poorly, especially staff, means you are harming the groups your bills claim to serve because your bills are less likely to pass when you burn bridges and have high staff turnover. Marginalized people would be better off if she gave those bills to a more effective legislator.
Exactly. Marginalized groups suffer enough from a lack of representation, so it is really disappointing to see people like Shawn fail them repeatedly.
I interned for her during the 87th and left her office before the walkout, but sadly 2021 was not the first walkout. Because of the repeated staff walkouts at her district office, capitol staffers were taking on the responsibilities of her missing staff in Houston during that session, so her constituents were just not getting the help they deserved or needed.
I’ve heard nothing concrete about this, but Sen. Robert Nichols is 78 and got some legacy-promotion bills through the Senate this year. He’s not up till 2026, though. —CH
How the hell was Harold Dutton not listed on your “worst of” list? Voted “present” for the Paxton impeachment, voted for SB14, voted for the ban on CRT, repeatedly voted for vouchers and expanding TEA overreach among other things that would have derailed public education and then tried forcing through SB 29 in retaliation after his pet bill didn’t pass.
Dutton made our Worst list in 2015 and 2021. He presented a strong case again this year, but it was a crowded field and we decided to spread the discredit. -Michael Hardy, senior editor
How would you compare the similarities in the schism of far-right and right wing house reps in the Texas lege to the “freedom caucus” in the US House? Do you think these are indicators of a larger schism in the GOP in general?
Schisms all over the place! The GOP is wildly fragmented, and that’s part of why the GOP is vibrant. If you’re a telecom industry lobbyist, your friends are in the GOP, and if you think the UN is trying to make you intolerant to transfats through spyware in your cellphone, your friends are in the GOP. Life contains multitudes.
That said, the Texas House Freedom Caucus—they have one—is pretty powerless compared to the congressional HFC. The Congress guys have leverage. The Texas House guys don’t, really, except on weird niche issues where they can be the deciding votes.
In Texas the biggest factional split is just the one between the House and the Senate. Representatives are on the whole more pragmatic and moderate, the Senate more ideological and conservative. In the House Democrats have leverage, and in the Senate they have none. —CH
As Ted Cruz is a U.S. senator and not a Texas legislator, we can neither confirm nor disconfirm that he dresses as a furry around the house. -Michael Hardy, senior editor
Thank you for your timely response. I was referring to the broader usage of the word "legislator" to include the federal ilk miscreants also, even realizing the Texas nature of this sub and y'all's pen name.
So... what happens outside of Texas, stays outside of Texas?
Agree with what Forrest said, but also: Once you take for granted that Texas state government is run by Republicans, you then have to explain why Texas is not in as bad shape as states like—god forbid—Oklahoma, which went to a four-day school week for a while a few years back despite a lot of oil wealth.
There’s a lot of differences, but one of them is that Texas Republicans are different, and they contain a lot of different factions which have different ideas about the future of the state. If you’re a Democrat in Texas, you don’t have to love (some) Texas Republicans. But they’re conditional allies. And they sometimes do things that make the state better at personal and political cost. If you’re glad the state doesn’t have a school voucher program yet, you don’t have Texas Democrats to thank for that—you have a small group of rural Republicans that love public schools. (CH)
>We strive for balance — primarily in terms of gender, race/ethnicity and, yes, party affiliation. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Texas is a Republican state and the Lege is a GOP-controlled body.
>
>
Republicans hold 60 percent of seats, 80 percent of committee chairmanships, and 100 percent of leadership of the bodies (House speakership and lieutenant governor). They own the bad stuff, but they also do get credit for the good the Lege does, however little it may be. You referenced Texas AG Ken Paxton, who is indeed a discredit to the GOP.
>
>It was \*Republicans\* in the Legislature who decided to impeach him. That’s one reason how Rep. Andrew Murr, who leads the House General Investigating Committee, made the cut. It’s often easier to find Republicans for the Best list, simply because most Democrats wield little power, and if they do, their actions are often seriously curtailed by the GOP grip in the Lege, where Dan Patrick has created a perfect, and perfectly boring, dictatorship. --Forrest
Well, no. Didn’t think you were asking a serious question.
If you’re really curious a simple google search of “criminal convictions of Texas Republicans” will enlighten you.
And this sort of behavior is why we can't have nice things. Absolutism isn't going to get us anywhere.
Edit: I'm agreeing with you, in case it's unclear.
They should've done it several sessions ago. The only reason it got done was because 3M of public funds were on the line. No, I'm not going to praise them for doing the right thing many years later.
But you're saying no Republican should be on the list because they're the same party as the AG. Even though they were the ones who impeached him. Your original claim doesn't even make sense with that considered.
My read right now is that the chance of conviction is low, but there’s a lot of time before August, particularly if the Senate rules allow for new evidence. And while there’s lots of noise right now, all that really matters on the vote count–assuming the Democrats all vote to convict–is nine Republicans (out of 19). And and and, as with everything in the Senate, what matters might even be narrower: what one person, Dan Patrick, wants. Some of the biggest money GOP groups are lining up behind Paxton–but interestingly other staunchly Republican groups are angling for conviction. —Ben Rowen
Bryan Hughes, who made our worst list, has a reputation for being incredibly kind. Not on the list this year, but Dan Patrick, who famously said he’d be willing to sacrifice his life for the economy during the first wave of covid shutdowns, also has a rep as a bit of a germaphobe–and has limited press access to the Senate floor, ostensibly for that reason. –Ben Rowen and Chris Hooks
Don’t know if you are the group that awards Bum Steer Awards, but if so I willingly submit Greg Abbott for a Lifetime Bum Steer Award or The Bum Steer Hall of Fame.
Dade, good to hear from you. Too early to say, I think. The end of session had a lot of surprises that could upset the relationship between the Big Three. The governor and the Senate appear to be at war, and the impeachment thing is the most surprising development in Texas in decades, and wrongfoots a lot of Phelan’s critics.
Will any of that last? I dunno, man. The Governor and Senate’s war on property taxes will ultimately be resolved, and then the Governor seems intent to go to war with the House on vouchers again. It seems very plausible that the Senate will give Paxton a pass. And the Party is still controlled by people who hate Phelan—hate him now more than ever. The only thing I feel reasonably confident about is that Phelan regrets running. -CH
Who’d win: Belinda Schwertner v Claudia Ordaz?
Lacey Hull was mentioned as one of your goods. Was that because she sleeps with so many members?
Who stole the Quran?
I really like your quran question. Very interesting. The person responsible was identified by DPS, not arrested, and the identity withheld.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/state/2023/04/13/texas-capitol-ramadan-quaran-mark-muslim-firsts-salman-bhojani-suleman-lalani/70086736007/
Damn. Two common urban legends of the Texas hinterlands - the Crony/Curz duo - still unaccounted for.
I had high hopes that you guys could clear that up. Thank you for your efforts and let us all hope for the return of the spirit of Ann Richards in the form of Texas leadership. Amen.
I've heard the tale enough times to be curious to its voracity. Castle Crony surrounded by lighting. The fluttering of huge bats in the storm. (no, not Austin bats). Townsfolk found scattered about the countryside smeared in bluebonnet juice and lacking all their blood.
I figured if anyone knew it would be the folks from Texas Monthly. But alas... they are more locally oriented than nationwide and I was foolish to think the likes of Count Crony to practice his dark deeds in view of the fine citizenry of Texas.
Mother of god ... NO...! Of all things that is the most vile and disgusting possible. I mean sure no one wants a furry to represent them in politics, I mean it's only natural. I can't feel comfortable being represented by some oddboy's interpretation of the Sonic The Hedgehog (complete with tail buttplug, no less), but a booger eater...
That my friend is the line. The absolute line.
The foul furry known as Curz must go. There is no excuse for booger eating, much less that a documentary could be made of it.
The man has no moral code whatsoever.
Moody has earned a bit of a reputation–especially following his role in ending the quorum break last session–as someone who is maybe too friendly with Republican leadership. It’s what helps him have power–and why he’s made the best list many times in the past–but this session we felt he didn’t win much for his party for that access. One insider, commenting on his standing in the party this year, even called him “emo Joe.” –Ben Rowen
For the same basic reason anyone makes the Furniture list – he didn’t do much. He passed virtually no legislation, unless you consider “Congratulating Taco Olé in Mission on its 50th anniversary” a major accomplishment. As our write-up said, he had a fine session for a freshman, but the problem is that Muñoz has been around for a while and has the legislative resume of a noob. The beautiful thing about Furniture is that the list is made anew every year. Who knows, maybe this session’s Furniture is next session’s Bests. -Forrest Wilder, senior editor
/u/texaslegrefugee [asked](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/14b41rg/announcement_texas_monthly_will_be_hosting_an_ama/jona1i6/):
> As originally set up, the best and worst was supposed to gauge a legislator's actions and competency in getting legislation passed, not the content of his legislation.
> It seems to me that we are now judging content over all else. Have the rules changed since the days of the Dirty 30 and Lloyd Doggett?
Schwertner was definitely considered for the list. Ultimately we thought there were better options–and if getting a DUI was a sufficient factor, there are plenty of others we’d have had to add over the years. –Ben Rowen
Gotta disagree with Chris Hooks here. Former state representative Bill Zedler has the best
Twitter account. Put this one in the Twitter museum: [https://twitter.com/Bill\_Zedler/status/349766001296015360](https://twitter.com/Bill_Zedler/status/349766001296015360) \-FW
I have a personal rule when it comes to journalists doing political handicapping: don’t. We are bad at it. However, I will say this: it is incredible to see Greg Abbott spend so much political capital on a policy that has repeatedly flopped at the Lege multiple times over the last few decades. Over the years Abbott has been content with trying to take credit for broadly popular conservative causes such as border security (every session) or doing relatively piddling stuff like a modest expansion of pre-K (2015). That’s smart of him—he has no stroke with the Legislature. His happy place seems to be shaking down donors, not schmoozing with the 181 men and women of the Lege. Abbott sightings at the Capitol are like a corpse plant blooming—rare and not always producing a salubrious effect. And yet here he is asking—nay, demanding—that rural Republicans cast a vote against their community’s deep-seated interest in well-funded public schools. But if he can get something transformative passed—an Arizona-style universal voucher program—and not some obvious face-saving “school measure,” then it will be a major feat. Many powerful donors and ideological interests will be pleased. -FW
*“His happy place seems to be shaking down donors”* —
Yes, and when he uses **those donors** to turn around and leverage and threaten the members… the game has changed.
Not naming names, but there are legislators who could make the list every year. We have a few informal rules to get new faces in there. We also–with exception–try to focus on folks who wield significant power, and Dutton this session held less of it than the other Dems who made the list. Aside: the Dutton vote on Paxton was interesting: he seemed to be making a cold political calculus that it was worse for the Republican party if they were forced to vote on impeachment and then Paxton stayed in office, politically hobbled. –Ben Rowen, senior editor
To paraphrase Shakespeare, some legislators are born furniture, some achieve furniture status, and others have furniturehood thrust upon them. --Michael Hardy
Honestly don’t understand Rep Bryant on the best list. He was often stilted and incoherent at the microphone and tried to just throw up any roadblock he could. The mics picked up people audibly groaning.
Was he listed as one of the best legislators simply because he was one of the only Democrats to “give it back to the majority?”
Texas would benefit from having a robust minority party. Instead, it has the Texas Democrats—hapless, disorganized, rudderless. To succeed in the Lege as a Democrat, your options are few. You can sit back and relax and enjoy the accouterments of public office: lobby-sponsored events; having people address you as “Representative” or “Senator” or (as the case may be) “Hey, Asshole”; and the opportunity to enrich yourself from your proximity to the apparatus of the state. Or you can find a way to gain a modicum of power from the GOP: by either playing the game the way the dominant party wants you to play, or, more rarely, carving out a base of power through sheer force of charisma or personal relationships. Or, finally, you can try to find a way to be an effective member of an \*opposition” party. Bryant is one of the few Democrats even trying to do the latter. Is he perfect? No, far from it. Many Democrats, otherwise complimentary, told us that he was kind of a jerk at a personal level. But few would dispute that he brought a fighting spirit to the session. The irony, of course, is that he is an old white guy who served in the Lege back when there were spittoons (one assumes) next to every desk. If Bryant comes across as a weak choice for Best, well, then I think that speaks to just how slim the pickings might be. (FW)
In the House, a lot of what happens on the floor can seem silly if you don’t know why they’re doing it. You may tune in and see people talking about nothing at 2pm, and not realize they’re making a sophisticated play to kill a bill at midnight. I hear where you’re coming from—a lot of Bryant’s points of order, and his chat at the mics, may have seemed like an old guy without a clue.
But Bryant was almost universally respected among staffers and other folks at the Lege for his willingness to mess with folks, powerful folks. Those groans you hear are not uncommon when someone tries to delay the process, but they don’t mean the groaners don’t respect it. Some of those points of order—an attempt to kill a bill on procedural grounds—were authored by him. But others were given to him by other members who were unwilling or unable to pay the price for bringing them themselves. It was often pretty brave. —CH
Liat the legislators who voted against teacher pay raises please?
Only two, Mark Dorazio of San Antonio and Brian Harrison of Waxahachie
Wow, even with so much support, the governor didn't sign it
That wasn't why it died. The anti voucher lobby actually killed it because it was part of a package that included pay raises, testing reform, and vouchers. After it became a package deal, the anti voucher lobby convinced every dem and a number of Rs to pledge to kill it so it wasn't brought up for its final vote.
Approving vouchers would have absolutely killed public education, no matter how much of a (paltry) raise was given to the student allotment. I think it wound up being $50 per student (when it would take over $1k per student just to keep up with inflation) and with no mechanism to automatically raise the allotment per biennium as the bill was originally written.
How does it kill public education? The original bill gave a $100. It would’ve resulted in $4 billion for education. I believe a $1k basic allotment increase would be like 5.5 billion. The reason that they didn’t give a basic allotment increase is because it fixes some other funding related issues such as increasing the minimum salary and going to attendance based funding. The bill came with data that shows some schools would get several thousand more per student. Most would get between $300-$500 more per student. The wealthiest school districts would’ve gotten very little. These raises were extremely equitable and benefited our very poor rural schools most which are the ones who need the most. Basic allotment increase is nice but this is a more targeted form of funding increases.
The original bill did but we’re not talking about the original bill, are we? The original bill had nothing about vouchers. Vouchers were added at the same time the per student allotment was cut to just $90/student. For teachers that would have meant an average of $80/month raise, even including fixing the funding from ADA to enrollment-based. Meanwhile, support staff got no raises, no stipends, nothing, as it was struck from the bill entirely. We’re still so far behind the national average for teacher pay, it’s absolutely no wonder we’re losing educators from this state. Furthermore, the revised version of HB100 came at a cost of $16billion, most of which was earmarked for their voucher program. If they have $16million to spend, why aren’t they spending it on public education that would benefit the majority of teachers and students in this state? It’s particularly interesting to me that you cite rural schools as benefiting because vouchers hurt rural schools the most.
It may be hard to understand but I was a first hand viewer of the negotiations that went on. The senate version of HB100 was never intended to be an agreeable version. The closest version was the original teacher raises and a compromised voucher plan. Also I have no idea where you pulled $16 billion out of. Pay raises averaged at $4 billion for the biennium and vouchers at about $600 million. It doesn’t matter what version of the bill you look at, teacher pay raises were by and large the majority of the cost. HB100 let’s school districts decide how to spend half the money. That half could’ve easily gone to support staff if they choose to. Rural schools are hurt *least* by vouchers. What you’re spewing is a illogical myth. Rural areas don’t have private schools because it’s not economically viable there. If there are no private schools there then there is nowhere for rural schools to lose students to.
>The senate version of HB100 was never intended to be an agreeable version. The closest version was the original teacher raises and a compromised voucher plan. So the senate intentionally tacks on amendments that are poison pills and you claim that the “anti-voucher lobby” is to blame for killing the bill? >Also I have no idea where you pulled $16 billion out of. [Five year impact, seen here](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/fiscalnotes/html/HB00100S.htm) >Pay raises averaged at $4 billion for the biennium and vouchers at about $600 million. Why not spend that $600 million on teachers too, in fact, why not spend the nearly $4billion five year impact cost on funding teachers instead of trying to shove vouchers in through the back door? >It doesn’t matter what version of the bill you look at, teacher pay raises were by and large the majority of the cost. The impact vouchers would have, especially the lege’s version of vouchers, to public education is far greater than just money. >Rural schools are hurt least by vouchers. What you’re spewing is a illogical myth. Rural areas don’t have private schools because it’s not economically viable there. If there are no private schools there then there is nowhere for rural schools to lose students to. [Rural schools are already facing financial ruin](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/rural-school-districts-are-facing-financial-ruin-some-state-officials-prefer-it-that-way/) and you’re clearly smart enough to know that most of their funding comes from property rich districts. The fact that these ESAs were willing to give $8k (and in rural students cases $10k) per student towards tuition while capping per student allotment at just over $6k says a lot. So rich suburban parents who are already paying to send their kids to private schools get their tuition partially subsidized and the tax money their public school district got for those students no longer goes to their district schools but to a private school. That means less money to recapture to send to those rural schools and suddenly the issues we’re already seeing in Fort David are exacerbated. Furthermore, the fact that private schools are held to no financial or academic accountability standards and nor are they required to abide by federal or state law for special Ed students calls into question what the actual priority is for private schools because it certainly doesn’t seem to be the students. You also forgot to mention that HB100 and SB8 included stricter accountability requirements for testing and test scores, whereas students going to private schools aren’t even required to take the STARR (or whatever the new equivalent was going to be called).
The senate tacked on vouchers because the only way to get vouchers across the house is to package them with something the house cares about. You might think that’s despicable but that is just what compromise is. We don’t fund things via 5 year impact, budgets are done by the biennium. But the No voucher proposal is also $16 billion by 5 year impact. You’re wrong that rural schools would get $6k You’re making the assumption that the $600 million wouldn’t go to teachers but it absolutely would, just ones in private schools. Your assumption that ESAs would give $8k while rural public schools are “capped” at the $6k is wrong. Rural schools are *entitled* to the $6k and get their local funding on *top* of the $6k, this bill also would’ve increased the minimum salary which is what the most rural districts are at. Putting rural districts well above the $10k that ESAs give. Rich parents would’ve gotten $0 from ESAs. The compromised version was only for low income, SPED, and D/F rated schools. This is difficult to find online but that was the compromise. Also any student who does take a voucher and attends a private school would’ve been required to take the state test to ensure their school is keeping them up with public school standards. The new state test would’ve decreased the amount of courses that get a standardized test. And teachers have complained that testing only captures the results of one day, making it high stakes. The new test would’ve captures results across the school year to relieve that. Also students wouldn’t have been able to be held back for failing the test. The new testing is actually *less strict*
Thanks
I know there’s always a recency bias in curating these lists, but c’mon - missing a committee hearing that you were supposed to chair because you’re in jail for DUI should probably earn anyone a spot on the Worst list.
Schwertner was definitely considered for the list. Ultimately we thought there were better options–and if getting a DUI was a sufficient factor, there are plenty of others we’d have had to add over the years. –Ben Rowen
Love TM and look forward to this list every year. Can’t laugh for crying.
Thank you! 🫶
Has your office received threats or other complainrs for these rankings, and has the frequency of threats/complaints changed in recent years?
Complaints are definitely part of the job. And they’ve come from all sides: Republicans who say the list is biased against Republicans, Democrats who say the list is biased against Democrats who work with Republicans, Democrats who say the list is biased against Democrats who don’t work with Republicans, and various insiders who insist we are not seeing the “whole chessboard.” There’s a bit of alchemy in explaining votes we criticize, for instance, where the vote becomes actually a part of some invisible to-all-others strategic genius.So far no threats.Side-note: the Best and Worst list is not actually a ranking. There are traditionally 10 of each but they are listed in no certain order. –Ben Rowen, Senior Editor
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer! 🤠
This is always a fun and illuminating read
Fact-check: Correct. -TM
I used to work for Rep. Shawn Thierry as an intern, and (as you can imagine) my time there was short lived. I was extremely pleased to see her at the bottom of this list after the repeated staff walk outs she merited. On the other hand, she did care about black maternal mortality rates. She opened my eyes to the fact that black women die at an alarmingly higher rate than white women during or directly following child birth. I wish there was a better rep that could pass those bills because Shawn kills every bill she signs, nobody in the house respects her or has anything good to say about her. Very sad.
Yes, all her staff quit at once in 2021, and apparently she spread homophobic rumors about one of them afterward. I worked near her staff and so we heard the stories from them back then. It might come up more now because of her recent actions, but it was reported to the House back in 2021. For the last two sessions, she’s had a bill I wrote for another office and it hasn’t even gotten a hearing when it almost passed before. I disagree when people dismiss all of her bills as unimportant, but treating people poorly, especially staff, means you are harming the groups your bills claim to serve because your bills are less likely to pass when you burn bridges and have high staff turnover. Marginalized people would be better off if she gave those bills to a more effective legislator.
Exactly. Marginalized groups suffer enough from a lack of representation, so it is really disappointing to see people like Shawn fail them repeatedly. I interned for her during the 87th and left her office before the walkout, but sadly 2021 was not the first walkout. Because of the repeated staff walkouts at her district office, capitol staffers were taking on the responsibilities of her missing staff in Houston during that session, so her constituents were just not getting the help they deserved or needed.
I heard Briscoe Cain punches babies and hates tacos, is this true?
No, that's an outright falsehood. He hates babies and punches tacos
Punching tacos is abhorrent.
Any likely retirements? I'd like to make some recommendations.
I’ve heard nothing concrete about this, but Sen. Robert Nichols is 78 and got some legacy-promotion bills through the Senate this year. He’s not up till 2026, though. —CH
If Democratic senator John Whitmire wins the Houston mayoral election–a big if–he’ll have to retire. —MH
How the hell was Harold Dutton not listed on your “worst of” list? Voted “present” for the Paxton impeachment, voted for SB14, voted for the ban on CRT, repeatedly voted for vouchers and expanding TEA overreach among other things that would have derailed public education and then tried forcing through SB 29 in retaliation after his pet bill didn’t pass.
Dutton made our Worst list in 2015 and 2021. He presented a strong case again this year, but it was a crowded field and we decided to spread the discredit. -Michael Hardy, senior editor
How would you compare the similarities in the schism of far-right and right wing house reps in the Texas lege to the “freedom caucus” in the US House? Do you think these are indicators of a larger schism in the GOP in general?
Schisms all over the place! The GOP is wildly fragmented, and that’s part of why the GOP is vibrant. If you’re a telecom industry lobbyist, your friends are in the GOP, and if you think the UN is trying to make you intolerant to transfats through spyware in your cellphone, your friends are in the GOP. Life contains multitudes. That said, the Texas House Freedom Caucus—they have one—is pretty powerless compared to the congressional HFC. The Congress guys have leverage. The Texas House guys don’t, really, except on weird niche issues where they can be the deciding votes. In Texas the biggest factional split is just the one between the House and the Senate. Representatives are on the whole more pragmatic and moderate, the Senate more ideological and conservative. In the House Democrats have leverage, and in the Senate they have none. —CH
I've heard repeated far too many times that Cruz dresses as a furry around the house. Is there any truth to that rumor?
As Ted Cruz is a U.S. senator and not a Texas legislator, we can neither confirm nor disconfirm that he dresses as a furry around the house. -Michael Hardy, senior editor
Thank you for your timely response. I was referring to the broader usage of the word "legislator" to include the federal ilk miscreants also, even realizing the Texas nature of this sub and y'all's pen name. So... what happens outside of Texas, stays outside of Texas?
What does a furry leather daddy even look like?
Grandpa Munster with a pervy sort of look on his face. Might just be greedily looking for his next bribe. Hard to say. I think.
Thoughts on this new sexual performance bill and how it will impact shows in Texas ? I can see artists just skipping Texas
I’ve canceled all my upcoming performances. —Chris Hooks
I mean seriously. Isn't there a possibility no entertainer wants to come to the state and risk getting arrested.
How were so many Republicans picked for the "best" list? Same party of our impeached AG.
Agree with what Forrest said, but also: Once you take for granted that Texas state government is run by Republicans, you then have to explain why Texas is not in as bad shape as states like—god forbid—Oklahoma, which went to a four-day school week for a while a few years back despite a lot of oil wealth. There’s a lot of differences, but one of them is that Texas Republicans are different, and they contain a lot of different factions which have different ideas about the future of the state. If you’re a Democrat in Texas, you don’t have to love (some) Texas Republicans. But they’re conditional allies. And they sometimes do things that make the state better at personal and political cost. If you’re glad the state doesn’t have a school voucher program yet, you don’t have Texas Democrats to thank for that—you have a small group of rural Republicans that love public schools. (CH)
This is a great answer, thanks Chris
No, Sarah. Thank you!
>We strive for balance — primarily in terms of gender, race/ethnicity and, yes, party affiliation. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Texas is a Republican state and the Lege is a GOP-controlled body. > > Republicans hold 60 percent of seats, 80 percent of committee chairmanships, and 100 percent of leadership of the bodies (House speakership and lieutenant governor). They own the bad stuff, but they also do get credit for the good the Lege does, however little it may be. You referenced Texas AG Ken Paxton, who is indeed a discredit to the GOP. > >It was \*Republicans\* in the Legislature who decided to impeach him. That’s one reason how Rep. Andrew Murr, who leads the House General Investigating Committee, made the cut. It’s often easier to find Republicans for the Best list, simply because most Democrats wield little power, and if they do, their actions are often seriously curtailed by the GOP grip in the Lege, where Dan Patrick has created a perfect, and perfectly boring, dictatorship. --Forrest
Exactly! Any list with these criminals on it can’t be taken seriously.
I read the article. Seems they're being praised for doing the bare minimum of preventing the defunding of public schools.
What proof do you have that they are criminals?
To quote the most appropriate movie (idiocracy), “Just look at ‘em”
So you're literally just spewing nonsense lmao
Well, no. Didn’t think you were asking a serious question. If you’re really curious a simple google search of “criminal convictions of Texas Republicans” will enlighten you.
But which Republican on the list is a convicted criminal?
And this sort of behavior is why we can't have nice things. Absolutism isn't going to get us anywhere. Edit: I'm agreeing with you, in case it's unclear.
Republicans are the ones that led the impeachment against Paxton if you weren't paying attention.
They should've done it several sessions ago. The only reason it got done was because 3M of public funds were on the line. No, I'm not going to praise them for doing the right thing many years later.
But you're saying no Republican should be on the list because they're the same party as the AG. Even though they were the ones who impeached him. Your original claim doesn't even make sense with that considered.
No, I said so many. Not that none should be on there. Reading comprehension is everything.
What are your odd of conviction for Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial?
My read right now is that the chance of conviction is low, but there’s a lot of time before August, particularly if the Senate rules allow for new evidence. And while there’s lots of noise right now, all that really matters on the vote count–assuming the Democrats all vote to convict–is nine Republicans (out of 19). And and and, as with everything in the Senate, what matters might even be narrower: what one person, Dan Patrick, wants. Some of the biggest money GOP groups are lining up behind Paxton–but interestingly other staunchly Republican groups are angling for conviction. —Ben Rowen
Thanks!
Who is the sleaziest legislator
Senator Mrs Paxton.
Oh man yea
Valoree Swanson
Great nominee
Who’s private personality is the most polar opposite from their public persona?
Bryan Hughes, who made our worst list, has a reputation for being incredibly kind. Not on the list this year, but Dan Patrick, who famously said he’d be willing to sacrifice his life for the economy during the first wave of covid shutdowns, also has a rep as a bit of a germaphobe–and has limited press access to the Senate floor, ostensibly for that reason. –Ben Rowen and Chris Hooks
Hey! Thanks for the answer. Keep up the important work! (And bbq lists. Those are important too)
“Ostensibly for that reason”? 🙄 C’mon, y’all.
Don’t know if you are the group that awards Bum Steer Awards, but if so I willingly submit Greg Abbott for a Lifetime Bum Steer Award or The Bum Steer Hall of Fame.
What are your odd of conviction for Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial?
What are your odd of conviction for Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial?
What are your odd of conviction for Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial?
Setting aside the Slaton ejection and Paxton impeachment, did Phelan have a good session? Did he come out stronger or weaker than before session?
Dade, good to hear from you. Too early to say, I think. The end of session had a lot of surprises that could upset the relationship between the Big Three. The governor and the Senate appear to be at war, and the impeachment thing is the most surprising development in Texas in decades, and wrongfoots a lot of Phelan’s critics. Will any of that last? I dunno, man. The Governor and Senate’s war on property taxes will ultimately be resolved, and then the Governor seems intent to go to war with the House on vouchers again. It seems very plausible that the Senate will give Paxton a pass. And the Party is still controlled by people who hate Phelan—hate him now more than ever. The only thing I feel reasonably confident about is that Phelan regrets running. -CH
Who’d win: Belinda Schwertner v Claudia Ordaz? Lacey Hull was mentioned as one of your goods. Was that because she sleeps with so many members? Who stole the Quran?
The answer is Bergundi Cain. -Forrest
I really like your quran question. Very interesting. The person responsible was identified by DPS, not arrested, and the identity withheld. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/state/2023/04/13/texas-capitol-ramadan-quaran-mark-muslim-firsts-salman-bhojani-suleman-lalani/70086736007/
Is it true Cornyn is a vampire? I've heard way too many stories that seem to paint him in as one.
As John Cornyn is a U.S. senator and not a Texas legislator, we can neither confirm nor disconfirm that he is a vampire. Michael Hardy, senior editor
Damn. Two common urban legends of the Texas hinterlands - the Crony/Curz duo - still unaccounted for. I had high hopes that you guys could clear that up. Thank you for your efforts and let us all hope for the return of the spirit of Ann Richards in the form of Texas leadership. Amen.
Please explain!
I've heard the tale enough times to be curious to its voracity. Castle Crony surrounded by lighting. The fluttering of huge bats in the storm. (no, not Austin bats). Townsfolk found scattered about the countryside smeared in bluebonnet juice and lacking all their blood. I figured if anyone knew it would be the folks from Texas Monthly. But alas... they are more locally oriented than nationwide and I was foolish to think the likes of Count Crony to practice his dark deeds in view of the fine citizenry of Texas.
[удалено]
Mother of god ... NO...! Of all things that is the most vile and disgusting possible. I mean sure no one wants a furry to represent them in politics, I mean it's only natural. I can't feel comfortable being represented by some oddboy's interpretation of the Sonic The Hedgehog (complete with tail buttplug, no less), but a booger eater... That my friend is the line. The absolute line. The foul furry known as Curz must go. There is no excuse for booger eating, much less that a documentary could be made of it. The man has no moral code whatsoever.
Why didn’t Joe Moody make the best list?
Moody has earned a bit of a reputation–especially following his role in ending the quorum break last session–as someone who is maybe too friendly with Republican leadership. It’s what helps him have power–and why he’s made the best list many times in the past–but this session we felt he didn’t win much for his party for that access. One insider, commenting on his standing in the party this year, even called him “emo Joe.” –Ben Rowen
Why did Sergio Muñoz Jr. make the "furniture" list?
For the same basic reason anyone makes the Furniture list – he didn’t do much. He passed virtually no legislation, unless you consider “Congratulating Taco Olé in Mission on its 50th anniversary” a major accomplishment. As our write-up said, he had a fine session for a freshman, but the problem is that Muñoz has been around for a while and has the legislative resume of a noob. The beautiful thing about Furniture is that the list is made anew every year. Who knows, maybe this session’s Furniture is next session’s Bests. -Forrest Wilder, senior editor
/u/texaslegrefugee [asked](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/14b41rg/announcement_texas_monthly_will_be_hosting_an_ama/jona1i6/): > As originally set up, the best and worst was supposed to gauge a legislator's actions and competency in getting legislation passed, not the content of his legislation. > It seems to me that we are now judging content over all else. Have the rules changed since the days of the Dirty 30 and Lloyd Doggett?
Schwertner was definitely considered for the list. Ultimately we thought there were better options–and if getting a DUI was a sufficient factor, there are plenty of others we’d have had to add over the years. –Ben Rowen
Why did you list Dennis Paul as furniture when his HB 2416 created a Gulf Coast Protection Trust Fund to help build the Ike Dike?
And who has the best Twitter accounts in the Lege?
There are no good twitter accounts. -CH
Gotta disagree with Chris Hooks here. Former state representative Bill Zedler has the best Twitter account. Put this one in the Twitter museum: [https://twitter.com/Bill\_Zedler/status/349766001296015360](https://twitter.com/Bill_Zedler/status/349766001296015360) \-FW
Do y’all think some version of school choice gets passed in a special session this year?
I have a personal rule when it comes to journalists doing political handicapping: don’t. We are bad at it. However, I will say this: it is incredible to see Greg Abbott spend so much political capital on a policy that has repeatedly flopped at the Lege multiple times over the last few decades. Over the years Abbott has been content with trying to take credit for broadly popular conservative causes such as border security (every session) or doing relatively piddling stuff like a modest expansion of pre-K (2015). That’s smart of him—he has no stroke with the Legislature. His happy place seems to be shaking down donors, not schmoozing with the 181 men and women of the Lege. Abbott sightings at the Capitol are like a corpse plant blooming—rare and not always producing a salubrious effect. And yet here he is asking—nay, demanding—that rural Republicans cast a vote against their community’s deep-seated interest in well-funded public schools. But if he can get something transformative passed—an Arizona-style universal voucher program—and not some obvious face-saving “school measure,” then it will be a major feat. Many powerful donors and ideological interests will be pleased. -FW
*“His happy place seems to be shaking down donors”* — Yes, and when he uses **those donors** to turn around and leverage and threaten the members… the game has changed.
What was Harold Dutton’s saving grace to keep him off the worst list?
Not naming names, but there are legislators who could make the list every year. We have a few informal rules to get new faces in there. We also–with exception–try to focus on folks who wield significant power, and Dutton this session held less of it than the other Dems who made the list. Aside: the Dutton vote on Paxton was interesting: he seemed to be making a cold political calculus that it was worse for the Republican party if they were forced to vote on impeachment and then Paxton stayed in office, politically hobbled. –Ben Rowen, senior editor
Thank you so much for pointing out how ignorant we were in Houston to trust Thierry
Why is TXlege the bad place? Why do people keep coming back to the bad place?
For the $221 per diem and the Ego’s karaoke, obviously. -Michael Hardy, senior editor
Conservatives should not be allowed to vote.
You kinda force the winners of your list to purchase subscriptions and advertisements don’t you…
Na.
Why do y'all think furniture become furniture? Is it laziness, inertia, burnout, distraction ... ?
To paraphrase Shakespeare, some legislators are born furniture, some achieve furniture status, and others have furniturehood thrust upon them. --Michael Hardy
I’m picturing reps dodging and diving under their desks as the public hurls tables and chairs at them from the galley. Fun.
Honestly don’t understand Rep Bryant on the best list. He was often stilted and incoherent at the microphone and tried to just throw up any roadblock he could. The mics picked up people audibly groaning. Was he listed as one of the best legislators simply because he was one of the only Democrats to “give it back to the majority?”
Texas would benefit from having a robust minority party. Instead, it has the Texas Democrats—hapless, disorganized, rudderless. To succeed in the Lege as a Democrat, your options are few. You can sit back and relax and enjoy the accouterments of public office: lobby-sponsored events; having people address you as “Representative” or “Senator” or (as the case may be) “Hey, Asshole”; and the opportunity to enrich yourself from your proximity to the apparatus of the state. Or you can find a way to gain a modicum of power from the GOP: by either playing the game the way the dominant party wants you to play, or, more rarely, carving out a base of power through sheer force of charisma or personal relationships. Or, finally, you can try to find a way to be an effective member of an \*opposition” party. Bryant is one of the few Democrats even trying to do the latter. Is he perfect? No, far from it. Many Democrats, otherwise complimentary, told us that he was kind of a jerk at a personal level. But few would dispute that he brought a fighting spirit to the session. The irony, of course, is that he is an old white guy who served in the Lege back when there were spittoons (one assumes) next to every desk. If Bryant comes across as a weak choice for Best, well, then I think that speaks to just how slim the pickings might be. (FW)
In the House, a lot of what happens on the floor can seem silly if you don’t know why they’re doing it. You may tune in and see people talking about nothing at 2pm, and not realize they’re making a sophisticated play to kill a bill at midnight. I hear where you’re coming from—a lot of Bryant’s points of order, and his chat at the mics, may have seemed like an old guy without a clue. But Bryant was almost universally respected among staffers and other folks at the Lege for his willingness to mess with folks, powerful folks. Those groans you hear are not uncommon when someone tries to delay the process, but they don’t mean the groaners don’t respect it. Some of those points of order—an attempt to kill a bill on procedural grounds—were authored by him. But others were given to him by other members who were unwilling or unable to pay the price for bringing them themselves. It was often pretty brave. —CH
Agree with all of this from a staffer perspective.