Latest Update - May 1st

Here’s a quick recap of what happened over the last week:

Statewide Polling – Talarico Leading Both Republicans

Two new polls were released this week on the potential US Senate matchup in November – and Democrat James Talarico is leading both Republican candidates in both polls. A poll conducted by Texas Public Opinion Research from April 17th to 20th shows Talarico leading Cornyn by a 44% to 41% margin and also leading Paxton by a 46% to 41% margin.

Another poll released by the University of Texas/Politics Project showed Talarico with an even bigger lead over Cornyn, 40% to 33% and also leading Paxton by a 42% to 34% margin.

Other results of interest from the TPOR poll showed incumbent Gov. Abbott leading Democrat Gina Hinojosa by a 48% to 43% margin and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick leading likely Democratic nominee Vicki Goodwin by a 35% to 31% margin with a substantial number of voters undecided in that race.

The most recent poll regarding the head-to-head runoff matchup between Cornyn and Paxton was also done by TPOR from April 6th-7th, showing Paxton with a 48% to 40% advantage over the incumbent Cornyn.

Once again, the argument by the Cornyn throughout the primary that he is the most electable Republican in November is questioned with these latest polls. The polls show very little difference in how either Republican may perform in the general election.

Cornyn is trailing in the primary and hypothetical general election matchup despite his massive spending so far. Hearst Newspapers released a synopsis this week comparing the spending between Paxton and Cornyn. The Cornyn campaign and its affiliated PAC’s have outspent Paxton and his affiliates by a stunning $50 million. The Cornyn campaign and affiliates have spent $57 million so far, compared to $4.5 million spent on Paxton’s behalf. A staggering difference that has still yet to yield a lead for Cornyn in any poll done for the upcoming runoff. Four recent polls have shown Paxton with anywhere from a three to eight-point lead.

Camp Mystic Hearings & Investigation

Camp Mystic, the Christian summer camp for girls located along the Guadalupe River in Kerr County, is now under formal scrutiny following testimony alleging that the teenage counselors were not properly trained for flood emergencies. This issue arises amid broader concerns about emergency preparedness standards for youth camps in flood-prone areas of Central Texas. Previously, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick repeatedly urged state officials to reject the application for Camp Mystic to renew its license until investigations into the incident had been completed. The hearings are now unfolding as part of a broader inquiry into camp safety oversight, training requirements, and regulatory compliance under Texas Health and Human Services (HHSC) licensing standards.

On April 28, 2026, directors and family members who own and operate Camp Mystic delivered testimony before the Joint House/Senate General Investigating Committee on the July Floods on defending decisions made last summer; they also outlined changes they say have been implemented to improve safety. Camp directors, including Edward Eastland, repeatedly expressed deep sorrow for the tragedy and acknowledged the pain experienced by victims’ families. The Eastland family emphasized measures taken since the tragedy to improve training, revise safety protocols, and plans for future emergency drills. Legislators from both chambers pressed the owners sharply, questioning whether the directors are capable of safely running the camp in the future. They have openly questioned the ethics of letting the camp operate again given the scale of loss of life.

The hearing included powerful testimony from parents who lost children, some directly addressing the owners. The emotional weight of those statements left legislators visibly moved during the proceedings. Officials repeatedly circled back to the panel’s investigative timeline, which outlined numerous opportunities and operational missteps during the flood. Those details included delays in evacuation, failures in weather monitoring, and proper communication. The Eastland family has claimed that the camp has adopted new procedures and training protocols, but failed to present a fully finalized training program, leaving many legislators unconvinced that the camp can adequately protect children in the event of another severe weather event.

Casey Garrett, an attorney and investigator hired by the Joint Committee -- conducted more than 140 interviews, and noted that the camp counselors lacked emergency training, “Unfortunately, every single person that I’ve spoken with that are former counselors, current counselors – there was never any real training. There were never drills, no drills of any kind.” She also noted that they lacked access to radios, walkie-talkies, phones, tool kits, ladders, or life jackets.

As of April 30th, 2026, Camp Mystic has now confirmed that it will not reopen this summer, withdrawing its license application following intense scrutiny. Owners initially expressed a desire to reopen portions of the camp while emergency preparedness plans were reviewed. However, in response to regulatory concerns, legislative pressure, and emotional public testimony from families affected by the tragedy, the camp’s leadership announced a decision to suspend operations for the 2026 season. Several factors contributed to the decision.

At hearings, state investigators and regulators repeatedly cited significant deficiencies in Camp Mystic’s emergency planning. Regulators ordered the camp to revise and resubmit a comprehensive emergency preparedness plan. The owners failed to complete that plan to the state’s satisfaction by the deadlines set forth in regulatory processes. With ongoing civil lawsuits alleging negligence and potential wrongful death claims pending, opening the camp would have heightened legal exposure.

Supreme Court Upholds Mid-Decade Congressional Redistricting

The US Supreme Court has upheld Texas’s newly redrawn congressional map, making permanent a mid-decade redistricting plan that had already been temporarily allowed during the 2026 primary cycle. The ruling effectively ends the immediate legal challenge and cements the map in place heading into the November general election. This decision is significant not only for Texas, but nationally, as it formalizes one of the most aggressive mid-cycle redistricting efforts in recent memory. It could, and has, significantly influenced how other states approach partisan map-making going forward.

Following the 2020 Census, Texas gained two additional congressional seats due to population growth, increasing from 36 to 38 seats. Republican lawmakers argue that the growth justified realignment to reflect demographic changes, and rapid population expansion in metropolitan areas required “rebalancing”. However, the recent redrawing went beyond just population adjustments. The strategy was encouraged by national Republican leaders and aligned with President Donald Trump’s call to solidify Republican control of the US House. The new map succeeded in the following:

Strengthened Republican-leaning districts in South Texas
Reconfigured suburban districts in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston
Consolidated Democratic urban voting blocs into fewer districts
Added Republican advantage in newly competitive areas

Supporters argue that the map reflects political realities, but it was more a deliberate partisan gerrymander designed to follow Trump’s orders and maximize GOP seats.

Opponents argued that the map diluted minority voting strength, violated the Voting Rights Act, and represented unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court had previously allowed the map to be used temporarily while litigation proceeded. In its latest ruling, the Court declined to overturn the lower court decision, effectively allowing the map to stand permanently. While the Court did not dramatically expand redistricting doctrine, it did reinforce that federal courts have limited ability to intervene in partisan gerrymandering disputes.

The ruling has certainly reinforced that federal courts are reluctant to intervene in partisan districting and state courts are becoming the primary battleground. Several states are exploring constitutional challenges under their own state constitutions rather than relying on federal claims. This decision to redraw mid-cycle could normalize the practice nationally. Experts warn that this may lead to more frequent redistricting battles, increased political instability in House districts, and strategic mid-decade map revisions by both parties.

Texas’ move has now triggered reactions in multiple states. In response to Texas solidifying additional Republican seats, Democratic-led states have begun their own responses. States like California, Illinois, and New York have previously used aggressive map-drawing strategies and are floating retaliation to counterbalance Texas. One of the most notable responses has come from Virginia, where voters recently approved a constitutional amendment allowing the state legislature to redraw its congressional map ahead of the 2030 Census. The change is expected to reshape Virginia’s delegation and increase Democratic seats, with estimates suggesting up to four additional seats might favor Democrats under the new map.

California had already moved earlier than Virginia, approving a new congressional map designed to add Democratic leaning seats as a direct countermove to Republican districts elsewhere, especially in Texas. This move was structurally different due to voter-initiation and the requirement of a constitutional amendment, but its timing and intent clearly positioned itself as part of the broader redistricting arms race.. This response shows that both parties are willing to leverage redistricting tools aggressively mid-cycle when political control shifts.

Louisiana V. Callais Supreme Court Decision Effectively Overturns Section of the Voting Rights Act

Speaking more on the topic of redistricting, the US Supreme Court has come to a final ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which significantly narrows Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. To properly understand the impact of Louisiana v. Callais, it is important to understand Section 2 of the VRA.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was landmark federal legislation passed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting. While Section 5 required certain states to obtain federal approval before changing election laws, Section 2 prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race. Sec. 2 has been the primary legal tool used to challenge racially discriminatory redistricting maps since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down Sec. 5’s enforcement formula.

Under Section 2, plaintiffs could argue whether or not a redistricting map unlawfully diluted minority voting strength and representation, even if discriminatory intent could not be proven, so long as the effect was discriminatory. For decades, this “results test” has allowed courts to require states to draw additional minority opportunity districts where minority populations were large and geographically compact enough to form a district.

The Louisiana V. Callais case arose after Louisiana’s congressional map was challenged for failing to create a second majority-Black district, despite the state’s significant Black population (about ⅓). Lower courts initially ruled that the map likely violated Section 2 of the VRA due to it diluting Black voting power. The state was ordered to redraw its map to include an additional Black-majority district. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling significantly limited the scope of Sec. 2 enforcement in redistricting cases.

In its decision, the Court effectively narrowed how Section 2 can be used by raising the evidentiary standard for proving racial vote dilution, limiting when courts can require the creation of majority-minority districts, and reframing how courts are allowed to evaluate whether race was improperly considered in map drawing. Legal analysts widely interpret the decision as effectively gutting the strongest remaining federal protection against racial vote dilution in district maps.

This ruling is widely viewed as one of the most consequential voting rights decisions since Shelby County v. Holder (2013). After Shelby County eliminated federal preclearance, Section 2 became the primary mechanism for challenging discriminatory district maps. Now, with it substantially narrowed, federal courts have far less authority to require states to create minority opportunity districts, plaintiffs face higher burdens in providing vote dilution, and states now have broader discretion in drawing maps – even if minority communities argue they are fragmented or packed.

This decision has major implications for states like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and others where Section 2 litigation has been central to redistricting battles. Texas has faced multiple Sec. 2 challenges within the past decade; with it narrowed, Texas has gained strength in the ability to maintain its current map structure through 2030 absent state-level intervention. The newly upheld congressional map has become even more legally insulated, minority vote dilution challenges are less likely to succeed, and mid-decade redistricting efforts now face fewer federal obstacles. With federal oversight reduced, state legislatures may draw more aggressive partisan maps, reduce the number of minority-majority districts, and prioritize partisan advantage over minority coalition considerations.

Other Republican-controlled states may view the ruling as a green light for more assertive redistricting strategies, reduced risk of federal court intervention, and an opportunity to solidify House majorities. All of that points to a very strong possibility that the Texas legislature will very likely redraw the state House districts in the 2027 session. Republicans – now holding an 88-62 partisan advantage in the 150-member Texas House – have been clamoring to draw a map with the likelihood of elected 100 Republicans. Having the 100 seats in the Texas House allows Republicans to pass more highly partisan measures and avoid quorum breaks that can delay or kill Republican priorities due to an inability to conduct business absent a quorum. (Currently a quorum of 100 members must be present for the House to conduct any business)

Federal Appeals Court Allows Texas SB 4 to Take Effect

In 2023, Texas passed Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) – one of the most aggressive state-level immigration enforcement laws in the country. The law authorizes Texas state and local law enforcement officers to arrest individuals suspected of illegally entering the United States and gives state judges authority to order removal to the alleged offender’s country of origin. SB 4 was immediately challenged in federal court. Opponents argued that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility under the US Constitution and that Texas was overstepping its authority. After months of legal battles and injunctions blocking implementation, the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has now ruled that the plaintiffs challenging SB 4 lacked legal standing, clearing the way for the law to take effect.

The court did not fully decide the ultimate constitutionality of SB 4. Instead, it ruled that parties challenging the law – including immigrant rights organizations – failed to demonstrate sufficient standing to bring the lawsuit. Standing is a legal threshold requirement, so plaintiffs must show that they are directly harmed or imminently threatened by a law to challenge it. By the court finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the injunction blocking SB 4 was lifted and Texas is now permitted to begin enforcing the law. However, the merits of the constitutional dispute remain unsolved. The ruling marks a significant procedural victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

SB 4 creates state-level criminal penalties for illegal border entry and authorizes the following:

State and local law enforcement officers to arrest individuals suspected of crossing the border unlawfully
State judges to order deportation
Criminal penalties for repeated illegal entries

The law effectively creates a parallel state-level immigration enforcement mechanism. Critics argue this interferes with federal immigration authority; supporters argue that Texas is acting due to federal inaction on border security.

Gov. Abbott has consistently defended SB 4 as necessary to protect Texans amid what he describes as a border crisis. He has framed the law as a response to record migrant encounters, an assertion of Texas’s right to defend itself, a necessary measure due to perceived federal enforcement failures. He has repeatedly argued that during the Biden administration, the federal government had not adequately secured the border. Paxton called the ruling a major win for Texas sovereignty. His office has argued that states retain authority to protect public safety, SB 4 complements rather than replaces federal immigration law, and the challengers failed to show concrete injury.

Immigrant advocacy groups argue that SB 4 violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, invites racial profiling, and creates chaos by allowing 50 different states to create their own immigration systems. Legal experts warn that allowing state officers to arrest individuals for illegal entry may lead to constitutional challenges under the federal preemption doctrine. The core legal question is whether immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal power. Historically, courts have ruled that immigration regulation is primarily federal, states may cooperate with federal authorities, but states may not create independent immigration enforcement systems that conflict with federal law. SB 4 pushes those boundaries by criminalizing entry under state law, and the US Supreme Court has previously struck down parts of other states’ bills for similar preemption concerns.

The case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court. If SB 4 is enforced: state level law enforcement may begin making arrests under state immigration charges, state courts could issue removal charges, tensions between state and federal immigration authorities may intensify, and law enforcement agencies will face questions about implementation standards and probable cause determinations. It is important to watch what comes next. The case could quickly reach the Supreme Court, local governments or individuals may file new challenges, the US Department of Justice may escalate its legal opposition, and it will be important to note how quickly Texas agencies move to operationalize SB 4.

Texas Gas Price Tracker and TSA update

https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=TX

Gas prices across Texas have continued to trend upward over the past week, reflecting broader national energy market pressures, including supply concerns tied to global oil market uncertainty. The statewide average has increased by over 20 cents since this time last week, now sitting at $3.85/gallon for regular unleaded. This is up from about $3.60/gallon last week and significantly up from an average of $2.76/gallon a year ago. Diesel is slightly lowered from last week’s statewide average, sitting at $4.98/gallon today compared to $5.03/gallon a week ago. The nation’s nominal average gas price as of today is $4.30/gallon, the highest national gas price average we have seen at the pump besides the peak experienced during the Russian-Ukraine conflict ($5.01/gallon).

Brent crude oil briefly spiked above $126 per barrel midday yesterday, the highest level in about four years. After that intraday high, Brent eased and is now trading closer to the $114-$116 range, still well above typical recent levels. West Texas Intermediate crude is also elevated, trading above $104 per barrel even after the price pullback. Price ranges pre-conflict sat around $70-$90 per barrel. Analysts have also raised longer-term price forecasts for both Brent and WTI based on fears that these disruptions in Middle Eastern production will persist, keeping crude prices elevated throughout 2026.

Below are the most recent posted averages for regular unleaded fuel in major cities across Texas:

Austin-San Marcos: ~$3.87/gal

Houston: ~$3.81/gal

Dallas: ~$3.93/gal

San Antonio: ~$3.85/gal

El Paso: ~$4.16/gal (highest among major Texas metros)

Corpus Christi: ~$3.85/gal

Beaumont-Port Arthur: ~$3.78/gal

As for airport travel and airline operations, they continue to be disrupted due to ongoing challenges within the TSA, driven largely by federal budget stalemates and staffing shortages. TSA has experienced substantial staffing losses, with more than 1,100 officers resigning nationwide over recent months. But finally, some good news – yesterday Congress finally passed a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, ending the 76-day stalemate that had shutdown most operations of the agency. President Trump signed the bill into law yesterday evening that will fund most of the operations of the agency, including TSA, Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency through September. The bill does not provide funding for ICE or Border Patrol. Congress has passed a budget resolution that directs relevant committees to draft legislation to fund ICE and Border Patrol for the next three years at an amount of $70 billion.

Airlines have been adjusting operations due to the staffing crunch. Houston airports have begun implementing new technology, including a TSA PreCheck Touchless ID system using facial comparison to speed screen for enrolled travelers, an effort to reduce screening times. Now that funding has been restored and the TSA agents are assured of getting paid for at least the next five months, passenger screening wait times are expected to return to normal.

Airline fuel costs are embedded in ticket pricing and often passed on through higher base fares, reduced fare sales, fuel surcharges, fewer promotional routes, and reduced seat availability on lower-demand routes. Jet fuel prices have doubled in some places since the first US-Israel strikes on Iran two months ago. Domestic airfare prices are up roughly 8-12% compared to this time last year, and international fares have risen even more sharply (roughly 24%). Summer travel bookings are showing higher average ticket prices compared to the early spring fares.

Historical “Fun-Fact” of the Week

Texas has a “plural executive”, meaning that the Governor of Texas is actually relatively weak. The Texas Executive Branch splits power between independently elected officials (Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, etc.), meaning that power is divided instead of concentrated in one single governor. This structure was intentionally designed after Reconstruction, when distrust of centralized power led lawmakers to weaken the executive branch. As a result, the governor of Texas is often considered much less powerful than governors in other states. They can veto legislation and call special sessions but have very limited control over budgeting and the legislative process. In reality, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas is often considered the powerful official in Texas because they control the Senate agenda and committee assignments.

Political Notes

Former Democratic Senate candidate Colin Allred – who dropped out of the race in December to run for Congressional District 33 in Dallas – is now in a runoff against Congresswoman Julie Johnson of Carrollton. Allred has been critical of US Senate Democratic nominee James Talarico for comments he made to a reporter labeling Allred as a “mediocre Black man”, when comparing him to Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, who was also a candidate for US Senate in the Democratic primary. Recently, Allred did pledge support to Talarico, saying, “Of course I support him, I’ve been supporting Democrats my whole life”. But, he said Talarico has work to do in the Black community and encourages him to continue his work among Black voters, not taking them for granted. Allred added, “the challenge isn’t convincing Black voters to support him, it’s convincing them to turn out”.

Challenger Ken Paxton has been on the receiving end of countless negative ads from the Cornyn campaign but is now turning the tables. Recently, his campaign launched a YouTube video – that has quickly made the rounds on social media – criticizing Cornyn for “supporting the legalization of Dreamers”, a reference to the previous immigration policy that allowed children brought illegally to this country by their parents to remain in the country without the threat of deportation. The program has since been eliminated after a challenge to its validity by the Trump administration. The ad shows footage of Cornyn on the US Senate floor in 2020 advocating for legislation to permanently place into statute the policy of allowing the children to stay – a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In response, the Cornyn campaign released a statement saying that Cornyn has always supported President Trump’s border security and immigration policies.

What’s Next??

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee will meet Monday to consider items related to prison security and to review laws passed last year regarding AI and child pornography.

The House Human Services Committee meets on Tuesday to review state agency policies regarding the prevention of Medicaid waste and fraud.

The Senate Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs Committee has scheduled a meeting for May 11th, and the Senate Finance Committee has three scheduled meetings this summer to further discuss interim charges.

A full list of all interim committee hearings can be found here: https://www.legis.state.tx.us

Now the campaigns for the runoffs are in full swing. The runoff election is Tuesday, May 26th.