So, you're looking at this U.S. Senate Republican primary in Texas, right? It's more than just a political contest; it's a battle for who gets to shape our federal laws, confirm judges, and influence everything from your healthcare to how our country handles international agreements. We're talking about three major players here: long-time Senator John Cornyn, current Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Houston U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt. Each of them has a record, and even when they don't explicitly state their position, their past actions and votes paint a pretty clear picture of how they'd approach the big legal and policy questions facing Texas and the nation. You should know, though, that these guys didn't exactly jump at the chance to answer a detailed questionnaire from the Texas Tribune. So, what we're doing here at Ringo Legal is piecing together their views from their public comments, voting records, and their legal challenges. It's like putting together a puzzle to see what kind of legal and policy future each candidate represents for you. This race is a big deal for the Republican Party nationally, too, since keeping this Senate seat red is essential for their control of the chamber. Losing it would mark the first statewide Democratic win in Texas since way back in 1994, which would be a monumental shift. Senators, remember, are in office for six years, and they vote on everything from military spending to confirming Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members. That's a lot of power, and it affects your daily life more than you might think. Let's dive into some of the most pressing issues and see where these candidates stand, or where their past actions suggest they would. ### Artificial Intelligence: Federal Control vs. State Authority The rise of artificial intelligence isn't just a tech story; it's a legal and policy minefield. One of the big debates right now is whether the federal government should preempt states from creating their own AI regulations. Think about it: if every state develops its own rules, you could have a confusing mess of laws that might stifle innovation or make it harder for businesses to operate across state lines. On the flip side, if the federal government steps in too heavily, states lose their power to address local concerns or experiment with different regulatory approaches. Senator Ted Cruz, for instance, has argued against a “patchwork” of state rules, suggesting it could disadvantage U.S. companies. This whole discussion touches on fundamental constitutional principles, like the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. It's a classic federalism fight. **Senator John Cornyn** hasn't come out directly saying whether he supports a full federal preemption. We know he commented that he doubted a provision for a moratorium on state AI regulation would survive a procedural challenge, and he actually voted in favor of *stripping* that 10-year moratorium from a budget bill. This action is interesting. It doesn't mean he wants states to regulate AI, but it certainly doesn't show an eagerness to block them either. It could suggest a preference for a more deliberate process, or perhaps an acknowledgment of states' rights in certain regulatory areas, rather than a blanket federal ban on state action. His vote suggests a caution against broad federal dictates that might not be fully fleshed out or procedurally sound. This kind of nuanced stance often means he’d be a voice for carefully considered, rather than rushed, legislative approaches to new technologies, potentially seeking a balance that avoids both regulatory anarchy and stifling overreach. For Texans, this could mean that future AI policies might allow for state-specific adaptations, impacting how businesses here deal with AI or how your personal data might be protected. For **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt**, there are no public comments on AI preemption. This silence is pretty common when new, complex issues like AI emerge. It means he hasn't yet drawn a clear line in the sand, or perhaps he's waiting for more concrete proposals before weighing in. From a policy perspective, a lack of stated position can sometimes indicate a desire to remain flexible, or it could simply mean that AI regulation hasn't been a primary focus for him yet in his current role in the House. Voters often look for clarity on such issues, especially as AI becomes more integrated into daily life. His eventual stance, should he take one, would show how he balances technological advancement with consumer protection and governmental oversight. Without his input, it's hard for you to guess how he'd vote on bills related to AI's legal framework. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** also hasn't publicly commented on federal preemption for AI, but his actions as AG offer a clue. He's already used his state office to investigate AI chatbot platforms. This is a really important data point. As the chief lawyer for Texas, Paxton has demonstrated a willingness to use state power to address what he sees as potential harms or deceptive practices involving AI. His investigations show an inclination towards state-level enforcement and regulation, suggesting he might be less inclined to support federal preemption that would strip states of that authority. His past record indicates a strong belief in states' rights and a readiness to challenge federal overreach, so it's a fair bet he'd lean towards Texas having the ability to regulate AI where it affects its citizens. His legal actions against Meta and Character.AI, for instance, highlight a public policy focus on protecting children and consumers from misleading AI, which could be a consistent theme in his approach to this new tech. ### H-1B Visas: Immigration Policy and Economic Impact The H-1B visa program is a hot topic, sitting at the intersection of immigration law and economic policy. It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations, meaning jobs that usually require a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific field. The debate often centers on whether these visas fill a genuine need for skilled workers in fields like tech and healthcare, or if they displace American workers and drive down wages. The Trump administration, for example, imposed a significant $100,000 fee for new H-1B applications, effectively making it much more expensive for companies to hire these workers. This fee hike itself was a policy move designed to restrict access, signaling a preference for domestic hiring. The legal framework of H-1B visas is complex, governed by federal statutes and regulations, and any changes have direct legal ramifications for both employers and potential immigrants. **Senator John Cornyn** has been conspicuously silent on the future of the H-1B visa, or at least, no public comments have been found. This lack of a clear position can be strategic in a state like Texas, which has a large tech sector that often relies on these visas, but also a significant population concerned about immigration levels. A senator's silence can sometimes speak volumes, indicating a desire to avoid alienating either side of a contentious issue. His legislative history on broader immigration issues often focuses on border security and enforcement, but on specific economic immigration programs like H-1B, he has not taken a definitive stance on the record. This means if you're a business owner in Houston relying on this program, you don't really know how he'd vote on bills to modify it. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** has expressed a clearer stance, telling *The Dallas Express* that he supports reforming the H-1B visa program and backs efforts like Trump's to raise visa fees. His position suggests a preference for tighter controls on the program, potentially making it harder or more costly for businesses to utilize H-1B visas. From a policy standpoint, this could be seen as an attempt to prioritize American workers, or as a measure to reduce competition for domestic talent. The legal implication of higher fees or more stringent reforms is that it adds significant barriers to entry for skilled foreign workers, potentially impacting industries that rely on these individuals for specialized expertise. His alignment with Trump's policy on this suggests a consistent approach to immigration that prioritizes restriction and a more nationalistic economic outlook. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** did not directly answer questions about ending the H-1B visa program during a podcast appearance, but he emphasized his record of suing the Biden administration over immigration issues. He stated, “I want legal immigration,” and that decisions about who comes to the country should be “decided by Congress.” He added, “Our immigration laws work if we follow them.” Paxton’s statements highlight a legalistic approach: strict adherence to existing immigration statutes and a preference for legislative rather than executive action on immigration policy. His history of lawsuits against the Biden administration consistently challenges what he views as unlawful immigration policies, reinforcing his belief that federal immigration laws should be rigorously enforced. His focus on “legal immigration” suggests he might support reforms that make the H-1B program more tightly controlled or more difficult to access, consistent with his broader immigration enforcement philosophy. ### Affordable Care Act (ACA) Premium Tax Credits: Healthcare Access and Federal Subsidies The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has been a major point of contention in American policy and law for over a decade. A key component of the ACA designed to make health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans are the enhanced premium tax credits. These credits help lower monthly insurance payments for people who buy plans through the ACA marketplaces. The expiration of these enhanced credits could significantly increase premiums, potentially leading hundreds of thousands of Texans to drop their coverage. This isn't just an economic issue; it's a profound public policy and constitutional matter regarding the federal government's role in healthcare provision and regulation. The legal debate often centers on the scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate healthcare, as well as arguments about individual liberty and mandates. **Senator John Cornyn** has made it clear he doesn't support a “clean extension” of these tax credits, calling such a bill “dirty” if it doesn't address issues like fraud. He prefers a proposal that would redirect subsidies to individuals' Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) rather than directly paying insurers. This position reflects a conservative approach to healthcare policy, aiming to shift control from the government and insurance companies to individual consumers. The legal and public policy implications of this are huge: moving to an HSA-centric model would fundamentally change how people purchase and pay for healthcare, potentially empowering those who can afford high-deductible plans while perhaps leaving others vulnerable. He argues there's fraud in the current system, and while he wants to work on a solution, he also suspects Democrats might use the issue politically. His focus is on restructuring the financial mechanism of healthcare support, rather than simply extending the current subsidies, which he views as inefficient or prone to abuse. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** has historically been an opponent of Obamacare, stating in a 2020 questionnaire that he wanted to fully repeal it. His voting record reinforces this stance: he missed a vote on a clean three-year extension of the tax credits and voted against a procedural motion to even *allow* a House vote on the extension. This indicates a consistent position to dismantle the ACA. From a public policy perspective, repealing the ACA would eliminate its various provisions, including protections for pre-existing conditions, the individual mandate (though largely defanged), and these premium tax credits. For Texans, this could mean a return to a pre-ACA insurance landscape, where many more people might be uninsured or face much higher costs, fundamentally altering their access to healthcare and potentially placing a greater burden on emergency services. His votes show a clear legislative intent to roll back federal healthcare mandates. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** also has a well-established record against the ACA. While no public comments could be found directly on the expiring tax credits, his history as AG is riddled with legal challenges to the law. He has repeatedly gone after the ACA in court, including a major Supreme Court case where Texas led a coalition arguing for the law's invalidation. Paxton's legal actions demonstrate a deep-seated opposition to the ACA, based on constitutional challenges to federal overreach. His stance, therefore, would almost certainly be against extending any of its provisions, including the premium tax credits. His approach uses the power of the state's highest legal office to fight federal legislation he deems unconstitutional or detrimental to Texas. For you, this means if Paxton becomes a Senator, he would actively seek to undermine and repeal the ACA, with all the legal and healthcare policy consequences that would entail. ### Ukraine Peace Plan: Sovereignty, International Law, and U.S. Foreign Policy The conflict in Ukraine is not just a geopolitical struggle; it involves fundamental principles of international law, including national sovereignty and territorial integrity. A proposed peace plan, reportedly negotiated by the Trump administration and Russia, would compel Ukraine to surrender land to Moscow. This raises serious questions about whether the U.S. should endorse a plan that involves one sovereign nation ceding territory under duress. From a legal standpoint, such a plan challenges the post-World War II international order which largely prohibits territorial acquisition through aggression. It also implicates U.S. treaty obligations and the role of the Senate in foreign policy, including the ratification of any peace treaties. **Senator John Cornyn** has consistently voted in favor of U.S. assistance to Ukraine since Russia's 2022 invasion. However, he has also praised President Trump's efforts to end the war, stating that a lasting peace would require both sides to make concessions. Crucially, Cornyn emphasized that there “must be real and tangible and enforceable security assurances for Ukraine.” His position suggests a pragmatic approach that acknowledges the need for a resolution but insists on strong legal and security guarantees for Ukraine. This means while he might be open to a peace deal involving territorial concessions, it would likely be contingent on robust international agreements designed to prevent future aggression and ensure Ukraine's long-term security. This nuanced stance recognizes the complexities of international law and realpolitik, attempting to balance support for an ally with the pursuit of a stable, enforceable peace. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** has taken a different route, voting against U.S. assistance to Ukraine multiple times. His concern centers on domestic priorities, questioning why the U.S. was sending money abroad when its own border issues needed attention. Hunt stated in 2025 that Russia isn't economically powerful enough to take all of Ukraine. His stance reflects a more isolationist foreign policy philosophy, prioritizing national security and economic interests over deep engagement in foreign conflicts. From a public policy perspective, this means a shift away from supporting allies through aid, potentially signaling a reduced U.S. role in enforcing international norms. While he hasn't commented on the specifics of ceding territory, his overall position suggests he would likely support a peace plan that quickly ends U.S. financial commitments and allows for a de-escalation of involvement, even if it means territorial concessions from Ukraine. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** has criticized Senator Cornyn for voting to send assistance to Ukraine. While specific public comments on the details of a peace proposal, such as ceding territory, are hard to find, his criticism aligns with a broader sentiment against extensive U.S. foreign aid and intervention. As AG, Paxton has frequently challenged federal policies he disagrees with, and his foreign policy views often mirror a conservative, “America First” perspective. It’s reasonable to infer that he would likely favor a swift end to the conflict, even if it involves difficult concessions, to reduce U.S. entanglement and spending abroad. His position emphasizes national interests and a critical view of foreign aid budgets, suggesting he would not be a proponent of continued financial support for Ukraine or prolonged military involvement. ### Congressional Stock Trading Ban: Ethics, Transparency, and Public Trust The debate over whether members of Congress should be allowed to buy and sell individual stocks is fundamentally about ethics, transparency, and maintaining public trust in government. Lawmakers often have access to non-public information that could influence stock prices, leading to concerns about insider trading and conflicts of interest. A bipartisan group in the House is pushing for a ban to address these perceived ethical lapses. This issue involves the legal framework of congressional ethics rules, financial disclosure laws, and the potential constitutional implications of restricting a lawmaker's financial activities. **Senator John Cornyn** acknowledged that he doesn't own individual stocks, which he notes as a personal choice. He stated he would support a proposal that specifically focuses on the stockholdings of members themselves. However, he cautioned against overly broad proposals, such as those that might force individuals to sell their stock portfolios at a significant loss, arguing that this could discourage financially successful people from seeking public office. His position attempts to strike a balance: support for ethical reforms to prevent conflicts of interest, but also a concern that such rules shouldn't create unreasonable financial barriers to public service. Legally, this is about defining the scope of ethical regulations and how they intersect with an individual's financial rights and property. He believes the “details matter” in crafting such legislation, suggesting a preference for carefully tailored rules rather than sweeping prohibitions that could have unintended negative consequences. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** has stated clearly that he supports a congressional stock trading ban. His position aligns with the growing public sentiment that lawmakers should not be trading individual stocks while in office, due to the inherent potential for conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety. This stance indicates a commitment to increased transparency and stricter ethical guidelines for members of Congress. From a public policy standpoint, a ban could help restore public trust by eliminating suspicions of insider trading and ensuring that legislative decisions are made solely in the public interest, not influenced by personal financial gain. For you, this means he’d likely champion legislation that seeks to eliminate this specific avenue for potential corruption. For **Attorney General Ken Paxton**, public comments on House proposals for a stock trading ban are hard to find. According to his personal financial disclosure, he doesn't own individual stock. However, this issue becomes legally complex for Paxton due to his use of a blind trust. The *Wall Street Journal* reported in 2020 that his trustee texted him a list of eight stock buys worth $618,000, which experts said could potentially violate rules around how such trusts are managed. A blind trust is supposed to be managed without the beneficiary's knowledge to prevent conflicts of interest. If the beneficiary receives information about the trust's holdings or transactions, its “blind” nature is compromised, raising legal and ethical questions. While he might not own individual stocks directly, the controversy surrounding his blind trust suggests that for Paxton, the issue of financial ethics for public officials is already a point of legal scrutiny, even if he hasn't commented on a congressional ban. ### US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA): Trade Law and Presidential Authority The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced NAFTA and is a cornerstone of North American trade, facilitating billions of dollars in commerce annually. It was negotiated during the first Trump administration. The current President is reportedly considering pulling the U.S. out of this agreement. This isn't just an economic decision; it's a significant legal and constitutional question involving presidential authority to withdraw from international treaties and agreements, the role of Congress in trade policy, and the massive legal implications for businesses and consumers. Withdrawing would unravel years of established trade law and could lead to new tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and legal challenges from affected industries. **Senator John Cornyn** was a vocal supporter of the USMCA when it was first ratified in 2020. He praised it as a “big win for all three countries involved” and believed it would bring “serious benefits” to Texas and the national economy. We haven't found recent public comments from him on the idea of withdrawing from it. Given his earlier strong support, it's reasonable to infer that he would likely oppose a unilateral withdrawal from an agreement he previously championed as beneficial. As a senator, he understands the long-term legal and economic stability that such agreements provide. A withdrawal would create immense legal uncertainty for businesses that have structured their operations around the USMCA framework. His original stance suggests he would be a voice for maintaining existing trade partnerships and upholding international trade law, unless a very compelling legal or economic argument for withdrawal could be made. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** also commented positively on the importance of passing the USMCA when it was being debated in Congress, praising an op-ed by Republican leaders that called it a “critical piece of economic policy.” Like Cornyn, no public comments from Hunt could be found on the idea of withdrawing. His prior support indicates an appreciation for the economic benefits of the agreement. A decision to withdraw would have significant legal and economic ramifications for his district, which includes parts of Houston, a major trade hub. While he aligns closely with the former President, his past support for the USMCA suggests he'd likely be hesitant to see it dismantled without a clear and compelling replacement strategy that protects U.S. and Texas economic interests. His position would probably weigh the legal stability of the agreement against any potential new terms. For **Attorney General Ken Paxton**, there are no public comments regarding the USMCA. This silence is notable, especially considering his propensity to comment on or challenge federal policies. While as AG his focus was more on domestic legal battles, his potential role as a U.S. Senator would put him directly in the foreign policy and trade discussions. Without a stated position, it's difficult to predict how he would react to a presidential proposal to withdraw. Given his “America First” leanings and history of challenging established federal norms, one might speculate he could be open to reevaluating major trade deals if he believed they weren't maximally beneficial to U.S. interests. However, without a public statement, it remains an open question how he would balance the legal stability of an existing agreement against a call for its termination. ### 50-Year Mortgage: Housing Policy and Financial Regulation President Trump's proposal to revive the 50-year mortgage to promote broader homeownership is a significant policy idea with substantial legal and financial implications. Currently, 30-year mortgages are the most common, and a 50-year term would drastically change the landscape of home financing. While it could lower monthly payments, potentially making homeownership accessible to more people, it also means paying interest for a much longer period, increasing the total cost of the home and accumulating debt over two generations. Legally, this proposal would require major changes to federal housing finance regulations, potentially impacting agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and raising concerns about consumer protection, long-term credit risk, and the overall stability of the housing market. **Senator John Cornyn** has not publicly commented on Trump's 50-year mortgage idea. His focus on housing policy, however, has been on increasing supply. In December, he introduced a bipartisan bill, the More Homes on the Market Act, which aims to amend the tax code to incentivize homeowners to sell their homes. This legislative approach focuses on market dynamics and tax law to address affordability, rather than changing the fundamental structure of mortgages. His silence on the 50-year mortgage might indicate skepticism about such a long-term debt instrument, or a belief that other policy levers are more effective. His legislative record suggests he prefers solutions that enhance market liquidity and offer tax incentives, which are different legal and economic pathways than radically extending mortgage terms. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** also has no public comments on the 50-year mortgage proposal. His legislative work has touched on various economic issues, but this specific housing finance concept hasn't been a public priority for him. Given the complexity and the potential long-term financial risks associated with 50-year mortgages, a lack of comment might suggest caution or a need for more detailed analysis. For you, as a potential homeowner, his stance on such a significant financial shift would be crucial. Without it, his approach to housing finance policy remains an unknown factor. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** likewise has no public comments on the 50-year mortgage proposal. As AG, his legal focus on real estate issues often centered on property rights, consumer protection from scams, or challenging federal regulations impacting land use. A 50-year mortgage would bring entirely new legal questions related to generational debt, inheritance, and potential for financial exploitation. His lack of public comment means we can't project his approach, but given his general skepticism towards expanded federal programs and his emphasis on protecting consumers from deceptive practices, he would likely approach such a proposal with a critical eye, scrutinizing its impact on individual financial security and market stability. ### In Vitro Fertilization (IVF): Reproductive Rights and Personhood Laws The issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF) has become a critical legal and ethical debate, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which returned abortion regulation to the states. IVF involves creating embryos outside the womb, often leading to unused or discarded embryos, which clashes with “personhood” laws that define life or legal protection from conception. Trump has proposed making IVF more accessible by lowering drug costs and encouraging insurance coverage. This puts IVF at the center of reproductive rights, medical ethics, and the legal definition of life, triggering profound constitutional and public policy questions. **Senator John Cornyn** supports access to IVF. He's backed Republican legislation, co-sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz and Katie Britt, that aims to protect IVF by revoking Medicare dollars from states that ban the procedure. This is a clear legislative move to safeguard IVF access at a federal level, demonstrating his recognition of its importance to families. His support for this bill is a direct response to the legal uncertainty and potential bans that have arisen in some states post-Roe. This position legally establishes a federal incentive structure to protect IVF, pushing back against state-level restrictions that could be triggered by personhood definitions. For you, if you or someone you know relies on IVF, Cornyn's stance offers a measure of protection against state actions that might otherwise make the procedure illegal or inaccessible. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** has also expressed support for expanding access to IVF, actively touting President Trump's plan on social media. He posted, “President Trump believes in families and supports Americans having access to AFFORDABLE IVF treatment.” This statement firmly aligns him with efforts to ensure IVF remains available and affordable. His position appears to view IVF as a pro-family initiative, distinct from the abortion debate, and aims to ensure that federal policy supports access to reproductive technologies. From a public policy standpoint, backing Trump's plan would mean pushing for federal actions to reduce drug costs and encourage insurance coverage, making IVF more widely accessible, which many view as a healthcare right. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** presents the most complex legal challenge on IVF due to his vigorous defense of Texas' near-total abortion ban. That ban legally defines an “unborn child” as “an individual living member of the homo sapiens species from fertilization until birth, including the entire embryonic and fetal stages of development.” This legal definition is at the heart of the conflict with IVF, which routinely involves the creation, freezing, and potential disposal of embryos. While some lawmakers who support fetal personhood also support IVF, the legal tension is undeniable. Paxton's record as AG shows a strong commitment to enforcing laws that protect life from fertilization. If that legal logic were applied rigorously to IVF, it could create significant legal hurdles or even outright bans on parts of the procedure in Texas. His stance as AG means he's used the legal tools of the state to enforce a definition of life that could, by extension, profoundly affect IVF access and practice. For families considering IVF in Texas, his record signals a potential for deep legal challenges and restrictions. ### The Dignity Act: Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Border Security The Dignity Act is a bipartisan House bill that attempts to address various facets of immigration policy. It's a complex piece of legislation that proposes physical barriers at the border, mandated employer use of E-Verify, expedited asylum processing, an end to “catch-and-release” policies, work authorization and deportation protection for certain undocumented immigrants who've been in the U.S. for five years, and permanent resident status for Dreamers (undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children). This bill represents a significant attempt at comprehensive immigration reform, touching on border security, employment law, due process for asylum seekers, and the legal status of millions of residents. It's a massive legal and public policy undertaking, blending enforcement with pathways to legal status. **Senator John Cornyn** has not publicly commented on the Dignity Act specifically. However, his legislative history shows support for many of its components. He's successfully pushed for federal measures that reimbursed Texas for border security efforts and allowed the state to invest in border infrastructure. Cornyn has also backed legislation to expedite asylum processing, tighten asylum standards, restrict parole, mandate employer use of E-Verify, build a border wall, increase staffing for immigration enforcement, add immigration judges, and criminalize visa overstays. His record shows a consistent focus on a multifaceted approach to immigration, combining increased border security and enforcement with efforts to streamline legal processes. While the Dignity Act offers some paths to legal status that might differ from his previous proposals, his general support for enhanced border security and stricter enforcement mechanisms suggests he would likely be open to a framework that addresses those concerns while potentially being cautious about the provisions offering pathways to legal residency. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** also has no public comments directly on the Dignity Act. However, his legislative efforts align with the enforcement side of the bill. Hunt has introduced and backed legislation to end catch-and-release, build a border wall, deport asylum seekers until their cases are decided by federal courts, and mandate employer use of E-Verify. His focus has been heavily on stricter border enforcement and reducing illegal immigration. While the Dignity Act includes some enforcement measures, it also has provisions for work authorization and pathways to legal status for certain undocumented immigrants. Hunt’s strong emphasis on enforcement suggests he would likely support the border security and E-Verify aspects but might be more skeptical or opposed to the legalization components of the bill. His record indicates a preference for policies that prioritize control and immediate deportation over pathways to citizenship. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** has not publicly commented on the Dignity Act. However, his record as AG provides a clear indication of his immigration policy philosophy. He has led numerous lawsuits, notably to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, end catch-and-release policies, and force the Biden administration to continue building a wall along the southern border. Paxton's actions as AG consistently demonstrate a hardline approach to immigration, focusing on strict enforcement, challenging federal policies that he views as too lenient, and asserting state power in border matters. It is highly probable that he would oppose the Dignity Act's provisions that offer work authorization or permanent resident status to undocumented immigrants and Dreamers, as these run counter to his long-standing legal challenges to such programs. His stance is firmly rooted in the idea of strong border enforcement and limited pathways to legal status outside of highly restrictive, congressionally defined processes. ### Renewable Energy Tax Credits: Energy Policy and Economic Development Energy policy in Texas, a state known for both its traditional oil and gas industry and its booming renewable sector (wind and solar), is a constant balancing act. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act eliminated tax credits that renewable energy producers and developers could claim to finance projects. This move has significant legal and economic implications, as tax credits are a crucial financial incentive for the development of renewable energy infrastructure. Scrapping them can reshape investment patterns, affect job growth in the renewable sector, and potentially alter the state's energy mix. The debate often involves questions of market fairness, government intervention in energy markets, and the long-term economic and environmental costs of different energy sources. **Senator John Cornyn** voted in favor of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, which ended those renewable energy tax credits. This vote aligns with a general conservative position that often favors reducing government subsidies and allowing market forces to dictate energy development. However, Cornyn has also spoken favorably about Texas' “all of the above” approach to energy, acknowledging the growth of wind and solar projects alongside his support for expanding oil and natural gas production. His stance, therefore, appears to be one of promoting a diverse energy portfolio but potentially without direct federal tax incentives for renewables. From a legal and policy perspective, his vote suggests a belief that renewables should compete on their own merits without the specific financial backing of these tax credits, while still supporting the overall energy industry in Texas. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** also voted in favor of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. He previously served as vice chairman of the House Energy and Mineral Resources subcommittee and has actively promoted natural gas projects. He introduced legislation to boost liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, calling natural gas “the most impactful green initiative on the planet.” Hunt's position strongly favors traditional energy sources, particularly natural gas, which he views as both economically vital and environmentally responsible. His vote to scrap renewable energy tax credits is consistent with a policy approach that seeks to reduce what he might see as unfair subsidies for competing energy sources, allowing fossil fuels to dominate the market. For Texas, a state with massive natural gas reserves, his stance champions the continued legal and economic support for that industry. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** praised Congress' passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, calling it “HISTORICAL legislation that’s going to unleash economic growth.” His enthusiasm for removing renewable energy tax credits is consistent with his broader actions as AG. He has sued major financial firms like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, accusing them of trying to “artificially manipulate the coal market” by working to move away from coal. Paxton also opposed federal climate regulations under the Biden administration. His legal actions clearly demonstrate an opposition to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing practices and federal policies that he believes harm traditional energy sectors. His position is a strong legal defense of the fossil fuel industry and an active opposition to policies that he sees as hindering its growth, including direct subsidies for renewable competitors. ### Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022): Second Amendment Rights and Gun Violence Prevention The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 was a significant piece of federal gun legislation, passed in the wake of mass shootings. It allows states to use grant funding for crisis intervention programs (which can include “red flag” laws), narrows the “boyfriend loophole” to prevent individuals convicted of domestic violence in dating relationships from possessing firearms, and expands background checks for gun purchasers aged 18-21. This Act involved careful negotiation, balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns. It has major legal implications for gun ownership, due process (especially with red flag laws), and the scope of federal intervention in gun control. **Senator John Cornyn** was a principal negotiator and a key architect of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, and he voted in favor of its passage. His role was crucial in crafting a bill that garnered bipartisan support, a rarity in modern gun control debates. His advocacy for the bill indicates a belief that these measures enhance public safety while still respecting Second Amendment rights, or at least attempting to find a workable compromise. From a legal perspective, his support for the bill means he believes its provisions—such as expanding background checks for young adults and addressing the “boyfriend loophole”—are constitutional and necessary. His stance positions him as a pragmatic legislator willing to engage in cross-party negotiations to address pressing issues, even on highly contentious topics like gun control, which is often a flashpoint for constitutional challenges regarding the right to bear arms. **U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt** has taken a direct and opposing stance, telling *The Dallas Express* that if elected, his first act would be to repeal the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. He further introduced a bill to partially repeal the law, specifically targeting its federal incentives for state “red flag” laws and its expansion of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Hunt's position reflects a strong defense of Second Amendment rights and an opposition to federal gun control measures that he views as infringing on those rights. His intent to repeal the Act indicates a belief that its provisions are either unconstitutional, ineffective, or an overreach of federal power. This would be a significant legislative reversal, particularly for the components related to domestic violence and background checks, and would undoubtedly be championed by gun rights advocates. **Attorney General Ken Paxton** has repeatedly attacked Senator Cornyn for his role in passing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. While public comments from Paxton specifically stating he would support repealing the law are not readily found, his condemnation of the measure as infringing on Texans' Second Amendment rights makes his position very clear. As AG, Paxton has frequently used legal means to defend what he interprets as constitutional liberties, particularly the right to bear arms. His rhetoric suggests he views the Act as an infringement on constitutional rights, laying the groundwork for potential legal challenges or legislative efforts to dismantle it. For you, this means if Paxton were in the Senate, he would be a staunch opponent of any federal gun control measures similar to or expanding upon the Safer Communities Act, prioritizing a maximalist interpretation of Second Amendment protections. ### Conclusion So, there you have it. This Texas Senate primary isn't just about personalities; it's about the deep legal and policy divides that shape our state and our nation. When you look at these candidates—Cornyn, Hunt, and Paxton—you're not just picking a name on a ballot. You're choosing someone who will vote on Supreme Court justices, push for specific immigration laws, or defend (or dismantle) key federal programs like the Affordable Care Act. Their records and their stated positions, even when vague, offer a roadmap to the legal future they envision for Texas and for you. Each candidate brings a unique approach to how they'd wield the power of a U.S. Senator, impacting everything from the reach of the federal government in AI regulation to the very definition of life in discussions around IVF. Understanding their legal philosophies and their policy priorities is critical, because these aren't just abstract ideas; they're the rules that govern your life. Your vote helps decide which legal framework will guide us in the years to come.