Hey, let's talk about something big happening right here in Texas: a really competitive primary race for the U.S. Senate. It's a rare moment for Democrats in our state, as two big names, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett from Dallas and state Rep. James Talarico from Austin, are going head-to-head. They want to be the one who takes on the winning Republican this November. Now, winning a statewide office in Texas as a Democrat has been tough – no one's done it since 1994, so you can bet the stakes are sky-high. Why does this all matter to you? Well, U.S. Senators serve six-year terms in Washington. They get to vote on all sorts of federal laws, from how much money the government spends to military decisions, and even whether to approve international treaties. Plus, when a President picks someone for their Cabinet or a judge for federal court, the Senate has to confirm them. That’s a lot of power, and it impacts your life directly, from the air you breathe to the laws that govern your finances. Right now, the U.S. Senate leans Republican. If a Democrat from Texas could flip this seat, it would be a huge win for their party, making their path to controlling the Senate a lot easier. For us here in Texas, it means potentially shifting the kind of representation we get on some seriously important issues. To help you figure out who’s who, we asked both Crockett and Talarico where they stand on a bunch of topics. We're talking everything from border policies and energy to court changes and the power of big tech. You'll see they have some different ideas, and understanding those differences is key, especially when you think about the legal and policy ripples they create. **On Regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI): Federal Control vs. State Authority** This one’s a hot topic, especially with Texas leaders like Senator Ted Cruz suggesting the federal government should be the sole boss of AI regulation. His argument? Too many state rules could mess with new ideas and hurt U.S. companies. But is that the right legal approach? It brings up questions about federalism – that balance of power between Washington and the states. Should states keep their authority to protect their citizens, or should the feds draw all the lines? **Jasmine Crockett** believes AI absolutely needs federal rules. For her, it’s about protecting consumers and workers, stopping bad actors from using things like deepfakes, and keeping your data safe. She sees federal laws as a basic protection, a floor, for everyone's civil rights and privacy. But here’s the kicker: she thinks states should still be able to add even more rules on top of those federal ones. She points out that Texas has actually been pretty forward-thinking on AI regulation. So, for her, it’s not about federal preemption wiping out state efforts; it’s about a two-tiered system where states can innovate and offer stronger protections if they choose. This position aligns with the idea of 'laboratories of democracy,' where states can try out different policies. **James Talarico** says a firm 'No' to the federal government taking over all AI regulation. When he was in the Texas Legislature, they set up an AI Advisory Council. That group’s job was to create guidelines for how state agencies should use AI responsibly. He feels these state-level policies shouldn't be overridden. Looking ahead to the Senate, he wants to put safeguards in place to protect kids online, like stopping platforms from using algorithms to target minors. He also wants to pull back some of the broad legal protections social media companies enjoy. For workers, he’s focused on protection from AI surveillance and using AI to make jobs better, not just replace them. This stance leans heavily into state sovereignty and tailored protections, acknowledging that different states might have different needs or priorities for their citizens. **On Health Care: Rights, Options, and Affordability** Health care is always a big one, affecting everyone, everywhere. The debate often boils down to whether health care is a right or a commodity, and what role the government should play. Candidates are usually asked about single-payer systems, public options, or expanding current programs like Medicare. Each choice has massive legal and economic implications for how health services are delivered, funded, and accessed. **Jasmine Crockett** is a big supporter of 'Medicare for All.' She sees the current system as broken and thinks a single-payer system, which focuses on patients rather than profits, is the way to fix it. Her vision includes dental, vision, mental, and reproductive health coverage, all rolled into one. She wants to ditch premiums, deductibles, and co-pays, and cap annual out-of-pocket costs. She's already backed legislation like the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which caps insulin prices at $35 a month, and the Lower Drug Costs for Families Act. Her message is pretty clear: your health shouldn't be tied to how much money you have. From a legal standpoint, a 'Medicare for All' system would completely overhaul the existing private insurance market and potentially face constitutional challenges related to the Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment takings, though proponents argue it falls within Congress's power to regulate the general welfare. **James Talarico** also believes universal health care is a human right. He's got a plan he calls 'Medicare for Y’all,' which would let every American join Medicare. He argues this would give everyone an affordable, not-for-profit option and boost competition with private insurance, which in turn could lower costs for everyone. He's a strong advocate for protecting the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has faced numerous legal battles and legislative attacks, and he wants to expand Medicare to cover dental and vision. He also wants to reverse health care cuts made by the previous administration. He sees efforts to reduce health care access as wrong, especially when it benefits the wealthy. His 'Medicare for Y'all' idea is a public option, which tries to leverage government programs to introduce competition and improve access without completely dismantling the private system, a legal path that is generally less disruptive than a full single-payer model but still faces significant legislative hurdles. **On the U.S. Supreme Court: Size, Ethics, and Judicial Independence** The Supreme Court holds immense power, shaping the legal landscape for generations. The number of justices, their conduct, and how they’re appointed are always sources of fierce debate, especially when the court's ideological balance becomes a major political issue. This brings up fundamental questions about judicial independence, checks and balances, and the separation of powers. **Jasmine Crockett**, who sits on the Judiciary Committee and the Supreme Court Task Force, and has 20 years of legal experience, points out that the Court’s size has changed seven times before landing on nine justices, 150 years ago. She's actually filed a bill to change it again. She argues that as the country has grown and cases have become more complex, the Court needs to expand. For her, it’s not just about size; it’s about ethics. She feels the current group of justices has shown itself to be 'compromised' and wants to see significant ethics reforms. Her stance is that 'court packing,' as it's often called, is a historical precedent, and a necessary move to restore balance and legitimacy, emphasizing that the Constitution doesn't explicitly fix the number of justices. **James Talarico** believes the Supreme Court has become 'corrupted' and isn't fully upholding the Constitution or serving the American people. While he doesn't explicitly call for adding more justices, he advocates for term limits for Supreme Court justices. This would dramatically change the nature of judicial appointments, reducing the lifetime impact of a single president's choices. He also wants a binding code of conduct for the Court, including strict rules for recusals (when a judge steps aside from a case due to conflict of interest), financial disclosures, and limits on accepting gifts. These reforms are all about restoring public trust and addressing perceived ethical lapses, aiming to strengthen judicial accountability without directly altering the court's size. **On Weapons Sales to Israel: Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and Presidential Authority** This is a highly sensitive international issue with significant legal and moral implications. The U.S. role as a major arms supplier raises questions about international humanitarian law, the use of force, and the executive branch’s authority in foreign policy. The debate centers on how America's aid is used and its impact on civilian populations. **Jasmine Crockett** was one of the Democrats who expressed deep concerns about the escalating war and signed a letter to President Biden about it in May 2024. She emphasizes that presidents have the power to decide who buys U.S. weapons. She points out that the previous administration approved billions in offensive weapons to Israel. Her concern extends beyond Gaza to other places like Sudan, The Congo, and Haiti, highlighting a broader worry about civilian death tolls globally. Her position suggests that the U.S. has a moral and perhaps legal obligation, under international human rights law, to consider the end-use of its weapons and the impact on civilians, implying that sales should be conditioned on adherence to these principles. **James Talarico** believes the U.S., as a global power, has a duty to lead with 'moral clarity' and make sure no U.S. funds are used to harm civilians. He supports stopping offensive weapons sales to the current Israeli government while continuing to support defensive systems like the Iron Dome. He wants agreements in place that ensure American funds aren't used to hurt civilians. He stresses using America’s financial and diplomatic power to work toward a two-state solution, which involves disarming Hamas, creating a democratic Palestinian state, stopping Israeli settlements, and respecting both nations' sovereignty. His approach seeks a balanced foreign policy that integrates human rights concerns with security needs, using leverage to shape outcomes rather than a full cessation of all aid. **On Congressional Stock Trading: Ethics, Insider Trading, and Public Trust** Can members of Congress trade individual stocks? This question directly touches on ethics, conflicts of interest, and the integrity of public service. Lawmakers often have access to information that isn't public, creating potential for insider trading, which is illegal for ordinary citizens but has complex applications for elected officials. The issue is about maintaining public trust in government. **Jasmine Crockett** is totally against all forms of insider trading, including by members of Congress. She feels Texans work hard, and elected officials shouldn't give themselves 'unfair advantages' that the average American doesn't have. She supports any and all efforts to root out corruption and stop big money and 'shady private interests' from influencing politics. Her stance is a clear call for stricter ethics rules to ensure lawmakers are serving the public, not their portfolios. This aligns with federal statutes like the STOCK Act, which attempts to prevent insider trading by members of Congress, but which many argue doesn't go far enough. **James Talarico** says a definitive 'Yes' to banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks. He’d vote for such a ban in the Senate. He wants to stop insider trading and prevent politicians from profiting from their positions. Beyond stock trading, he also wants to close the 'revolving door' — where former members of Congress immediately become lobbyists, using their influence and insider knowledge for personal gain. His proposals aim to address multiple avenues for potential corruption and self-enrichment in Washington. **On Senate Leadership and the Filibuster: Legislative Power and Minority Rights** The Senate filibuster is a procedural tool that allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote on a bill. It's a hugely contentious issue, with arguments for its preservation focusing on protecting minority rights and fostering bipartisanship, and arguments for its elimination centering on allowing the majority to govern and pass legislation. The debate often involves historical context and questions about whether it serves to strengthen or weaken our democracy and legislative efficiency. **Jasmine Crockett** points out that the Senate has historically made 'carveouts' for the filibuster, meaning they’ve decided certain issues don’t require the supermajority. For her, there should be no hesitation to do the same for 'paramount' issues like voting rights. She believes that without a voice and a vote, you can’t really secure other rights. She's concerned that current practices allow politicians to choose their voters, rather than the other way around, letting them avoid accountability. For her, the filibuster, as currently used, benefits 'the privileged few.' Her stance suggests a pragmatic approach to the filibuster, willing to reform or eliminate it for specific, high-priority legislation that she views as fundamental to democracy and citizen participation. **James Talarico** is unambiguous: he supports eliminating the current filibuster. He sees it as stopping the country from making progress on things most Americans want, like voting rights and worker protections. He feels the current rules are undermining our democracy. However, he also supports keeping a 'talking filibuster,' which means senators would have to actually speak on the floor to delay a vote, rather than just signaling their intent. This modification would make it much harder to use the filibuster routinely, preserving some form of minority voice while preventing its current use as an easy obstructionist tool. **On Corporate Tax Rates: Economic Policy, Wealth Distribution, and Funding Public Services** Corporate tax rates are a big lever in economic policy. Changing them impacts business investment, job creation, and how much revenue the government collects. The debate often pits arguments for lower rates (to stimulate growth) against arguments for higher rates (to fund social programs and reduce wealth inequality). The legal framework for taxation is established by Congress under the Sixteenth Amendment. **Jasmine Crockett** supports bringing back the old corporate tax rate for the biggest corporations. She also wants to either keep or lower the tax rate for small businesses, which she sees as the 'backbone' of our economy. Her reasoning is that if the top 1% and billionaires pay their 'fair share,' that money can fund health care, education, and help for first-time homebuyers and entrepreneurs. She argues that the middle and working class are currently paying too much, while the super-rich pay very little. Her view is that taxation isn’t just about revenue; it’s a tool for wealth redistribution and social equity. **James Talarico** believes we shouldn't cut taxes for the 'ultra-wealthy' when average Americans are struggling. He thinks the corporate tax rate absolutely needs to go up, noting it's fallen by more than half since the 1980s. He'd support ending 'carried interest' tax loopholes that let hedge funds avoid billions in taxes. He also wants to roll back other 'extreme tax breaks' that allow big corporations to pay nothing in federal income taxes. He'd also raise the tax on corporate stock buybacks, which he argues companies use to artificially inflate their stock prices. His approach is focused on using the tax system to address wealth inequality and ensure corporations contribute more to public coffers. **On Antitrust and Big Tech: Competition, Consumer Protection, and Free Speech** The consolidation of power in industries, especially tech, raises serious antitrust concerns. When a few big companies dominate a market, it can stifle competition, hurt smaller businesses, and potentially limit consumer choice or raise prices. Legally, antitrust laws (like the Sherman and Clayton Acts) are designed to prevent monopolies and promote fair competition. There's also a free speech angle when it comes to massive tech platforms. **Jasmine Crockett** does not support monopolies in any industry, period. She believes they hurt competition and make it hard for startups and small businesses to thrive. For her, we need to break up monopolies and aggressively enforce the antitrust laws we already have, updating our approach to fit today’s corporate landscape. She argues that competition brings lower costs and more innovation, while monopolies mean higher prices and fewer options for consumers. When it comes to big tech, she also worries that monopolies can lead to 'echo chambers' and even 'restrictions on our free speech.' Her position aligns with a more interventionist approach to antitrust, suggesting that active government involvement is needed to preserve market fairness and even constitutional rights in the digital age. **James Talarico** insists that federal regulators need to aggressively enforce existing antitrust laws, and he’d work with them in the Senate to explore new ones. His goal is to boost competition so no single company can set prices artificially high or take advantage of consumers. He also wants to increase oversight of mergers and acquisitions and close loopholes that let companies coordinate to inflate prices. He'd also support reducing barriers that make it tough for new companies to enter markets and compete. His focus is on regulatory and legislative solutions to strengthen competition, which ultimately benefits consumers through lower prices and more innovation. **On Immigration: Border Security, Pathways to Citizenship, and Human Rights** Immigration is a deeply complex issue, sitting at the intersection of national security, economic policy, and human rights. Federal law generally controls immigration, but states often grapple with its impacts. The debate around comprehensive reform often involves balancing border enforcement with creating legal pathways for immigrants already here. Issues like due process for asylum seekers and the legal status of Dreamers are central. **Jasmine Crockett** supports a 'smart' approach to border policy. This means investing in technology to identify 'bad actors' and remove them, while also putting more resources into quickly processing asylum claims. She wants 'comprehensive immigration reforms' to create a clear, secure, and timely path to legal status or citizenship. She specifically mentions addressing the thousands of immigrants who followed the rules but lost their status while waiting for USCIS. She believes immigrants are a strength for Texas, contributing significantly to our economy, taxes, and Social Security. She argues it shouldn't cost $100,000 and take 30 years for someone who has played by the rules to become a citizen. Her emphasis is on efficiency, fairness, and economic integration, alongside targeted enforcement. **James Talarico** supports the framework of the 'Dignity Act,' a bipartisan House bill. He describes our border like a 'front porch' – it should welcome some but also have a 'lock on the door' to keep out those who mean harm. He believes we can both welcome strangers and keep dangerous individuals out. He wants ICE to focus on gang members and human traffickers, not 'moms and babies,' and calls for agents to be held accountable for abuses. He advocates for reforming the asylum system, modernizing entry ports to better detect threats, and making it easier for employers to legally hire migrant workers in sectors where there's a labor shortage. His position integrates border security with humanitarian concerns and economic realities, aiming for a structured and humane immigration system. **On Energy Policy: Production, Renewables, and Environmental Protection** Energy policy in Texas is always a big deal, given our state’s role in oil and gas. The national debate often revolves around balancing domestic production with the transition to renewable energy sources, and the role of federal regulations and incentives. This has implications for the environment, economic stability, and utility costs, all governed by a complex web of environmental and energy laws. **Jasmine Crockett** believes that American energy independence depends on an 'all of the above' approach, with Texas at the center. She notes Texas already leads in wind power and is quickly becoming a leader in solar. She argues that rolling back federal tax incentives for clean energy projects, like those from the Biden administration, has already hiked Texans’ utility bills. She’s against drilling on public lands, stating that 'public safety must be paramount.' She’s also worried about how foreign policy might impact Texas’ energy economy, making it clear she supports domestic energy development over foreign sources ('Midland, not Maduro'). Her stance champions a diverse energy portfolio and protection of public lands, linking environmental policy to economic impacts for everyday Texans. **James Talarico** is confident that Texas can lead in energy, growing the economy, lowering costs, and fighting climate change all at once. He promises to work hard to ensure Texas maintains and expands its energy leadership, ensuring reliable, affordable energy for everyone. He’d reinstate federal tax credits, loans, and other tools that help diversify energy production and speed up renewable energy development. He also supports streamlining permitting processes for certain energy projects, but *without* compromising environmental protections. His vision is one where Texas continues to be an energy powerhouse, but with a strong emphasis on clean energy and environmental stewardship, suggesting a modernized regulatory approach that balances development with sustainability goals. This election isn't just about personalities; it’s about deep legal and policy choices that will shape Texas and the nation for years to come. Your vote in the primary really does matter when you consider the profound impacts these decisions have on our collective future. It's about who you trust to navigate these complex legal and public policy challenges in Washington.