Hays County commissioners voted 4–1 Tuesday to include first-year funding in the county’s financial calculations for a proposed 10-year Axon artificial-intelligence package valued at approximately $4.5 million.

In other words, they dog-eared the money for it, and the actual contract will return on another agenda in the future after budget discussions are finalized.

Axon isn’t new in Hays County. The county has been paying roughly $1m a year for its existing Axon contract since 2022. During the Aug. 25 budget discussion, Hays County Purchasing Agent Stephanie Hunt said the county had received an Excel sheet listing additional services and prices, which she described as almost like a sales flyer, not a contract.

County counsel reiterated before the Sept. 1 roll-call vote: Commissioners Court was only deciding whether to account for the additional funds in the county’s budget. Any contract for the expansion of services would still have to return to the court for review and approval.

What commissioners approved—and what they did not

By voting to account for the anticipated first-year expense in the budget, commissioners are allowing officials to continue developing the proposed agreement, which will need to be brought back to the court for approval at a later date.

Technically speaking, the court approved the inclusion of what officials called the “low payment option” in the county’s fiscal year 2027 calculations. Officials placed it at approximately $96,739 to $97,000 and described the proposed 10-year total as approximately $4.5 million. County Judge Ruben Becerra cast the lone no vote.

The court also unanimously approved a separate consent item acknowledging the Hays County Sheriff’s Office’s commitment not to activate Axon’s Draft One report-writing system—or operationalize future AI Era capabilities—without first returning to Commissioners Court.

Commissioners did not:

• approve or execute a final Axon AI Era contract;

• authorize immediate use of Draft One or automatic activation of future AI Era features;

• review complete contract terms in public;

• resolve the different first-year prices discussed the previous week;

• or establish the conditions under which Hays County could leave the Axon platform before the proposed term expires.

The public packet did not contain the proposed agreement

The 963-page Sept. 1 agenda packet contains the Sheriff’s Office’s commitment letter and a list of the capabilities it intends to implement. It did not contain the proposed AI Era contract, a formal quote for that package or its complete payment schedule.

The decision to allocate funds for it occurred under a general fiscal year 2027 budget-presentation item, not a contract-approval item.

The packet contains other, unrelated Axon purchasing documents, including a consent item authorizing two Axon Evidence Pro licenses for the Fire Marshal’s Office for $1,171.82. That was an actual Axon purchase, but it was not the proposed AI Era agreement. Other Axon quotes in the packet should not be mistaken for the missing proposal.

During the Aug. 25 discussion, officials cited several possible first-year figures—approximately $97,000, $179,000 and $187,000— then postponed the decision for one week. This week, on Sept. 1, they came back, and the court selected the lower option. They then voted to allocate the estimated budgetary needs for it.

Why reserve funding for a decade-long law-enforcement AI package before commissioners and the public have received the official quote, contract terms, vendor comparison, lifecycle-cost analysis and written privacy protections?

And BTW, where are the Chapter 61 healthcare numbers?

Commissioners have now considered how to accommodate the first year of a proposed $4.5 million technology package for law enforcement. BUT they still have not publicly presented comparable calculations showing what Hays County could accomplish by expanding eligibility for its existing indigent healthcare program.

Hays County currently requires applicants to earn less than 21 percent of the federal poverty level—the minimum standard under Chapter 61 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. But 21 percent is a floor, not a ceiling; state law permits counties to adopt less restrictive standards.

Before asking residents to choose between the status quo and creating a new healthcare district, Commissioners Court should publicly calculate:

• how many additional residents would qualify at 50, 100, 138 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level;

• what each eligibility level would cost;

• what services additional annual investments of $4 million, $8 million and $12 million could provide;

• and how those options compare with the cost, reach and administration of a new district.

The county has demonstrated that it can run future costs through its budget and tax-rate calculations pretty quickly when commissioners want to preserve a proposal for later consideration. It should do the same for expanding healthcare access under the authority it already has.

Call on your commissioners to run those numbers—and keep asking until one of them puts it on the agenda.

Cohen clarified what the vote meant

Precinct 2 Commissioner Michelle Cohen, who supported the motion, issued a public Facebook statement correcting claims that commissioners had approved the contract itself.

“To be clear, we did not approve the contracts themselves today,” Cohen wrote. “The contracts will come back at a later time once the details have been worked out and the appropriate due diligence has been completed.”

Cohen deserves credit for clarifying the procedure. Her statement also establishes a standard for the next vote: Commissioners should not approve the agreement until its terms have been negotiated, published, reviewed and subjected to the promised due diligence.

She also defended translation services intended to help deputies communicate with people who do not speak English and rejected descriptions of the services as “mass surveillance.” Translation could provide a meaningful benefit: The Sheriff’s Office says Axon Assistant can translate more than 50 languages in real time, while Auto Translate can assist personnel reviewing Spanish-language evidence.

But translation is only one part of the proposed package.

The Sheriff’s Office intends to activate 17 capabilities

In Chief Deputy Brett Bailey’s Aug. 26 letter, included in the Sept. 1 packet, the Sheriff’s Office listed the AI Era capabilities it intends to implement if the proposal is approved:

1. Unlimited Auto Transcribe, converting audio into searchable transcripts;

2. Auto Translate for Spanish-language evidence;

3. Axon Assistant, including live translation of more than 50 languages;

4. Policy Chat;

5. Unlimited Smart Detection, including identifying “human forms” in video evidence;

6. Smart Capture, which extracts information from driver’s licenses;

7. Brief One, which summarizes transcripts and identifies significant moments in evidence;

8. AI Auto Tagging;

9. Form One, which completes forms using information from body-camera transcripts;

10. Attribute Search, which helps locate people based on descriptions of clothing and accessories;

11. CAD Call for Service Lookup;

12. 911 Call Lookup as calls occur;

13. Vehicle Lookup using license plates and vehicle-identification numbers;

14. Smart Performance;

15. Smart Performance again—the letter appears to list the same capability twice;

16. Investigative Assistant, which answers questions about cases using underlying evidence;

17. AutoIntel, which extracts intelligence from evidence potentially relevant to active investigations.

Whether every function should be characterized as “mass surveillance” is a policy argument, not an established fact. But it would also be inaccurate to describe the purchase principally as a translation service. The list demonstrates why the county needs a feature-by-feature public review of what each system accesses, analyzes, retains and shares.

Draft One is excluded—for now

Draft One is a controversial system that uses body-camera audio to generate the first draft of a police report. HCSO tested it for approximately three months and reported an average savings of about 36 minutes per report, but Bailey said the agency does not presently intend to activate it.

He also said Kyle Police Department did not use the technology after its pilot produced mistakes, and acknowledged that he could not promise the system would never make an error.

A King County prosecutor’s warning raised concerns about hallucinations, preservation of initial drafts and officers’ credibility. Subsequent public-records reporting identified factual errors in Draft One-assisted reports. Such problems can affect evidence preservation, discovery, officer credibility and defendants’ ability to challenge reports.

HCSO says it will continue evaluating Draft One but will not implement it, future AI Era capabilities or any other new AI feature added to the plan without first returning to Commissioners Court.

That is a meaningful safeguard, but it should be written into the eventual contract and departmental policy rather than depend solely on a letter accompanying a budget item.

Before activating any report-writing product, Hays County should determine whether it will retain the original AI draft, source transcript, every officer edit, model and software version, and a complete audit history. It should also decide how those materials will be disclosed in criminal cases and handled under public-information and records-retention laws. This is how we hold the line between public service and mass surveillance.

Becerra explains his dissent

Becerra raised concerns about AI’s rapid expansion and possible use in surveillance, saying, “AI is growing at leaps and bounds that we can’t even measure.”

In a post-meeting Facebook comment, he framed his objection primarily as a question of spending priorities: “Millions of dollars for technology we don’t need, while working families are struggling, vulnerable people are being overlooked, and too many in our community still feel like they don’t have a voice.”

Cohen disputes that characterization and points to translation as a practical benefit for those very people.

The eventual contract and product schedule should allow the public to evaluate both positions feature by feature so they can make that decision for themselves.

Is this Flock all over again?

Not exactly—but the comparison is worth understanding.

In February 2025, Commissioners Court—including Becerra—unanimously approved four additional Flock license-plate-reader cameras under a two-year, $26,600 proposal.

Becerra later changed his position because of the federal government, community objections and concerns about privacy and constitutional rights. He then sponsored efforts to terminate the county’s Flock relationships and voted against expanding the equipment.

During the Oct. 14, 2025 meeting, Becerra, Cohen and Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe opposed the proposed expansion; Commissioners Walt Smith and Morgan Hammer supported it. It failed 3–2.

Changing a position after receiving new information or hearing public opposition is what leadership—and representative government done right—looks like.

Flock offered access to statewide and nationwide networks and searches of vehicle-location history—a sharing model central to months of public opposition. Sheriff’s Office and Axon representatives said the proposed AI Era package adds no new cameras and does not automatically share Axon information through an open network in the same manner. They also made it clear that fixed license-plate readers and other real-time public-safety technology are not part of Hays County’s current proposal.

But suspicion that Axon stands to benefit from Flock’s troubles did not arise from nowhere. NPR reported in August that Axon and other companies see a commercial opening as communities reconsider Flock contracts, and that more agencies are purchasing Axon’s products amid the backlash.

That shows Axon is positioned to capitalize on Flock’s problems. And also exemplifies why we should scrutinize the details of the contract before allocating funding for it.

There is a stronger Hays County connection to Axon than Flock though. Axon already supplies the county with body cameras, TASERs, vehicle cameras, digital-evidence storage and the District Attorney’s evidence-discovery system. AI Era would build on that infrastructure with transcription, translation, policy access, evidence analysis and future AI products.

And over the proposed 10-year term, that expansion could make even more critical law-enforcement functions dependent on one vendor. That makes the deal especially relevant to the public.

What the final contract still has to answer

Because the agreement was not in the packet, commissioners and the public still do not know:

• whether the county compared alternatives or negotiated a shorter term;

• what happens if it disables or never uses an included feature;

• whether it can terminate annually without owing the remaining balance;

• whether the agreement contains price escalators;

• what evidence export and departure would cost;

• whether Axon can add, discontinue or substitute products;

• whether county data may be used for product development, model training or aggregated analysis;

• or which subcontractors and AI model providers could receive county information.

Those answers must come from the formal quote, product schedule, master agreement and related terms—not a vendor presentation. And the county commissioners must be transparent about the details before a contract is put to a vote.

BTW Trump has a financial interest in Axon

A federal financial disclosure shows that an account in President Donald Trump’s name purchased between $1 million and $5 million in Axon Enterprise stock on Feb. 10, 2026.

To the extent that he continues to hold Axon stock, Trump stands to benefit when its value increases—including as the company embeds its products more deeply in law-enforcement agencies across the country.

Two weeks after purchasing shares in Axon, ICE issued a Sources Sought notice for a potential five-year acquisition valued at up to $220 million purchasing approximately 17,800 conductive-energy weapons, cartridges, training and related support for ICE. The notice did not name Axon, although procurement experts told CNBC that the specifications matched their products.

The disclosure also shows subsequent federal Axon transactions, but Trump’s precise current holdings—and the value of any continuing interest—cannot be determined.

Does this mean Trump influenced Hays County’s proposal or that Axon’s national political connections affected the local procurement? No. But it does establish an unusual relationship in which the sitting president may personally benefit from the growth of a company seeking deeper, longer-term integration into law-enforcement agencies across the country—including, including, Hays County. And that’s weird, y’all.

Also, another thing that’s weird:

The county’s official minutes are months behind

As of publication, Hays County’s 2026 minutes archive contains no approved Commissioners Court minutes for meetings after May 12, 2026. Its video archive contains later meetings and agenda materials but no corresponding minutes links.

Videos and packets allow the public to review much of the discussion, but they do not replace the official record of motions, amendments, votes and final actions. That gap is especially consequential when people disagree about whether the court approved a contract, allocated money, accepted a petition or merely allowed an issue to proceed.

Until the missing minutes are published, Mayday! is relying on meeting videos, packets and officials’ statements to describe Tuesday’s actions. This article will be updated if the minutes materially change or clarify that account.

Hays County should publish its outstanding minutes promptly and explain why its archive has not been updated since May.

But back to the topic at hand.

The consequential Axon vote still lies ahead

Tuesday’s vote moved the proposal forward; it did not bind the county to the final agreement. Public scrutiny is not too late.

When the contract returns, commissioners should insist that the entire agreement be published far enough in advance for meaningful review. It should include the formal quote, complete payment schedule, yearly product list, applicable BuyBoard documents, termination and non-appropriation provisions, data ownership and handling terms, AI-training restrictions, future-feature rules, and the county’s assessment of privacy, cybersecurity and evidentiary risks.

Commissioners should also explain why 10 years is necessary and what led them to reserve funding before receiving a complete contract.

So, what the Flock did Hays County approve Tuesday?

A lot of money for nothing, for now.

Commissioners accounted for the anticipated first-year cost of a proposed 10-year Axon AI package. They did not approve the contract, its complete price, its terms or the decade-long commitment itself.

That vote comes later. And when Axon returns to the agenda, the public will have an opportunity to inspect what Hays County would actually be buying, demand answers and safeguards—and push back before the county commits.

Sources & Further Reading

Hays County records

• Aug. 25, 2026 Commissioners Court video, agenda and transcript

• Sept. 1, 2026 Commissioners Court video, agenda and transcript

• Sept. 1, 2026 Commissioners Court agenda packet — includes Chief Deputy Brett Bailey’s Aug. 26 commitment letter and list of proposed AI Era capabilities.

• Hays County 2026 Commissioners Court minutes archive

• Hays County Commissioners Court video archive

• Hays County Indigent Services eligibility rules

Officials’ public statements

• Precinct 2 Commissioner Michelle Cohen’s public Facebook statement following the Sept. 1 meeting

• County Judge Ruben Becerra’s public comment following the Sept. 1 meeting

Hays County’s existing Axon systems

• 2022 Axon Enterprise contract and supporting documents — includes the county’s approval of the $6.87 million, 7½-year Axon agreement for body-worn cameras, in-car cameras, TASERs, Evidence.com and related services.

• 2024 body-camera grant record — identifies 178 Axon body cameras and associated software and storage.

• July 2025 Axon Fleet order

• Aug. 12, 2025 packet containing the Axon Justice agreement — documents the DA’s five-year agreement, Evidence.com storage and discovery-system access.

• Sept. 16, 2025 packet containing the approved Aug. 12 minutes

• Oct. 14, 2025 packet — identifies the master agreement covering in-car cameras and the body-camera/TASER program.

Axon products, AI reporting and procurement

• Axon AI Era Plan

• Axon Draft One

• Axon Draft One FAQ for prosecutors

• Axon announcement describing its fixed ALPR systems and expanded public-safety ecosystem

• BuyBoard’s current-vendor list identifying Axon under contract 743-24 — procurement background; the county has not published documents establishing whether this proposal would use that contract.

• King County prosecutor’s Draft One warning

• Forbes investigation of errors in Draft One-assisted reports

Flock history and industry context

• Hays County’s February 2025 Flock quote

• Sept. 2, 2025 Commissioners Court discussion

• Oct. 14, 2025 Commissioners Court discussion and votes

• Hays County–Flock contract and order documents

• NPR: As Flock battles public scrutiny, other police-surveillance companies see an opening

Healthcare law

• Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 61

• Texas County Indigent Health Care Program Handbook

Federal financial-interest reporting

• Donald Trump’s May 2026 federal transaction disclosure

• ICE Conductive Energy Weapons Sources Sought notice, No. 70CMSW26I00000054

• CNBC report on Trump’s Axon investment and the anticipated ICE procurement

The Mayday Standard

What do we know?

Commissioners voted 4–1 to include the anticipated first-year expense of a proposed 10-year Axon AI Era package in the county’s financial calculations. They did not approve a final contract, and no formal quote, payment schedule or proposed agreement appeared in the public packet.

How do we know it?

This account is based on the Aug. 25 and Sept. 1 meeting records; the Sept. 1 packet and Sheriff’s Office commitment letter; county procurement and Flock records; Axon and BuyBoard documents; federal disclosures; officials’ statements; and the independent reporting linked above.

What are we inferring?

Reserving the expense allows planning and negotiations to continue and makes eventual approval easier, but does not guarantee it. We identify growing dependence on Axon as a structural risk—not claim that every Axon product is identical to Flock or that Axon directed opposition to Flock.

What remains unknown?

The formal quote, payment schedule, contract terms, termination rights, lifecycle costs, data-use restrictions, risk assessments, vendor comparisons and rules for future AI features. It also remains unclear why different first-year prices were discussed and how officials calculated the approximately $4.5 million total.

Why does it matter?

A 10-year agreement could shape how Hays County collects, searches, stores, analyzes and shares sensitive evidence for years. Residents and commissioners cannot evaluate that commitment until the complete proposal is public. The same budget process should provide transparent cost scenarios for expanding Chapter 61 healthcare eligibility.

Mayday! Hays County is pro-transparency, pro-context and pro-accountability. We separate verified facts from inference, identify what remains unknown and link readers directly to the records whenever possible.

I spent an unreasonable amount of time this weekend reading Texas healthcare statutes because apparently this is who I am now.

And after digging into the proposed Hays County Hospital District, I came away with one question that Commissioners Court can actually begin answering right now:

What would it cost Hays County to help more people using the healthcare program we already have?

If you missed the full explainer, start there:

[READ: Does Hays County Need a Hospital District? We’re Asking the Wrong Question.]

Here’s the short version:

Hays County already operates a County Indigent Health Care Program under Chapter 61 of the Texas Health & Safety Code.

Its published income eligibility threshold is currently below 21% of the federal poverty level.

That is extraordinarily restrictive.

But that number is not handed down from the State of Texas. It’s set by the county commissioners every year in the fall!

Texas law allows Commissioners Court to adopt less restrictive eligibility standards. The county can also appropriate more money to healthcare and has considerable authority under Chapter 61 to arrange healthcare for eligible residents.

Which brings us to something happening right now.

Hays County is writing its next budget.

The official FY2027 budget calendar shows Commissioners Court has been conducting its August budget workshops, with a public hearing on the proposed budget scheduled for Tuesday, August 25.

So let’s give them some homework.

Instead of arguing abstractly about whether Hays County needs a hospital district, I want Commissioners Court to tell us:

What would happen if we simply helped more people through the program we already have?

Run the numbers at 50% FPL.

Run them at 100%.

Run them at 138%.

Run them at 200%.

Tell us how many additional Hays County residents could qualify.

Tell us what it would cost.

Tell us what healthcare we could provide.

Then put those numbers next to the proposed hospital district and let us compare them.

Maybe expanding the county program is dramatically cheaper.

Maybe it isn’t.

Maybe a hospital district can leverage state and federal funding in ways that make it a much better investment.

Maybe we discover that a properly designed hospital district is exactly what Hays County needs.

I don’t know yet.

That’s the fucking point.

Before everybody picks a political team, make the government show us the options.

You can ask Commissioners Court yourself.

And you don’t have to take Tuesday off work and sit in Commissioners Court to do it.

Hays County allows residents who cannot attend to submit written public comment by email to the County Clerk at publiccomments@hayscountytx.gov. According to the county’s public-comment rules, emailed comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. the day before the meeting to be read aloud during Court.

Your submission needs to include your name, address and phone number, and you should identify whether it is general public comment or relates to a particular agenda item.

Hays County’s official public-comment instructions

Don’t know what to say? Steal this.

Change it. Shorten it. Make it nicer. Make it meaner. Add your own questions. Just make it yours.

Subject: Public Comment — Hays County Healthcare Funding & Eligibility
To: publiccomments@hayscountytx.gov
Name: [Your full name]
Address: [Your address]
Phone: [Your phone number]
General Public Comment

Commissioners,

I am asking Commissioners Court to publicly evaluate expanding Hays County’s existing County Indigent Health Care Program as part of the current healthcare and budget discussion.

Before Hays County asks voters to create a hospital district with its own dedicated property-tax revenue, residents deserve a meaningful comparison of what the County can accomplish using the healthcare authority and funding structure it already has versus what would become possible through the proposed district.

Please ask County staff to run two sets of numbers.

First, estimate the additional annual cost, projected enrollment and services available if Hays County expanded eligibility for its existing program to:

50% FPL
100% FPL
138% FPL
200% FPL

Second, instead of starting with an eligibility threshold, start with the money:

Show us what an additional $4 million, $8 million and $12 million in County funding could buy under the County’s existing Chapter 61 authority.

For each funding level, tell residents approximately how many additional people could be served, what eligibility level could reasonably be supported, what services could be offered, what provider arrangements could be made and what state, federal or other outside funding could potentially be leveraged.

Then show us what the proposed two-cent hospital district buys.

Use the same measurements so residents can make an actual comparison: local public dollars required, projected enrollment, income eligibility, healthcare services, provider access, administrative costs, outside funding or matching funds, and any other material differences between the two structures.

I am not asking Commissioners Court to assume that one approach is better than the other. I am asking you to give the public enough information to determine that for ourselves.

Simply multiplying the County’s current healthcare spending by higher FPL percentages would not answer this question. The number of residents in each income bracket, expected enrollment, healthcare utilization and cost per patient will not necessarily increase proportionally. Those are precisely the numbers County staff should analyze.

If the proposed hospital district can provide substantially more healthcare per local tax dollar because of dedicated funding, federal matching opportunities, provider contracting or some other structural advantage, show us.

If expanding the existing County program can provide comparable access without creating another taxing entity, show us that too.

Hays County residents should not have to choose between competing political claims when the underlying question is measurable and the tools for the solution are already in your tool box.

Price both options. Measure what each one buys. Publish the comparison.

Thank you.

And Commissioners: this part is for you.

Criticizing Ruben Becerra’s hospital-district proposal is not a healthcare policy.

Neither is criticizing the commissioners who didn’t show up for his special meeting.

We have five elected officials on Commissioners Court.

Give us five ideas if you’ve got them.

Becerra has now put an approximately two-cent hospital-district funding roadmap on the table. Great. Keep developing it. Tell us what two cents actually buys.

And if the other commissioners think there’s a better way to improve healthcare access without creating another taxing entity, put that plan on the table too.

Price it.

Publish it.

Let us compare it.

You don’t have to agree about the solution.

But Hays County has tens of thousands of uninsured residents while its existing indigent healthcare program has an income threshold so low that many working people have essentially no chance of qualifying.

Surely five elected officials can give us more than one idea for fixing that.

Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra wants voters to create a countywide hospital district.

That proposal has very quickly turned into a political fight about who cares more about poor and working-class people.

Becerra has criticized commissioners who didn’t show up to a special meeting called to advance the petition process. Supporters of his proposal have responded by asking why anyone would stand in the way of expanding healthcare. Opponents have focused on the possibility of another property tax and the speed at which the proposal has been pushed forward.

His August 17 special meeting ultimately failed for lack of a quorum, keeping the proposal off the November ballot. Becerra characterized the commissioners’ absence as thwarting a citizen petition, while Commissioners Debbie Ingalsbe and Michelle Cohen said creating a taxing district of this significance warranted considerably more public discussion first. (See Cohen’s Facebook post and this article quoting Ingalsbe.) Commissioner Walt Smith, also not present, said the process for calling the meeting and the petition itself were invalid.

All of this political posturing aside, we’re skipping a question:

What problem, exactly, are we trying to solve, and what does creating a hospital district allow Hays County to do that it cannot do right now?

Because here’s the first thing everybody needs to understand:

Hays County already provides healthcare.

Texas counties are not sitting on the sidelines of the healthcare system waiting for someone to give them permission to participate.

Under Chapter 61 of the Texas Health & Safety Code, counties are responsible for providing healthcare assistance to certain eligible residents who don’t have another adequate source of payment. Hays County therefore already operates an Indigent Health Care Program.

And the program covers real healthcare. Eligible residents can receive office visits and annual physicals, diagnostic testing and imaging, specialist care following referral, hospitalization, emergency-room care, prescription medications and referrals for mental-health services.

So when we’re talking about whether Hays County should provide healthcare to people who can’t afford it, we’re not actually debating whether county government should enter the healthcare business.

It’s already in it.

The more useful question is how much healthcare Hays County wants to provide, to whom, and through what structure.

Because our existing program is extraordinarily restrictive.

You have to be very, very poor to qualify in Hays County.

Hays County currently limits its indigent healthcare program to residents with income below 21% of the federal poverty level.

Not 210%.

Not 200%.

Twenty-one percent.

The county also says it pays providers up to $30,000 in eligible expenses per patient per program year, with hospitalization additionally limited to 30 days or $30,000 in eligible expenses, whichever comes first.

That leaves an enormous population between “poor enough to qualify for county assistance” and “financially comfortable enough to absorb the cost of American healthcare.”

And that is exactly the population Becerra keeps talking about when he talks about working people who can’t afford healthcare.

He’s identifying a real problem.

But his framing is that Commissioners Court needs a new hospital district before it can begin addressing it.

It doesn’t.

The state minimum does not have to be Hays County’s maximum.

Chapter 61 explicitly permits a county to use less restrictive eligibility standards than the state’s baseline.

That means Commissioners Court has choices. It could appropriate more of Hays County’s existing revenue to healthcare. It could expand eligibility beyond the extraordinarily low threshold we’re using now.

And Hays County’s existing authority goes considerably further than simply reimbursing indigent hospital bills.

Under Chapter 61, a county can arrange healthcare through public facilities, local health departments or private providers, including providers outside the county. A county can purchase insurance, health coverage or other health benefits for eligible residents. It can also affiliate with public hospitals, hospital districts and other governmental entities to provide and administer healthcare regionally.

In other words, some of the things that sound like reasons Hays County needs a hospital district are things Texas law already allows the county to do.

That does NOT mean Commissioners Court can recreate everything a hospital district can do simply by spending more money. It can’t.

But it does mean the existing county model is more flexible than the phrase “indigent healthcare program” might suggest.

Hays County can make more residents eligible and build a more robust local healthcare program NOW. Changing the eligibility requirements could mean more people qualifying. More funding from the existing budget could mean more healthcare being covered, more providers participating and a much more ambitious healthcare-access program than the one Hays County operates today.

There are limits to what can be accomplished within the existing structure. Chapter 61 isn’t a blank check allowing Commissioners Court to invent any healthcare system it wants. Eligibility, reimbursement and state-assistance rules still matter.

But the important point is this:

Ruben Becerra’s hands are not tied.

Neither are the commissioners’.

If Commissioners Court believes Hays County’s existing healthcare safety net is failing working people, it already possesses meaningful authority to make that safety net bigger. Commissioners can debate eligibility and spending now. They can ask what it would cost to serve more people and decide healthcare deserves a larger share of the existing county budget.

None of that requires pretending the only two choices available to us are:

Create a hospital district → people get healthcare

or

Don’t create one → people don’t.

After looking at what hospital districts elsewhere in Texas actually do, though, I don’t think the hospital district itself is necessarily a bad idea.

In fact, I think it’s a very good one.

Thirty miles north of us is the argument Becerra should be making.

Travis County has a hospital district.

It’s called Central Health.

If you want to understand why Hays County might eventually decide to create one, don’t start with political slogans. Start there.

Central Health operates the Medical Access Program, or MAP, and MAP Basic for uninsured Travis County residents with low incomes.

Today, uninsured Travis County residents with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level can qualify for MAP or MAP Basic if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

For FY2026, 200% FPL works out to about $2,660 a month for one person and $5,500 a month for a family of four.

Compare that with Hays County’s 21% FPL threshold.

Using the 2026 federal poverty guidelines, that’s roughly $279 a month for one person, or $578 a month for an entire family of four.

That’s how poor you currently have to be to qualify for Hays County’s indigent healthcare program.

That’s not a small difference in administrative policy. It’s a fundamentally different concept of who the local healthcare safety net should serve and what that safety net should look like.

MAP members can access doctors, specialists, pharmacies, dental care and other healthcare services through a network built around the district. Central Health reports that its broader system supported more than 200,000 residents through MAP, MAP Basic and related coverage in 2025.

That starts looking less like an indigent reimbursement program and more like an actual local healthcare system.

And MAP isn’t health insurance. Central Health is explicit about that.

It is locally funded health coverage that connects eligible residents to a network. That matters because one of the easiest ways to misunderstand this debate is to imagine that creating a hospital district means Hays County starts handing uninsured residents Blue Cross cards.

That’s not what we’re talking about.

We’re talking about how to build a local system for getting people healthcare.

So what does a hospital district actually change?

A hospital district doesn’t suddenly unlock every healthcare tool Hays County currently lacks.

In fact, Chapter 61 already gives the county many of those tools.

The fundamental difference is structural.

Right now, healthcare assistance exists within the county budget. Commissioners Court sets the eligibility requirements, and healthcare competes for county resources alongside roads, law enforcement, courts, parks, emergency services, employees and everything else the county funds.

A hospital district changes that structure.

Instead of healthcare being one responsibility of county government, you create a political subdivision whose entire job is healthcare, with its own governance, budget, long-term planning and, critically, dedicated tax base.

So we’re not really asking:

“Does Hays County have the legal authority to do more?”

It does.

The real hypothesis behind a hospital district is that Hays County could provide more healthcare, more consistently and at greater scale, if healthcare had its own institution and governmental lane.

Chapter 61 already provides considerable authority over eligibility and healthcare obligations. A hospital district creates an enduring institution of local government with revenue dedicated specifically to that mission.

But somebody has to pay for that institution.

A hospital district is not free money.

Under Chapter 286, the proposition creating a property-tax-supported hospital district authorizes an annual property tax, with the rate stated in the petition and capped by statute at 75 cents per $100 of taxable value.

But here’s an important piece of context:

Nobody is actually proposing a 75-cent tax rate.

A proposed resolution circulated by Becerra lays out what it calls an “anticipated funding roadmap” for the Hays County Hospital District.

According to that document, Hays County currently spends approximately $4 million annually on existing indigent-healthcare obligations paid through the county’s general operating budget.

The resolution says current projections indicate those existing obligations could be funded through a hospital-district tax of approximately 1 cent per $100 of taxable property value.

For additional funding, it proposes 2 cents per $100 of taxable property value overall.

According to the resolution, that additional capacity, together with available federal matching funds, could be used to reduce healthcare costs and expand healthcare services available to the community.

That is a much fairer starting point for this conversation than “the district could tax you 75 cents.” But neither the proposal nor this resolution tells us what “reducing costs” or “expanding services” actually means.

It does give us something concrete to interrogate.

If approximately one cent would replace healthcare obligations Hays County says it is already paying from its general operating budget, what happens to the approximately $4 million currently being spent there?

Does it return to the general fund for other county priorities? Does Commissioners Court contemplate reducing some other portion of the county tax burden? Does it simply become additional spending elsewhere?

And then there’s the more important healthcare question:

What exactly does the second cent buy us beyond the extraordinarily narrow safety net we’re currently getting for roughly $4 million?

How many more residents become eligible? How far could the income threshold move? What additional services or provider network could we build, and how much additional state or federal funding would those local dollars actually unlock?

Those aren’t rhetorical objections. They’re the beginnings of a cost-benefit analysis.

For perspective, Travis County’s mature hospital district operates on a dramatically larger scale. Central Health’s approved FY2026 tax rate is approximately 11.8 cents per $100, producing about $460 in hospital-district taxes on its listed median taxable homestead value of roughly $390,000. Its FY2026 budget includes approximately $434 million for healthcare delivery. That’s more than 100 times Hays County’s current $4 million figure.

Nobody should extrapolate Travis County onto Hays County. We aren’t even comparable.

But what should the math for Hays County look like? Where did two cents per $100 come from? What do we get for it?

This is where the current proposal feels backwards.

We’ve spent an enormous amount of time talking about petitions, special meetings, elections, which commissioner showed up, which one didn’t, taxes and Becerra himself.

We haven’t spent nearly enough time talking about the healthcare system.

What would a Hays County hospital district actually look like?

Who would qualify, and at what income threshold? Would we build something resembling Travis County’s MAP program? Would residents have a primary-care medical home? Which hospitals, doctors and clinics would participate?

Would the district cover dental and mental healthcare, specialists, prescriptions, women’s healthcare, transportation or chronic-disease management? Would people pay copays based on income? Could the district arrange or purchase health coverage for some residents?

Most importantly, how many people would it serve, what would it cost, and what specifically would the contemplated two-cent tax rate pay for?

What happens to the approximately $4 million Hays County says it currently spends on healthcare once eligible obligations move from the general fund to the district? How much federal matching money is actually available, through which programs and under what conditions? What would success look like five years after voters created it?

Those aren’t objections to a hospital district.

Those are the questions you answer when you’re serious about creating one. Those are the conversations you bring to the table when you submit a proposal for a framework.

There are really two conversations Hays County should be having simultaneously.

The first is immediate:

Why aren’t we doing more right now?

If our 21% FPL eligibility threshold is leaving people behind, Commissioners Court should examine it. If the program is underfunded, tell us what meaningful expansion would cost. If there aren’t enough participating providers, identify that problem. If residents don’t know the program exists, fix that too.

Becerra doesn’t need to wait for an election to start that work. Neither do the commissioners who oppose or distrust his proposal.

If a commissioner believes Becerra’s approach is wrong, I don’t particularly want to hear only why his proposal is bad.

Show me yours.

Because “Becerra is handling this badly” isn’t a healthcare policy either.

The second conversation is much bigger:

Is Hays County ready to build a permanent local healthcare institution?

That’s where I think the hospital-district proposal deserves serious research rather than reflexive opposition.

Hays County isn’t the county it was twenty years ago. We’re growing, and our healthcare infrastructure has to grow with us.

There is something genuinely compelling about creating an institution whose mandate isn’t roads, jails, tax abatements, development agreements or whatever political fight Commissioners Court is having that week.

Its job would be providing people in Hays County access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay.

I can see the argument for that. I might even end up championing it.

But not because someone told me poor people need healthcare.

I already know they do.

Show me why a hospital district is the best mechanism for actually providing it when you have tools at your disposal right now that you aren’t using.

We don’t have to wait to do something radical.

Hays County is in the middle of deciding how to spend its money.

Ask your commissioners to examine the 21% FPL eligibility threshold, cost out the expansion, and add it to their budget before they approve it.

The county’s FY2027 budget calendar has the proposed budget headed to an August 25 public hearing at 1 p.m.

That hearing isn’t separate from this healthcare debate. In fact, it’s where this conversation needs to be happening.

Under Chapter 61, Commissioners Court has the authority to adopt less restrictive eligibility standards for Hays County’s existing indigent healthcare program.

Right now, that threshold is less than 21% of the federal poverty level.

So while we’re debating whether Hays County should eventually create an entirely new government dedicated to healthcare, Commissioners Court could be asking a much more relevant question in its budget talks:

What would it cost to stop requiring people to be almost impossibly poor before Hays County helps them get healthcare?

Run the numbers at 50% FPL. Then 100%, 138% and 200%.

How many Hays County residents become eligible at each level? What services could we provide them? Could we contract with more doctors and clinics or purchase health coverage for some eligible residents using authority the county already has under Chapter 61?

What would each option cost, and how does that compare with what Becerra says his proposed hospital district could accomplish with approximately two cents per $100 of taxable value?

Put those options next to each other and let the public see them.

This is also where simply criticizing Becerra stops being enough.

If Commissioners Cohen, Ingalsbe and Smith believe his hospital-district proposal was rushed, underdeveloped or the wrong mechanism, that’s a perfectly legitimate position.

But they have an opportunity RIGHT NOW to show us the alternative.

Commissioners Court already controls an existing healthcare program. It already has authority to make eligibility less restrictive and to appropriate more county revenue to healthcare. And it is making decisions about Hays County’s budget right now.

So use that authority.

Propose something. Put a number on it. Let the public debate it.

Becerra should have to explain exactly what his proposed two-cent hospital district would buy us.

And commissioners who believe we shouldn’t create that district should have to explain what they’re willing to accomplish with the government and money we already have.

Maybe the answer is expanding the existing county program.

Maybe the answer is a hospital district.

Maybe the best answer is doing something meaningful now while we spend the next year designing a hospital district worth voting for.

We don’t need another political fight to figure out where to begin.

We need Commissioners Court to give the public actual choices:

Here is what Hays County can do now and what it would cost.

Here is what a hospital district could do instead and what that would cost.

Then let Hays County decide how ambitious it wants to be.

Sources & Further Reading

Hays County — Current Healthcare Program & Budget

Hays County — Indigent Health Care Program
Hays County’s existing County Indigent Health Care Program, including eligibility requirements, covered services, application information, the current 21% FPL income standard and program limits.

Hays County — Financial Transparency & Budget Process
Explains Hays County’s annual budget process, including August budget workshops and Commissioners Court’s role in determining county spending priorities.

Hays County — FY2027 Amended Budget Calendar
Official timeline for the current FY2027 budget process, including the August 11 and August 18 budget workshops and the August 25 public hearing.

Hays County — Public Notices
Official county public-notice page, including notice of the August 25, 2026 hearing on the proposed FY2027 budget.

Texas Law

Texas Health & Safety Code, Chapter 61 — Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act
Governs county indigent healthcare responsibilities. Particularly relevant are §61.023 on county eligibility standards and §61.029 on counties’ authority to arrange healthcare, purchase insurance or health coverage for eligible residents, and affiliate with other governmental healthcare entities.

Texas Health & Safety Code, Chapter 286 — Hospital Districts
Governs the creation and operation of hospital districts. §286.022 addresses the contents of a creation petition, including the proposed maximum property-tax rate and the statutory ceiling of 75 cents per $100 valuation.

How a Texas Hospital District Can Work — Travis County

Central Health — MAP & MAP Basic
Explains Travis County’s Medical Access Program and MAP Basic, including eligibility up to 200% of the federal poverty level and the healthcare available through the programs.

Central Health — Finance, Budget & Tax Information
Central Health’s budget and property-tax information, useful for understanding the scale and financing of a mature Texas hospital district.

The Hays County Hospital District Proposal & August 17 Meeting

Judge Ruben Becerra — August 17 Special Meeting Announcement
Becerra’s public announcement of the August 17 special Commissioners Court meeting concerning the proposed Hays County hospital district.

Judge Ruben Becerra — Statement Following the Failed Special Meeting
Becerra’s statement criticizing commissioners who did not attend and explaining his characterization of the petition and failed meeting.

Commissioner Walt Smith — Statement on the August 17 Special Meeting
Smith’s statement explaining his absence from the August 17 special meeting, including that he was preparing for the county’s mandatory August 18 budget meeting and raising concerns about the timing and process surrounding the hospital-district proposal.

Community Impact — Lack of quorum keeps potential Hays County health district off the ballot
Contemporary reporting on the August 17 meeting, the lack of a quorum, which members attended, and responses from members of Commissioners Court.

Hays Free Press — Hays County Commissioners Court meeting left without quorum
Local reporting on the failed special meeting, including statements from Becerra and Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe about the process and proposed district.

Additional Primary Materials Reviewed

Proposed “Resolution Establishing the Anticipated Funding Roadmap for the Proposed Hays County Hospital District.”
The proposed resolution reviewed for this article describes an anticipated planning rate of approximately 2 cents per $100 valuation, with approximately one cent projected to address existing county healthcare obligations and additional capacity intended for expanded healthcare services alongside anticipated federal matching funds. It also states that the 75-cent statutory maximum is not the anticipated or intended rate.

August 17, 2026 Statement from Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra Regarding Affordable Healthcare for Hays County
Issued by Becerra following the failed August 17 special meeting and reviewed by Mayday. Becerra states that the required petition signatures had been gathered and validated, characterizes the absent commissioners’ failure to establish a quorum as preventing the petition from reaching the November ballot, and says he intends to continue pursuing affordable-healthcare proposals in Hays County.

August 17, 2026 Hays County Commissioners Court Special Meeting Notice and Agenda.
The official meeting notice reviewed for this article scheduled the special meeting for 2 p.m. on August 17 and included consideration of the petition and proposed November 3 election for creation of the Hays County Hospital District.

The Mayday Standard

What do we know?

Hays County already operates a County Indigent Health Care Program under Chapter 61 of the Texas Health & Safety Code, with a published eligibility threshold below 21% of the federal poverty level. Texas law allows Commissioners Court to adopt less restrictive eligibility standards and gives counties substantial flexibility in arranging healthcare for eligible residents, including contracting with providers and purchasing health coverage.

A hospital district would create a separate political subdivision dedicated to healthcare with its own governance, budget and potential property-tax revenue. The proposed funding roadmap circulated in connection with the Hays County district contemplates approximately 2¢ per $100 of taxable value, rather than the 75¢ statutory ceiling.

How do we know it?

Hays County’s published program rules and budget materials; Chapters 61 and 286 of the Texas Health & Safety Code; the proposed hospital-district resolution and August 17 special-meeting materials reviewed for this article; public statements from members of Commissioners Court; and published program, budget and tax information from existing Texas hospital districts.

What are we inferring?

Hays County could meaningfully expand healthcare access without first creating a hospital district.

A hospital district, however, could provide something structurally different: a permanent governmental institution dedicated specifically to healthcare with a dedicated source of revenue.

Whether that structure would produce better access, greater efficiency or more healthcare per public dollar in Hays County cannot be determined from the proposal as it currently exists.

What remains unknown?

What healthcare system would the proposed district actually build?

We still don’t have a defined eligibility threshold, projected enrollment, provider network, detailed service package or administrative budget. We don’t know precisely what additional healthcare the proposed second cent of taxation would purchase, what would happen to general-fund dollars currently used for county healthcare obligations, or the source, amount and conditions of the anticipated federal matching funds.

We also don’t yet have a costed comparison showing what Hays County could accomplish by expanding its existing Chapter 61 program instead.

Why does it matter?

Because Hays County residents aren’t choosing between healthcare and no healthcare.

The county already has a healthcare program and legal authority to do considerably more with it. The real policy question is whether residents are better served by expanding that existing system through Commissioners Court or by creating a permanent healthcare institution with its own dedicated tax base.

And right now, with Hays County actively considering its next budget, that isn’t merely a theoretical question.

Commissioners Court has an opportunity to show residents what doing more under the system we already have would actually look like and give the public something concrete to compare with a hospital district.

Not personal memory.

Public memory.

Communities remember through institutions.

Schools preserve knowledge.

Libraries preserve books.

Archives preserve records.

Journalism preserves the first draft of civic life.

Without those institutions, public events become easier to forget.

Just as importantly, they become easier to rewrite.

For generations, local newspapers performed a quiet public service.

They attended meetings that few citizens had time to attend.

They summarized budgets most people would never read.

They reported election results, zoning decisions, court proceedings, school board debates, and public notices that otherwise might pass unnoticed.

Most of these stories never became national news.

They didn’t need to.

Their purpose was different.

They created a shared public record of community life.

They witnessed.

Over the past two decades, many of those institutions have weakened.

Some newspapers closed.

Others reduced staff.

Many shifted toward faster publishing cycles, fewer reporters, and shrinking local coverage.

Entire communities now have little or no independent reporting covering the decisions made closest to home.

The result is not simply fewer newspaper subscriptions.

It is fewer witnesses.

When fewer people consistently observe public institutions, something subtle begins to change.

Meetings still happen.

Votes are still taken.

Budgets are still approved.

Campaign reports are still filed.

Public records continue to exist.

But fewer people connect them.

Fewer people explain them.

Fewer people preserve them in ways that citizens can readily understand.

Information remains public.

Understanding becomes scarce.

The consequences rarely appear overnight.

Government continues functioning.

Roads are built.

Permits are issued.

Elections occur.

Life goes on.

But over time, communities lose something harder to measure.

Institutional memory begins to fade.

Questions that were once easily answered become difficult to reconstruct.

Promises made years earlier disappear from public conversation.

Policies lose their history.

Decisions become disconnected from the circumstances that produced them.

Citizens inherit today’s government without understanding yesterday’s choices.

The truth becomes scarce.

Headlines become the whole story.

This is one reason public trust has become so fragile.

When people cannot easily reconstruct how decisions were made, they often replace missing information with assumptions.

Narratives fill the space where records once lived.

Confidence replaces curiosity.

Certainty replaces investigation.

The problem is not disagreement.

The problem is that fewer people share a common record from which disagreement can begin, and suddenly, we are all existing in our own realities with no path back to the truth.

Independent local journalism cannot solve every civic problem.

It cannot eliminate polarization.

It cannot force good governance.

It cannot guarantee wise public officials.

It can leave behind a careful record of what happened.

It can preserve context before it disappears.

It can document questions while they still matter.

It can connect individual events into a larger civic story.

Most importantly, it can invite readers to inspect that story for themselves.

These are indispensable functions of a true Democracy if we want to keep it.

This is why Mayday! places such importance on the public record.

Not because documents speak for themselves.

They rarely do.

Records require context.

Meetings require explanation.

Budgets require interpretation.

Campaign finance reports require careful comparison.

Evidence requires patience.

Journalism is not valuable because it replaces the public record.

Journalism is valuable because it helps citizens navigate it.

Communities deserve more than headlines.

They deserve institutional memory.

They deserve careful witnesses.

They deserve reporting that explains not only what happened today, but how today’s decisions connect to yesterday’s promises and tomorrow’s consequences.

That work is often quiet.

It is rarely glamorous.

It almost never goes viral.

It is also one of the essential habits of self-government.

When communities lose their witnesses, they gradually lose the ability to remember themselves.

Mayday! exists, in part, to help preserve that memory.

Not for nostalgia.

For accountability.

Not because journalism is the destination.

Because self-government depends upon citizens who remember where they have been before deciding where they should go next.

Read the record.

Government meetings are livestreamed. Campaign finance reports are public. Court filings are available online. Budgets, agendas, voting records, and public documents are only a few clicks away.

The record has never been more accessible. Yet understanding often feels farther away than ever. Information alone does not produce an informed citizenry. It never has.

Between a public record and public understanding lies something more difficult: the work of reading, verifying, questioning, comparing, and placing facts into context. Democracy asks citizens to do that work. Journalism exists to help. The internet has condensed it into a headline. And nuance is trolling.

Mayday! was created because the space between all of it matters.

Not simply during elections.

Every day.

Local government rarely attracts national headlines.

It is quieter than Washington and less dramatic than state politics. Its meetings are longer. Its documents are denser. Its decisions are often technical, procedural, and easy to overlook.

Yet local government shapes the places where we actually live.

It decides how communities grow.

How tax dollars are spent.

How roads are built.

How public safety is funded.

How development is approved.

How elections are administered.

How public records are maintained.

The decisions made in county courtrooms and city halls often affect daily life long before anything debated in Congress is ever actually felt.

If self-government begins anywhere, it’s here.

Mayday! is not built on the assumption that citizens need someone to tell them what to think.

It is built on the belief that citizens deserve the information necessary to think for themselves.

That requires more than headlines.

It requires context.

It requires patience.

It requires a willingness to distinguish facts from inferences, records from narratives, evidence from certainty.

Every conclusion deserves evidence proportional to the claim being made.

When evidence is incomplete, we should say so.

When reasonable uncertainty exists, we should acknowledge it.

When new information changes the picture, our conclusions should change with it.

Those are not simply journalistic habits.

They are civic habits.

We often describe democracy as a system of elections.

But democracy depends on much more than voting.

It depends on citizens who ask questions before reaching conclusions.

Who examine original documents instead of relying only on summaries.

Who recognize the difference between what is documented and what is merely assumed.

Who remain willing to revise their opinions when the record changes.

Disagreement is not democracy’s weakness.

In fact, disagreement is inevitable.

What matters is whether we continue to share a common method for evaluating public claims.

Without that, disagreement becomes impossible to resolve.

This is why Mayday! exists.

Not to manufacture outrage.

Not to amplify rumors.

Not to defend politicians.

Not to attack them.

Not to reward one political party or punish another.

Mayday! is not pro-candidate.

It is not pro-party.

It is pro-public.

Its responsibility is to readers and to the public record.

That means asking difficult questions regardless of who holds office.

It means following evidence wherever it leads, even when the conclusions are inconvenient.

It means applying the same standards to every public official, every institution, every campaign, and every claim.

Fairness does not require equal criticism.

It requires equal standards.

The name Mayday! is a distress call.

Traditionally, it signals that something requires immediate attention.

Our concern is not simply the condition of politics.

It is the condition of the future.

When citizens lose confidence in institutions, when public debate becomes untethered from evidence, when narratives become more persuasive than records, self-government grows weaker.

The answer is not cynicism.

The answer is better habits.

Habits of curiosity.

Habits of verification.

Habits of context.

Habits of accountability.

Journalism is one way those habits are preserved.

Its highest purpose is not to win arguments.

It is to help communities understand themselves.

To document.

To explain.

To remember.

To leave behind a record that future citizens can examine for themselves.

That is the work Mayday! hopes to contribute to Hays County.

Not because one publication can solve every problem.

But because democracy is strengthened each time a citizen chooses evidence over assumption, curiosity over certainty, and the public record over rumor.

We cannot promise that every reader will agree with our conclusions.

We can promise to show our work.

We can promise to distinguish what we know from what we infer.

We can promise to correct our mistakes.

We can promise to follow the public record wherever it leads.

Journalism is the vehicle.

Self-government is the purpose.

Flashback to 8 weeks ago, when I made my first public post responding to factual inaccuracies from Ruben’s campaign with sources showing they were blatant lies. I guess the celebratory tone was warranted after all, huh?

I’ve spent the last two months here on this Substack battling a very loud PR machine surrounding Ruben Becerra’s campaign. But I didn’t do it alone. And I definitely wasn’t the first.

Representative Erin Zwiener had the guts to stand up for herself publicly when she was shut out of conversations around water policy. This isn’t the first time I’ve watched her “step out of line” to do what she believed was right, despite the vitriol and mockery thrown at her online by people folks want to dismiss as bots, trolls, or Republicans — but the truth is, some of them were fellow Democrats too.

And she didn’t placate them. She didn’t toe a line. She was guided by something larger than internet approval, and that’s what a true public servant should be. Watching her speak up inspired me to start asking questions again, to dig deeper, and to pay attention.

City Council Member Alyssa Garza gave me the confidence and moral support to keep going. She has never softened her opinions for comfort, even in moments where we ourselves disagree, and I deeply respect that. More importantly, I respect how connected she is to the actual heart of this community. Her guidance, friendship, and fearlessness carried me through more moments than she probably realizes. She is one of the strongest women I have ever known, and San Marcos is lucky to have her.

Janice and I graduated from San Marcos High School together — I won’t say when because wow. We weren’t friends then. She was on student council and popular; I was the nerdy drum major. But after debating each other online about who-even-knows-what a decade ago, we eventually developed a mutual respect for each other. And honestly? Her humor, companionship, and hot tips are part of what made the last two months actually fun. She truly cares about this community and this world as much as I do. And, she owns the coolest shop in town.

Then there were the women who slowly found their way into this journey through messages, phone calls, comments, and quiet conversations: Louie, Michelle, Meredith, Kelly, Erin, and so many others. Smart, thoughtful, impressive women who helped prop up not only Michelle Cohen, but my voice too. I’m genuinely humbled to have crossed paths with them.

It was *women who ran this campaign. And women who shifted the energy so much that, in roughly 8 weeks, the electorate swung by nearly 1,500 votes and Dr. Michelle Gutierrez Cohen WON the Democratic nomination last night.

That’s huge in a runoff with turnout this low.

People showed up not because of some giant propaganda machine or negative campaigning.
Not because somebody “won the algorithm.”

Because these women did the hard work of propping each other up and standing up for what they believed was right.

They convinced people who mattered.
They changed minds quietly.
They challenged narratives that had started calcifying into accepted truth.
And they did it with wit, humility, honesty and grace.

That matters.

What appears to have happened last night was not a wave. Or a revolution. It wasn’t even really an ideological rejection because both candidates share the same progressive values.

It was more fascinating than that.

The runoff electorate shrank dramatically from March. Tens of thousands of casual and occasional voters disappeared. Students left for summer. Movement energy softened. The electorate became a more concentrated reflection of the people who actually live in Hays County and were paying attention to nuance.

The precinct data actually showed Becerra’s strongest precincts retaining voters at surprisingly high rates. His machine looked operational. But the people inside that machinery appear to have decided they wanted something different.

People weren’t storming toward a new movement.
People were stepping away from spectacle.

Modern local politics increasingly rewards the performance of moral certainty over the practice of governance itself. The politician becomes not merely an administrator, but the emotional vessel for a community’s frustrations, fears, and aspirations. Every conflict escalates because the identity of the leader becomes inseparable from the identity of the movement.

But it’s not enough to just be a symbol.

Eventually, local government has to reassert itself as local government, or it will fail.

And that may be the most important takeaway from this runoff for the party to remember going into November.

Because for all the noise surrounding modern politics, we may have proven something very old-fashioned:

When they go low, we go high. But NOT silently. And with receipts.

*with the support of some rad men too— gotta give credit where credit is due; but it’s the women I’m highlighting because of how patriarchal politics tends to be.

Tomorrow is Election Day.

But tonight I’m thinking about how local modern politics in Hays County has started to resemble fandom.

Fandom.

It’s clear that people attach themselves to political figures the way previous generations attached themselves to celebrities, prophets, or revolutionary icons. Every criticism becomes heresy. Every disagreement becomes betrayal. Every failure must be reframed, defended, mythologized, or blamed on enemies. The individual becomes larger than the actual work itself.

And maybe that’s inevitable in an era where politics increasingly lives online— flattened into personalities, aesthetics, algorithms, and performance.

But it’s dangerous.

Voltairine de Cleyre warned against “the worship of leaders,” arguing that people too often surrender their own judgment in exchange for emotional certainty. Not because they are weak, but because uncertainty is exhausting. It feels safer to believe one exceptional person is fighting for us than to confront the much harder truth:

No one is coming to save us.

Not a county judge.
Not a mayor.
Not a party.
Not a charismatic progressive with a microphone and a social media following.

Real political change has always been collective, messy, contradictory, deeply imperfect work. It comes from communities building durable structures together, not from elevating individual personalities into symbols beyond criticism or question.

And I think that’s what has troubled me most this election cycle— what inspired me to say something— much of the conversation stopped being about governance entirely.

Instead of us debating whether a policy could survive legal scrutiny, or if this coalition would actually hold; instead of asking whether this office can materially accomplish what is being promised, or questioning if relationships can be maintained long enough to produce durable outcomes…

The conversation became:
Who feels like the hero?
Who performs resistance most convincingly?
Who has the strongest personal mythology?
Who “fights”?

But fighting is not governance.

Governance is compromise.
It’s procedural patience.
It’s building a consensus quietly behind the scenes.
It’s accepting the limits of your office instead of theatrically pretending they do not exist.
It’s sharing credit.
It’s understanding that sustainable progress is painfully incremental but we must keep going forward.

That kind of work rarely goes viral.

It doesn’t create local celebrities.
It doesn’t generate photo ops.
It doesn’t satisfy the emotional hunger people have for symbolic warriors in frightening times.

But it is often the only thing that actually improves material conditions sustainability.

I understand why people are drawn toward political personalities right now. Truly. We are living through instability, alienation, institutional collapse, economic precarity, ecological anxiety, and profound distrust. People want conviction. They want certainty. They want someone who sounds fearless.

But politics built around personalities instead of principles inevitably corrodes movements from the inside out. Because eventually protecting the image of the leader becomes more important than confronting reality itself. And once that happens, accountability disappears.

Criticism becomes “division.”
Questions become “attacks.”
Dissent becomes “disloyalty.”
And the movement slowly reshapes itself around preserving one person’s symbolic status instead of achieving concrete outcomes for actual people.

That is not liberation.
That is not democracy.
And it certainly is not community power.

Tomorrow, people will vote however they vote.

But beyond this election, I hope we begin rebuilding a local political culture that values critical thought over loyalty tests, collaboration over ego, transparency over mythology, and collective action over political celebrity.

Because democracy cannot survive if we keep turning politicians into identities instead of public servants.

And no matter how progressive the branding may be, personality cults do not become less dangerous simply because they speak the language of activism.

And despite everything I’ve said here — despite my skepticism of political celebrity, despite my frustration with spectacle politics, despite my belief that no elected official is coming to save us — I still believe deeply in voting.

Because silence is surrender.

Power depends on exhaustion, cynicism, and disengagement. The easiest population to govern is one convinced their voice no longer matters.

Voting is not worship. It is participation.
It is one small way of refusing political apathy and insisting that our communities still belong to the people living in them.

And beyond voting itself, we have to keep using our voices — loudly, critically, imperfectly, consistently. We have to ask hard questions. We have to stay engaged after elections end. We have to resist the temptation to hand our moral and political agency over to charismatic figures and instead reclaim it for ourselves and for each other.

Democracy is not something spectators consume.
It is something ordinary people practice together.

So tomorrow, I hope you vote.
I hope you speak up.
I hope you stay difficult to manipulate.
I hope you refuse cynicism.

And more than anything, I hope you remember that real political power has never lived inside one personality, one office, or one movement figure.

It has always lived inside communities willing to think, organize, question, dissent, and keep showing up anyway.

It’s been fun. Let’s change the future.

xoxo Jenni

Ruben Becerra says he is the candidate standing up to powerful interests, developers, insiders, & outside influence.

But that’s not quite the story his latest corrected campaign finance report tells.

And I think voters deserve to understand who is actually funding the political brand Ruben Becerra has built.

Special Interest Networks

After reviewing Becerra’s 2026 campaign finance filings, one thing becomes immediately clear:

A substantial amount of his campaign funding comes from outside Hays County.

Contributors come from:

• Austin

• San Antonio

• Houston

• Dallas

• Brownsville

• New Braunfels

• Temple

Based on the filings uploaded & reviewed:

• roughly $14,000+ appears to come from clearly outside-Hays contributors,

• while only about $7,000–8,000 appears clearly local.

That means approximately 65% of the clearly identifiable money in Becerra’s 2026 filings appears to come from outside Hays County, while only about 35% appears clearly local.

That does not include ambiguous border-city addresses like Buda or Dripping Springs, which could push the outside total even higher depending on residency.

Outside money in politics is common.

But it becomes politically relevant when a candidate simultaneously brands themselves as the defender of ordinary locals while their campaign is being funded by outside influence. It becomes hypocritical when he denounces one thing publicly, but files a report right before an election showing something else.

The donor list tells a story

When people hear “outside donations” in a small local county runoff, they often imagine random ideological supporters or one-off contributions from family and friends elsewhere.

That is NOT what these filings show.

Instead, many donors appear connected to:

• law firms,

• development,

• engineering,

• consulting,

• political infrastructure,

• PACs.

That matters because county government decisions directly impact:

• growth,

• infrastructure,

• tax policy,

• land use,

• development approvals,

• municipal contracts,

• public-private relationships.

This is not abstract.

Hays County is one of the fastest-growing counties in Texas. Political power here has economic consequences. Donations have influence.

The Linebarger Cluster

One of the most striking patterns is the number of contributors tied to Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, a major Texas law firm that works extensively with governments on delinquent tax collection, court fines, municipal receivables, & local government legal enforcement.

The filings show donations from:

• Paul D. Chapa

• Richard Haas

• Clifton Douglass

• The firm itself

Together, these contributions total several thousand dollars.

These are not random neighborhood supporters either.

Linebarger is deeply embedded in the ecosystem of Texas local government. Firms like this work closely with counties, school districts, appraisal districts, municipalities, tax offices, and public finance systems across the state.

Their attorneys & executives are not ordinary grassroots donors disconnected from local politics. Their professional world revolves around governmental relationships.

And that is what makes this particular donor cluster interesting.

Because multiple people connected to a highly networked municipal law firm collectively took an interest in a county-level runoff race outside their home county.

That suggests political alignment, relationship-building, or investment in broader regional influence networks — not random civic participation.

The Developer Money

Several donors are tied to The NRP Group, a major real estate development company.

Contributors include:

• Debra Guerrero

• Jason Arechiga

• Max Whipple

All connected to development or real estate operations.

But politically, donations are rarely random.

And that becomes especially important when you look at the broader controversy surrounding this developer network.

NRP is not just “some apartment company.” It has been tied to some of the most politically controversial redevelopment fights in Texas in recent years.

The company became deeply embroiled in the battle over the proposed redevelopment of Alazán Courts in San Antonio — the city’s oldest public housing complex. The proposal drew fierce backlash from residents, housing advocates, anti-displacement organizers, & preservationists, many of whom argued the redevelopment would accelerate gentrification & reduce deeply affordable housing on the West Side.

The controversy became so intense that the San Antonio Housing Authority ultimately canceled its partnership with NRP after sustained public opposition.

NRP has also been heavily associated with Texas’ controversial Public Facility Corporation (PFC) tax exemption system — a structure critics argued allowed developers to receive massive property tax breaks with insufficient oversight or affordability guarantees.

At one point, reporting indicated NRP was involved in roughly a third of PFC deals in Texas.

The backlash became significant enough that the Texas Legislature eventually reformed the law itself after mounting criticism over:

• transparency,

• developer windfalls,

• reduced tax revenues,

• affordability concerns.

Ruben Becerra didn’t do anything illegal by accepting donations from people in this network.

But voters should understand that these are not random apolitical donations from disconnected individuals.

These are people operating inside a highly connected ecosystem of development, municipal politics, public-private partnerships, tax incentive structures, lobbying, & regional growth policy.

And when multiple people tied to those networks begin donating to a county-level runoff race outside their home county, it is fair for voters to ask why.

The political network money

Then there are the openly political contributions.

One filing shows a contribution from:

“TX Friends of Trey Martinez Fischer”

A PAC associated with longtime San Antonio Democratic powerbroker & Texas State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer.

That contribution is important symbolically.

It suggests Becerra is not simply operating as an isolated county official with grassroots support, but as someone plugged into broader statewide political relationships.

Voters should understand the ecosystem in which their local officials operate.

The John S. Davidson mystery

And then there is our friend John S. Davidson. I wrote an article earlier this week about his odd donations.

Across multiple filings, Davidson — a New Braunfels resident — donated repeatedly in rapid succession:

- $1,000

- $1,000

- $1,000

- $250

- $1,200

- $250

- $1,000

- $1,200

- $666 — his latest donation.

for a total approaching $4,000 across the reports reviewed.

The filings alternately list his occupation as:

- “Youtuber,”

- “Not Employed,”

- or leave sections blank.

This is objectively unusual behavior for a county-level donor.

And there’s still the unresolved loan issue

And hanging over all of this is the still-unresolved campaign loan discrepancy.

Earlier filings appeared to show campaign debt totals around the ~$56,000 range.

Later filings now show only ~$20,000 in outstanding loans.

Yet there does not appear to be a clear disclosure trail explaining where roughly ~$40,000+ of that debt went.

The newly amended filing does not appear to resolve that discrepancy either.

That does not automatically mean misconduct.

But transparency matters.

Especially from politicians who build their image around accountability, ethics, & fighting entrenched interests.

The real question

I am not arguing that outside donations are illegal, that developers should never donate, or that political networks are inherently corrupt.

But I am left wondering:

Who is actually funding the political brand Ruben Becerra has built?

Because the answer increasingly does not look like ordinary Hays County residents alone.

It looks like a hybrid coalition of:

• regional political actors

• legal infrastructure

• development interests

• consultants

• activists

• PACs

• outside ideological supporters

Voters can decide for themselves whether that aligns with the public image being presented.

But they deserve to see the full picture.

Sources & Further Reading

Campaign Finance Filings

• Ruben Becerra 2026 Campaign Finance Reports & Amendments

Reporting on The NRP Group & Alazán Courts

• San Antonio Heron — NRP Group chosen for Alazán Courts redevelopment

• San Antonio Report — SAHA awards Able City contract after ending NRP partnership

• Texas Observer — In San Antonio, a Fight over Public Housing Heats Up

• Express-News — SAHA walks back plan to redevelop Alazán Courts

• San Antonio Conservation Society — Alazán Courts: Change of Plan

Reporting on Texas PFC Tax Exemption Controversies

• Express-News — Legislature changes rules on controversial tax breaks used by developers

• Texas Legislative Budget Board — Tax Exemptions for Public Facility Corporations

• University of Texas School of Law — Public Facility Corporations & Tax Exemptions Report

• JD Supra — 2023 Changes to Texas Law on PFC Property Tax Exemptions

At first, it was just a strange guy on YouTube who had a weird Ruben Becerra-focused playlist.

Then the donations surfaced.

Then the hashtags.

Then the livestream clips.

Then the property records.

Then the X/Twitter account.

And somewhere in the middle of trying to determine whether this was political advocacy, satire, conspiracy content, performance art, or simply internet-induced brain melt, I realized the uncertainty itself might actually be the story.

Because this increasingly seems be what local politics surrounding Ruben Becerra looks like.

The YouTube Channel

The channel operates under the names:

• “TexasGEO_007”

• and “BBJ Studios.”

BBJ Studios / TexasGEO_007 YouTube Channel

The channel maintains a playlist titled:

“Ruben Becerra – Hays County Spiritual Judge.”

Ruben Becerra playlist

The content is difficult to summarize coherently because it feels less like a political channel and more like a stream-of-consciousness collage of modern internet culture:

• TV evangelist sermons

• drone strike footage,

• violent altercations,

• religious symbolism,

• slowed-down music,

• livestream recordings,

• surreal editing,

• screen recordings,

• personal commentary,

• local politics,

• and repeated references to Ruben Becerra.

Some videos feel conspiratorial.
Others feel deeply ironic.
Some appear sincere.
Others feel intentionally absurd.

At one point, a video shows someone screen recording themselves drafting social media posts with hashtags including:

• #RubenBecerraWaterPolitics

• #RubenBecerraWaterPoliticianMAGICIAN

• #BecerraBoss

• #BBJSTUDIOS

• #SoechtingFraud

Referenced livestream clip

The phrase:

#BecerraBoss

especially complicates any attempt to frame the content as simply anti-Becerra— which is what I initially suspected.

The tone shifts constantly between:

• mockery,

• fixation,

• admiration,

• symbolism,

• grievance,

• and bizarre internet theater.

And honestly? I still do not fully know what I’m looking at. Is he an incel? Is this an orchestrated Becerra troll farm of one? Does he really think the Hays County Judge is his spiritual leader?

Hard to say. But he was willing to open his check book for him.

The Donations

What transformed this from weird into an actual political-interest story were the campaign finance records.

Filings for Ruben Becerra’s 2026 campaign show repeated donations from:

John S Davidson
Occupation: “Youtuber”
New Braunfels, Texas

during February 2026 totaling more than $7,000.

Examples include:

• $2,000 donation on February 17, 2026

• multiple $1,000 donations

• additional smaller donations throughout the month

At that point, the story stopped being “eccentric local content creator” and became something stranger:

a YouTuber producing extensive Ruben Becerra-focused content while simultaneously donating thousands of dollars to Ruben Becerra’s campaign.

Not illegal.
Not necessarily unethical.
But definitely strange, right?

If this guy was making fun of Becerra, why had he donated thousands of dollars to him? Could it be that he actually supported him? If he was supporting him, why? What is ACTUALLY going on here?

The Online Ecosystem

The deeper I dug, the more the story stopped looking like a single YouTube channel and started looking like a fragmented online identity ecosystem.

The research connected:

• BBJ Studios / TexasGEO_007,

• An X troll account:

  • @Lemon_RageEKB on X

• Ruben Becerra-themed hashtags,

• and a person identifying himself publicly in a video on Youtube as:

“I’m John Davidson.”

Public property records tied the campaign donor address to a long-held Davidson family property in the River Oaks area of New Braunfels.

Court records identified:

JOHN STEWART DAVIDSON

associated with a separate Canyon Lake address. And one in Bastrop.

Interestingly, none of the addresses are even in Hays County.

At various points, the ecosystem also intersects with a man named Charles Soechting, another recurring figure in the videos and hashtags of John Davidson. Soechting is a lawyer who represented Davidson in a methamphetamine trial and now appears to definitely be a target of fixation as well, but in a more negative way. Someone should definitely check on him and make sure he’s ok.

Again: none of this proves wrongdoing.

But it did reveal something important about the modern local political environment we have found ourselves in this year—the walls separating internet culture, political identity, conspiracy aesthetics, activism, and local campaign influence have officially collapsed into one another.

What Makes This Story Interesting

The most interesting thing about this story is not whether any law was broken. I am still looking for:

• campaign coordination,

• illegal conduct,

• paid propaganda,

• or undisclosed consulting arrangements.

But the interesting part at this point is that, even without that, nobody can cleanly categorize this at all.

Is it:

• satire?

• obsession?

• performance art?

• activism?

• political branding?

• irony poisoning?

• conspiratorial fixation?

• hyper-online support?

• criticism disguised as fandom?

• fandom disguised as criticism?

Increasingly, local politics exists inside exactly these kinds of spaces:

• livestream clips,

• Discord logic,

• meme aesthetics,

• fragmented identities,

• emotional performance,

• symbolic language,

• and algorithmic amplification.

The internet has created a political environment where:

• supporters behave like critics,

• critics behave like fans,

• conspiracy language becomes branding,

• and online personas become political actors without anyone fully understanding where performance ends and influence begins.

The Real Story

The real story here may not ultimately be Ruben Becerra or John Davidson specifically.

I reached out to John Davidson to get his perspective and ask him directly why he felt compelled to donate to the Becerra campaign. Here was his response:

“Nono, it has to do with my sister.”

And that was it. I didn’t get another response. No explanation. And to be honest, I don’t know if there is one. I was unable to find anything that made any of this make sense. Maybe it purposely isn’t supposed to.

So, that’s why the real story may be that hyperlocal politics is beginning to resemble internet subculture itself:

• surreal,

• emotionally unstable,

• decentralized,

• impossible to categorize,

• confusing,

• and deeply shaped by people operating outside traditional political institutions.

The old model of local politics was:

• donors,

• consultants,

• campaign staff,

• newspapers,

• and public meetings.

The new model increasingly looks like:

• YouTube playlists,

• livestreams,

• hashtags,

• anonymous accounts,

• irony,

• parasocial fixation,

• and people filming themselves posting political content into the void at 2 a.m.

And whether anyone fully understands it yet or not, that ecosystem is already influencing real political campaigns, real reputations, and real public discourse in places like Hays County, where John Davidson, YouTuber, was Ruben Becerra’s #1 financial donor for re-election.

There is a version of the data center debate in Hays County that seems to exist not just in Hays County right now:

• developers are pillaging the land,

• local officials are either heroes or traitors,

• AI is either the future or a societal plague,

• & stopping data centers is treated as both environmental policy & moral virtue.

It is emotionally satisfying to say no to something. Full stop.

But it is also becoming increasingly disconnected from the actual mechanics of modern society & governing.

Because beneath the slogans lies a far more uncomfortable reality: we are losing our ability to tolerate nuance.

Most people do not want unchecked industrial growth.

They also live online, on their phones & computers for eight hours a day, generating a digital footprint so enormous it requires entire landscapes of servers, power infrastructure, & water to sustain it. Their interpersonal & professional relationships rely on it.

What people want — whether they articulate it this way or not — is leverage. Transparency. Planning. Limits. A sense that communities still have meaningful control over what happens around them.

But nuance performs badly in modern politics.

Especially when fear, distrust, & rapid growth are already reshaping a place people barely recognize anymore.

The Server Farm Scapegoat

Data centers have existed since the early 1950s, but cloud computing transformed the industry in the early 2000s. Companies like Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, & Microsoft Azure began building hyperscale facilities containing hundreds of thousands of servers. Two decades later, AI is transforming the landscape again.

For most of internet history, the physical infrastructure remained largely invisible to ordinary people. Now the buildings are so large, resource-intensive, & politically consequential that communities are being forced to confront the reality that “the cloud” was always somebody else’s industrial facility.

These are not just buildings to people anymore. They have become containers for every unresolved anxiety people have about modern life.

Growth. Water. Traffic. Outsiders. Developers. AI. Rising costs. Loss of identity. Distrust in institutions. The creeping suspicion that ordinary people no longer meaningfully shape the places they live.

The data center absorbs all of it.

And because it absorbs all of it, the debate stopped being technical almost immediately. Nobody is really arguing about server racks & cooling systems. They are arguing about whether they still recognize the future being built around them.

That emotional undercurrent matters to people, though. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. But emotional truth is not always easily packaged into policy.

& increasingly, local politics rewards people for collapsing those two things together.

Ruben Becerra Understands the Power of Symbolism

County Judge Ruben Becerra understood before many others that “data centers” were politically useful far beyond the projects themselves.

To stand against them was to stand against something larger:

• unchecked growth,

• corporate influence,

• environmental exhaustion,

• & the feeling that public participation has become mostly ceremonial.

His calls for aggressive opposition & support for moratorium discussions positioned him as the loudest institutional voice channeling that anger.

Anyone who did not want to follow his lead risked being framed as either pro-data-center or aligned with the political opposition.

And politically, it worked. For some.

Because in an era where voters increasingly feel ignored, symbolic confrontation often feels more authentic than procedural governance.

The problem is that governing is not the same thing as signaling resistance.

And this is where the conversation becomes much less emotionally satisfying for anyone who starts questioning the increasing absolutism.

Texas Counties Are Not Tiny Kingdoms Ruled by Kings

One of the least discussed facts in this entire debate is that counties in Texas have far less authority over development than most residents believe they do.

People talk about county government as though commissioners can simply decree unwanted projects out of existence.

They cannot.

Texas counties operate with limited zoning authority & constrained land-use power. Broad restrictions can trigger expensive legal challenges, particularly when policies appear reactive, inconsistent, or unsupported by state statute.

That does not mean local governments are powerless.

It means there is a difference between:

• making a declaration,

• & building a legally durable framework.

That distinction matters.

Especially when politicians benefit from public outrage regardless of whether the proposed solution survives contact with reality.

The Debate We Should Be Having

The most important conversation in Hays County is also the one almost nobody wants to have publicly right now because pragmatism no longer passes the allegiance test.

Nuance is treated as betrayal.
Complexity is mistaken for weakness.
& asking inconvenient questions risks being interpreted as sympathy for the enemy tribe.

So instead the debate collapses into moral theater instead of asking:

• Which projects are actually being proposed?

• How much water will they truly consume?

• What mitigation agreements are enforceable versus performative?

• How many permanent jobs are created after construction crews leave?

• What infrastructure costs get transferred onto the public?

• What authority does the county genuinely possess?

• What limits are legally sustainable?

• What compromises are residents actually willing to tolerate?

Those questions are slower. Harder. Less cinematic.

They also happen to be the questions governance requires.

Instead, the public is trapped between shallow performances:
corporate inevitability vs. anti-growth absolutism;
pro-growth booster vs. anti-tech activist;
preservationist populist vs. infinite-growth technocrat.

One side insists resistance is irrational.
The other implies every server building brings us closer to civilizational collapse.

Neither side leaves much room for adults to figure out real solutions.

The Politics of Restraint

Commissioner Michelle Cohen represents a very different political instinct. You are unlikely to find sweeping declarations, viral speeches, or carefully branded public identities built around being aggressively “pro” or “anti” anything.

Her style is quieter. More process-oriented. More focused on governance than performance.

Less theatrical. More procedural.
Less ideological. More administrative.

That approach can feel unsatisfying in a political environment increasingly driven by spectacle & emotional allegiance. But it also reflects a fundamentally different view of local public office that we must find our way back to — one where governing is less about symbolic confrontation & more about navigating constraints, tradeoffs, & institutional realities.

Because process is not boring.
Legal frameworks are not boring.
Infrastructure planning is not boring.
Intergovernmental coordination is not boring.

But a fiery speech about “fighting Big Tech” will always travel farther online than a detailed explanation of groundwater jurisdiction or county limitations.

And that is why demagogues throughout history prefer spectacle to systems: systems force specificity.

Specificity creates accountability.

Symbolism allows projection.

People can project almost anything onto “stop the data centers.” That is precisely its political power.

The Cloud Was Always a Building

We oppose industrial expansion in the abstract while spending eight hours a day attached to devices generating a digital footprint so enormous it requires entire landscapes of servers, power infrastructure, & water to sustain it. Our interpersonal & professional relationships rely on it.

That contradiction does not make people hypocrites. It makes them modern.

Modern society increasingly asks people to participate in systems they did not choose, do not control, & often fundamentally distrust. The resulting anger is real. So is the grief. So is the fear that communities are being reshaped faster than ordinary people can meaningfully respond to.

But anger is not governance. & symbolism alone is not policy.

What exists between those two things has always been the hardest position to market politically because it requires people to tolerate ambiguity.

To admit:

• some growth is necessary,

• some opposition is justified,

• some politicians exploit fear,

• some corporations exploit desperation,

• some environmental concerns are grounded,

• some rhetoric is opportunistic,

• & none of this is simple.

But complexity has become deeply unfashionable in American politics.

It does not fit neatly into campaign branding.
It does not produce viral clips.
It does not satisfy the emotional desire for villains pure enough to hate & heroes pure enough to save us.

So instead we get slogans.

And slogans are much easier to build than functioning policy.

I keep coming back to one question after reading the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct’s public admonition against Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra—

Did he actually understand what the problem was?

Because his public response to the ruling makes it feel like the answer is no.

Earlier this month, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished Becerra for violating judicial ethics rules related to his use of social media to promote businesses and events.[1]

The commission concluded that he violated Canon 2B and Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct — rules that exist specifically to prevent judges from using the prestige of their office to benefit private interests or create the appearance of favoritism.[1]

This wasn’t about a single harmless Facebook shoutout to a taco shop.

According to reporting from the San Antonio Express-News, the commission cited repeated posts promoting businesses and events tied to Becerra, his family, and close associates.[2]

That included:

• repeated promotion of Gil’s Broiler & The Manske Roll Bakery,

• repeated promotion of the “Classic Rides on El Camino Real” car show,

• promotion of Dapper Cave Barbershop,

• and repeated use of judicial-branded social media accounts while doing it.[2]

The reporting states the commission found Becerra promoted the car show 46 separate times.[2]

Forty-six.

And this is where I think some people are missing the point of the ethics ruling entirely.

The issue is not whether local businesses deserve support. Of course they do. Most of us support local businesses. Most of us want thriving community spaces and local culture and small businesses that survive.

The issue is whether a sitting county judge should be using the authority and visibility of judicial office to elevate specific private businesses and commercial events.

That standard exists for a reason.

Judges are not influencers. They are not chambers of commerce. They are not lifestyle brands.

The ethical concern is about appearance, access, favoritism, and public trust.

And then came Becerra’s Facebook response.

In this post, he defended himself by saying he has “always believed in supporting our local businesses and community organizations” and that his intent was never to advertise or provide special treatment.

Okay.

But then — immediately after saying that — he posted a giant list of businesses and organizations by name.

Again.

Restaurants. Breweries. Shops. Insurance agencies. Construction companies. Event groups.

Including businesses already tied to the ethics controversy.

At some point it stops feeling like misunderstanding and starts feeling like defiance.

And I think that’s why this whole thing matters beyond one Facebook post or one ethics complaint.

Because this is part of a broader pattern where public office, branding, business promotion, politics, and personal relationships all start blending together until nobody can tell where one ends and the other begins.

That’s exactly the kind of thing judicial ethics rules are supposed to prevent.

And honestly, the most striking part of all this to me is that the commission already gave him the answer.

The state literally told him:
You cannot use the prestige of judicial office this way.

And his response was basically:
Actually, let me list some more businesses.

Supporters will say this is community engagement.

Critics will say it’s inappropriate promotion.

But regardless of where people land politically, I think most reasonable people can agree on this:

If the ethics commission publicly admonishes a judge for repeatedly promoting businesses on social media, and the judge’s public response is to immediately promote more businesses on social media, it at least raises the question of whether the lesson landed at all.

Sources

[1] Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2B and Canon 4A(1)
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461500/texas-code-of-judicial-conduct.pdf

[2] San Antonio Express-News — “Hays County judge violated conduct code, commission says”
https://www.expressnews.com/hill-country/article/hays-county-judge-conduct-code-violation-22244569.php

[3] Hays Free Press — “State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonishes Hays County Judge”
https://www.haysfreepress.com/article/26379,state-commission-on-judicial-conduct-publicly-admonishes-hays-county-judge

[4] Texas Ethics Commission sworn complaint records
https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/data/enforcement/sworn_complaints/2021/3210343.pdf

In the March Democratic primary for Hays County Judge, the final certified numbers looked like this:

• Ruben Becerra: 15,616 (49.14%)

• Michelle Gutierrez Cohen: 14,435 (45.42%)

• Joel W. Martin: 1,727 (5.43%)

👉 Source: https://www.haysfreepress.com/article/26142,2026-march-primary-election-results

Total voters: 31,778

At first glance, that looks like a gap.

But when you actually do the math?

👉 It’s a 1,181 vote difference.

What it actually takes to win

To win in a runoff, Michelle Gutierrez Cohen doesn’t need to flip the entire electorate. She needs 1,182 people to show up for her.

Not 5,000. Not a political earthquake.

Just over eleven hundred voters behaving differently.

What that means in real terms

Out of 31,778 total voters, that’s:

👉 Only 3.7% of the electorate

Let that sink in: This race doesn’t require a wave. It requires a ripple.

The three paths to victory (all realistic)

And there isn’t just one way this happens. There are multiple paths—and all of them are plausible.

Path 1: Balanced shift (most likely)

• ~300 Becerra voters stay home

• ~200 switch to Cohen

• ~682 new voters show up for Cohen

👉 That’s your ~1,182 margin shift.

Path 2: Persuasion wins

• ~300 stay home

• ~300 switch sides

• ~300 new voters

👉 This is what happens when messaging actually lands.

Path 3: Ground game wins

• ~500 Becerra voters don’t return

• ~100 switch

• ~582 new voters show up

👉 This is turnout + organization.

The part that should get your attention

Even if Cohen received every single vote from the third candidate (highly unlikely):

👉 She would still need about 273 additional voters to win.

That’s how tight this race is. It will not be won by performing exactly the same as she did in the primary and picking up the third-party candidate. It will be won by changing hearts and minds.

What this race is really about

This is not about:

• Who was ahead in March

• Who has the louder narrative

• Who claims momentum

This is about:

👉 Who shows up for who in the runoff

Runoffs are smaller.
They’re quieter.

And they reward campaigns that can turn out people who almost didn’t vote.

Why this matters in Hays County

Hays County is changing—fast.

And in a county growing this quickly, leadership isn’t about noise. It’s about:

• Understanding policy

• Making legally sound decisions

• Showing up consistently

That’s the lane Michelle Gutierrez Cohen has been operating in.

Not performance.
Not headlines.

Just work.

TL;DR

This race is not out of reach.

👉 It’s within about 1,100 decisions.

How you can help

If you’re wondering whether this race is competitive, the answer is yes.

If you’re wondering whether it’s winnable, the answer is also yes.

But it won’t be decided by what happened in March.

👉 It will be decided by who shows up next.

Ask your friends, “Who are you voting for?” Then tell them why you are voting for her. You can refer to this post if you need talking points.

Share your plans to vote and who you are voting for on social media. Include your reasons.

Get a yard sign from her campaign and show your support.

Make a plan to vote. Know your polling place, pick a time, and don’t go alone—bring a friend.

Early voting runs May 18–22, and you can vote at ANY early voting location in Hays County so you’ve got a full workweek to get it done—no lines, no rush.

Election Day is on May 26th.

Most people aren’t opposed— they just need some information, a plan, and you to nudge them.

For years, the situation at 201 S. LBJ in San Marcos has been described as complicated. But after reviewing the underlying documents—leases, council records, payment histories, and state filings—a clearer picture emerges. Not just of a lease dispute, but of how a layered arrangement evolved into a legal confrontation.

Here’s what the records actually show.

The Foundation: A Public Land Lease

In 2018, the City of San Marcos formally approved a lease of public land at 201 S. LBJ to Ruben Becerra. The terms were straightforward on paper:

• Annual rent of roughly $3,400

• Year-to-year structure

• Land owned by the City (with part tied to a Union Pacific Railroad agreement)

But the context was anything but simple.

City records confirm that before this lease was finalized, several years of back rent (2013–2016) were waived, with the City accepting a reduced payment for 2017 instead. This decision was made by City Council in a public meeting, where at least one resident raised concerns about unequal treatment compared to ordinary citizens.

From that point forward, the lease was reset.

The Business Model: Control Without Ownership

What followed was not a typical landlord-tenant relationship.

The structure worked like this:

• The City owned the land

• Becerra controlled the ground lease

• Multiple businesses operated at the property over time

Records show a rotating set of tenants—yogurt shops, taco concepts, and other food businesses—operating at the same address. These businesses were not the primary leaseholder; instead, they appear to have operated under sublease or similar arrangements.

This positioned the leaseholder as an intermediary:

• Leasing land at a relatively low cost

• Controlling access to the site

• Allowing commercial operators to use the space

Whether that arrangement generated profit isn’t directly documented—but the structure itself created that opportunity.

The Overlap: Lease Negotiation and Business Activity

One of the more striking aspects of the record is timing.

In early 2018:

• The City was still negotiating payment terms

• Lease obligations were still being disputed

• Yet businesses were already applying for permits and requesting inspections

In at least one case, City staff allowed permitting activity to move forward based on a promise of payment, rather than completed compliance.

This overlap—negotiation, permitting, and tenant activity happening simultaneously—reflects how fluid the situation was at the time.

The Escalation: Lease Expiration and Lawsuit

Fast forward to 2026.

According to recent reporting, the lease expired on January 31, 2026. The City moved to terminate the agreement and require the property to be vacated.

Becerra disputes that termination, arguing:

• Rent continued to be paid

• The City accepted those payments

• Therefore, the lease effectively continued

The City, on the other hand, maintains:

• The lease ended as scheduled

• Termination was valid

• The structure may need to be removed under the terms of the lease

This disagreement has now moved to court.

The Critical Detail: A Forfeited Entity at the Center

State filings add a new dimension.

An entity operating at the property—SM Coffee Ventures LLC, registered at 201 S. LBJ—entered tax forfeiture on February 27, 2026.

That timing is notable:

• The lease expired January 31

• The legal dispute escalated in February

• The operating entity lost its legal standing the same month

In Texas, tax forfeiture means an entity:

• Loses the right to conduct business

• Cannot maintain certain legal claims

• Operates with impaired legal capacity

This doesn’t resolve the case—but it does complicate it.

The Pattern: Not an Isolated Event

SM Coffee Ventures isn’t the only entity tied to this story.

State records show multiple LLCs associated with Becerra that entered tax forfeiture over time:

• Specialized Medical Solutions LLC (2015)

• The Manske Roll LLC (2018)

• Condor Raices LLC (2023)

• SM Coffee Ventures LLC (2026, at the property in question)

Individually, each forfeiture may have its own explanation. Collectively, they establish a pattern of entities falling out of compliance.

What This All Means

Taken together, the documents point to something more than a simple lease disagreement.

They show:

• A public land lease reset through partial debt forgiveness

• A business model built on controlling access to that land

• Ongoing overlap between compliance, permitting, and operations

• A dispute over lease termination now playing out in court

• And an operating entity tied directly to the property losing legal standing at the same moment the dispute escalated

While public officials are allowed to have private business interests, this situation raises questions about fairness, transparency, and the appearance of preferential treatment—particularly given the use of public land and the financial concessions involved.

This case is about way more than an expired lease between a Hays County Judge and the City of San Marcos.

It’s about:

• Who has the legal right to control the property

• Whether that control was properly maintained

• And how a long-running arrangement—built on layered agreements and shifting entities—holds up when tested in court

The answer to that is no longer in emails or council minutes.

It’s now up to a judge.

And maybe the voters on May 26th.

Hays County has changed a lot.

More people. More development. More traffic.

But power here has historically looked very much… the same.

Until 2007 when Elizabeth “Liz” Sumter was elected the first woman to hold the office of Hays County Judge. She presided over Commissioners Court during a period of major growth and change, and she deserves real credit for breaking that barrier. (visitwimberley.com)

But Michelle Cohen winning would still be historic.

Because if elected, she would become the first Latina woman to serve as Hays County Judge.

That is not a small thing.

Hays County was founded in 1848. For most of its history, the people holding the highest levels of county power were men. The budgets, the roads, the growth decisions, the emergency response, the long-term planning — all of it was shaped almost entirely by men.

Liz Sumter broke one ceiling.

Debbie Gonzales Ingalsbe broke another when she became the first woman elected to Commissioners Court and the first Latina to serve there.

And now Michelle Cohen has the chance to break the next one.

The first Latina woman.

That distinction matters.

Because representation is not just symbolism. It changes who is seen as electable. Who is seen as qualified. Who is allowed to lead without having to be twice as prepared and half as forgiven.

Michelle Gutierrez Cohen is already doing the work on Commissioners Court. She has the experience, the record, and the backbone to step into the top seat.

So no, this is about building on their legacy.

1848 → Hays County founded
2007 → Liz Sumter becomes first woman Hays County Judge
1996 → Debbie Gonzales Ingalsbe becomes first woman and first Latina elected to Commissioners Court
2026 → Michelle Cohen could become the first Latina woman Hays County Judge

History doesn’t move fast.

But when it does—

The moment looks exactly like this.

It’s time to get serious, Hays County.

Not everything uncomfortable is a smear. Sometimes, it’s just public record.

And in this race, in this political climate, that distinction matters more than anything else right now.

2018 Was NOT a Landslide

When Ruben Becerra won the County Judge seat 8 years ago, the commissioners court was long seen as a place where progressive issues would go to die. 2018 was the year Hays County transitioned from reliably Republican to competitive/Democratic-leaning, and to give credit where credit is due, that is a huge accomplishment in itself, but it was in spite of Becerra’s record, not because of it.

Becerra didn’t win in a vacuum— he rode a blue wave and a demographic shift that should have given him a landslide, but he barely won by 3%.

That’s because one month before the election in 2018, the conservative-leaning SM Corridor News published this article: Documents Show Hays County Judge Candidate Lacks Personal, Business Financial Responsibility. This article came with facts. A 110-page PDF at the end of the article with a complete profile on his fiduciary mismanagement, his arrests, tax problems, foreclosure notices— you name it. And this was blindsiding, because it was all true, and all you had to do was go online and search the Hays Co Open Records page.

Democrats had to ignore it even though it DID raise significant questions. Becerra focused on social change to distract, specifically immigration issues, and he relied heavily on progressive organizations that managed his campaign to flood the media with grandstanding.

(Side note: If you’re paying attention— those are the same tactics he’s turned to now. And these are the same facts we’re talking about today.)

2022 Was a Warning Shot

4 years later, in 2022, he won by:

775 votes in a county of ~90,000+ voters

That means, his margin didn’t grow— it collapsed.

2018: +3.4%
2022: +0.9%

That’s a ~75% drop in margin

Incumbency didn’t help him—it barely saved him

Normally:

• Incumbents increase margins after the first election

• They build name recognition + record

Instead, Becerra’s margin shrank dramatically, and that is a political red flag Democrats can not afford to ignore right now.

We are not comfortable.
We are not stable.

We are flippable.

The Quiet Part No One Wants To Say Outloud

If Ruben Becerra becomes the Democratic nominee, Republicans will not need to invent a narrative to defeat him.

Because the material is already there—

• Multiple sanctioned ethics complaints

• Campaign finance records that are missing

• Business filings and tax forfeitures that show financial distress

• Legal inconsistencies, including warrants and arrests.

All of it public. All of it searchable. All of it usable.

This is not opposition research.
This is handing them a playbook.

What’s Actually in the Record (And Why It Matters)

Based on publicly available documents and prior reporting, Becerra’s record includes:

• Multiple Ethics complaints filed during his time in office, resulting in sanctions
  →https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/data/enforcement/sworn_complaints/2016/31611229.pdf

  →https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/data/enforcement/sworn_complaints/2019/3190458.pdf

  →https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/data/enforcement/sworn_complaints/2021/3210343.pdf

• Questions around campaign finance reporting, missing or unclear expenditures
  → https://open.substack.com/pub/boredofwords/p/46000-vanishes-from-a-hays-co-judges

• Business entities that went into tax forfeiture while activity appeared to continue
  → https://ruben-becerra-llc-tax-forfeiture.tiiny.site/

• Financial reporting gaps that raise accountability questions
  → https://open.substack.com/pub/boredofwords/p/46000-vanishes-from-a-hays-co-judges

• Bankruptcy, warrants, arrests, and foreclosure notices

  → https://smcorridornews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Becerra-Ruben-Monica-Financial-Background-Info-Oct-2018_Redacted-1.pdf

None of this requires spin. That’s exactly why it’s dangerous.

Because in a general election, the most effective attacks are based on records.

The Ad That Writes Itself

“While families in Hays County work hard and play by the rules…
Ruben Becerra faced ethics complaints, financial questions, and business issues tied to tax forfeiture. Can we trust him to manage our county?”

Pattern > Explanation

Here’s the political truth people hate:

It doesn’t matter if each issue has an explanation.

If voters see:

• multiple ethics complaints

• financial inconsistencies

• business irregularities

They don’t evaluate each one individually.

They see a pattern.

And once that perception locks in, campaigns don’t recover from it— they react to it. Have you seen how Hays County Judge Becerra reacts to controversy online? It’s not… great.

This Is Where Strategy Comes In

Primaries are about preference.

General elections are about risk management.

And right now, nominating Becerra is a risk Republicans are hoping Democrats take.

It saves them time, money, and effort.

Contrast: Michelle Cohen

This is where the conversation shifts— Because elections are decided on contrast. And Michelle Cohen presents a fundamentally different profile:

• No pattern of ethics complaints

• No recurring financial discrepancies in public reporting

• No business/tax forfeiture trail raising continuity questions

• A record of community-based leadership—especially during COVID response efforts

• Advocacy that aligns with Democratic priorities (public health, immigrant support, gun safety)

Most importantly:

Her record doesn’t require explanation.

And that is an underrated political advantage.

The Quiet Advantage of a “Clean” Record

A “clean” record doesn’t mean perfect.

It means:

• Nothing distracting from your message

• Nothing easy to weaponize

• Nothing that forces you into defense mode

Because campaigns really are time management battles. And every minute spent responding to controversy is a minute not spent talking about policy, growth, or vision.

The Omen

Let’s play it out:

• Republicans consolidate early around a simple narrative

• They flood mailboxes with documented claims

• They run digital ads with screenshots of filings

• They frame the election as a question of trust

Meanwhile, Democrats are stuck saying:

“Well, he’s really progressive and…”

And that’s where campaigns go to die.

This Is About Winning

This isn’t personal. It’s structural. If your candidate’s biggest vulnerability is already documented, accessible, and easy to explain in 30 seconds— You are not running a campaign. You are managing fallout. And you need a better candidate.

If something is:

• publicly filed

• verifiable

• documentable

It is not a smear.

It is a liability.

And pretending otherwise doesn’t protect the candidate. It wins the race for your opponent.

Decision 2026

This seat is too important to gamble. And Democrats have a choice this year:

• Nominate a candidate whose record creates attack ads

• Or nominate one whose record withstands them

I’m not interested in defending baggage anymore. I’m interested in winning.

And if we’re serious about protecting Hays County, then it’s time to stop pretending this is a messaging problem. It’s a candidate one.

In 2018, Ruben Becerra won the Hays County Judge race by just 2,649 votes—a margin of 3.4%. That wasn’t a landslide. It was a narrow win in a county undergoing political transition.

Today, that same county is more polarized, more expensive to campaign in, and far more scrutinized. Which means this race won’t be decided by momentum—

It will be decided by public record.

That’s it.

That’s your decision on May 26th.

The Question That Started It All

Over the past several weeks, I analyzed publicly available campaign finance records for Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra, the incumbent in a contentious Democratic primary runoff, to answer what seemed like a simple question:

Who are his top donors—and how is his campaign actually financed?

What I found led somewhere else entirely.

As I reviewed filings dating back to 2018, one thing stood out immediately:
a persistent and significant amount of campaign debt that carried forward year after year.

But then something changed in 2026.

At the start of this year, more than $40,000 in debt simply… disappeared.

Which raised a far more important question:

Where did that money go—and why isn’t it clearly disclosed?

To be clear: this is not an accusation.
But what the records show is a pattern of missing and incomplete information at the exact moment when a re-election campaign was starting.

A Sudden Drop in Campaign Debt

Campaign finance filings show that as of January 15, 2023, the campaign carried approximately:

• ~$56,000 in outstanding loans

Fast forward to the January 15, 2026 filing (covering July 1 – December 31, 2025), and the picture looks very different:

• Outstanding loans: $10,000

• Cash on hand: $1,042.45

• Total expenditures: $8,957.55

👉 That means roughly $46,000 in campaign debt was eliminated before that period.

The Missing Loan Story

As of 2026, only one loan remains to fund Ruben Becerra’s re-election:
a $10,000 loan from his wife, Monica Becerra.

This strongly suggests that the remaining debt—tens of thousands of dollars—was resolved in some other way between 2023 and 2025.

But:

• There is no clear record of when those loans were repaid

• There is no clear record of who was repaid

• There is no clear record of how those repayments occurred

Where Are the Repayments?

Under Texas campaign finance law, loan repayments are required to be disclosed, typically in:

• Schedule F1 – Political Expenditures

However, in the available reports:

• Spending is limited to routine campaign costs (printing, vendors, etc.), business trips with his wife, expensive meals, and payments to his staff for consulting.

• There are no clearly labeled “loan repayment” entries

• No obvious line items corresponding to tens of thousands of dollars in debt reduction

The Transparency Gap

• Loan balance drops from ~$56K → $10K

• But corresponding repayments are not visible in available filings

This does not prove wrongdoing.

But it does establish a clear gap between what changed financially and what is documented publicly.

The Missing Reports Problem

• Key 2025 reports (including mid-year filings) are not available in the online system

• The campaign uses an Electronic Filing Exemption, which means they don’t have to file online.

• A public information request to the County confirms: everything they have is already online

👉 Result: Either the filings are missing, misfiled, or never submitted.

A Pattern of Reporting Issues

Across multiple cycles, filings show:

• Persistent large loan balances with limited interim detail

• Minimal itemization tied to major financial shifts

• Gaps in report availability during key periods

Individually explainable.
Collectively, a pattern.

What This Does—and Doesn’t—Mean

✅ Known:

• ~$56K debt existed

• Reduced to ~$10K

• No clear repayment trail in available reports

⚠️ Unknown:

• Where ~$46K repayment is disclosed

• Who was repaid

• Whether all required reports were filed

Bottom Line

A large financial shift occurred for Ruben Becerra’s campaign debt over the last couple of years.

The public record does not clearly explain it.

That’s not proof of wrongdoing.
But it is a transparency issue that warrants explanation.

The Question Still Stands

Where is the disclosure showing how ~$46,000 in campaign debt was repaid—and who was paid?

📎 Appendix: Sources & Public Records

Primary Filing Records (Hays County Campaign Finance Portal)

• Form C/OH – January 15, 2023 Filing (Loan balance ~$56,000)

• Form C/OH – January 15, 2026 Filing (Loan balance $10,000; reporting period July–Dec 2025)

Relevant Reporting Requirements (Texas Ethics Commission)

• Texas Ethics Commission Campaign Finance Guide (Schedule F1 – Political Expenditures & Loan Repayments)

Public Filing Availability & Gaps

• Hays County Campaign Finance Records Search Portal — review available filings and confirm absence of certain 2025 reports

Filing Method Disclosure

• Electronic Filing Exemption status noted within candidate filings (indicating potential reliance on paper submissions not reflected online)

Records Request Confirmation

• Hays County Elections Office response (via public records request): confirmation that all available filings are already published in the online system

🧾 How to Read These Records

Tip: In the campaign finance portal, search by candidate name (“Ruben Becerra”), then compare loan balances across reporting periods—especially January 2023 vs. January 2026—to see the unexplained change.

Hey there,

You’re here, which already tells me something important: you’re paying attention to the upcoming Democratic Hays County Judge Runoff on May 26th.

This is a space for people who are tired of the spin, allergic to vague talking points, and ready for receipts leading up to it.

This isn’t a blog about “both sides.”

It’s not a place for recycled press releases or carefully worded nothing-statements.

What I’m doing here is simple:

I’m taking claims by the Becerra Campaign and everything I can find about the Hays County Commissioners Court — the meetings, the votes, the filings, the stuff most people don’t have time to dig through — and breaking it down into what actually happened.

Not what he said happened.
Not what his campaign claims happened.
What’s documented. What’s on the record. What you can verify.

Because here’s the thing:
Local politics is where the real decisions get made — and it’s also where misinformation is the easiest to get away with, which is what Becerra’s entire campaign strategy seems to stem from— and that pisses me off.

Purposely misinforming constituents only works if no one’s paying attention.

So I am paying attention.

And now you are too.

You can expect:

• Clear breakdowns of actual decisions (minus the bureaucratic fog)

• Side-by-side “claim vs. reality” receipts

• Context that actually helps you understand what’s at stake

• A little sharp humor, because honestly… how else do we survive this?

Thanks for being here.
Let’s keep it honest.

xo, Jehnny Oh

P.S. If you’ve ever read a headline from one of his social media posts and thought “that can’t be the full story,” you’re in the right place.

Some housekeeping…

If you’re subscribed and can’t find the newsletter, check your Spam folder or Promotions tab, and move it to your primary inbox.

The app is definitely the better browsing experience.

Thanks again, and please tell a few friends if you feel like it. <3

April 5th, 2026 Sunday Edition of the San Marcos Daily Record with Ruben Becerra sticker on front that says he’s the ONLY DEMOCRAT in the race.

In Hays County, something really strange is happening less than two months before one of the most pivotal moments in local politics. A Democrat is being called a “Republican” by her challenger during a runoff for Hays County Judge.

But based on the official Hays County Commissioner Court Vote Tally, Michelle Cohen voted the same way as Ruben Beccera 98.6% of the time in 2025. That’s not occasional alignment. That’s not “sometimes.” That’s nearly every single vote that comes up. How can he be the only Democrat in the race by that logic?

Dr. Michelle Cohen is a Democratic county commissioner elected in 2022 with over 60% of the vote, as noted by The University Star. She has been a resident of Hays County for 40 years and attended Jack C. Hays High School in Kyle. She entered politics in 2018 during the midterm blue wave and reflected to the San Marcos Daily Record in 2023:

“That was the first time I ever ran for anything. I didn’t know anything about politics, I didn’t know anything about campaigning, I just knew at that time I wanted to be part of the women’s movement.”

Prior to that, she had a long career in the private and public sectors. She holds a bachelor’s degree in business, an MBA, and a doctorate in organizational leadership.

Cohen’s policy stance has been clearly shaped by her connection to progressive causes, background in public health, and grassroots organizing. She led pandemic-era outreach to immigrant and low-income residents and has served on local health and housing boards. Her approach prioritizes pragmatic healthcare access, prevention, and community support systems over performative press conferences.

She has a long history with the Democratic Party. She is a Democratic precinct chair and has been a campaign manager for four Democratic campaigns. She is also a sustaining member of the Hays Democratic Party and a sponsor of events.

So the question isn’t “why are people calling her a Republican?”

It’s why does anyone believe it?

What Cohen has actually done

Before the noise, there was a record.

Elected leadership + governance

• Serving as Democratic Hays County Commissioner for Precinct 2 since 2023 (Official commissioner page)

• Represents a dense, fast-growing, blue corridor including Kyle and eastern Buda (Official biography description)

• Served on the Hays CISD School Board, prior to her election to the Commissioners Court (Election coverage confirming background)

Serves on multiple regional and county boards:

• Transportation (CARTS)

• Housing + finance (Capital Area Housing Finance Corporation)

• Food systems (Hays County Food Bank)

• Public health (Chair, Hays County Public Health Advisory Board)
  (Candidate questionnaire detailing board service)
  

👉 That’s not ideological branding. That’s operational governance.

COVID response: where advocacy met action

This part matters— because if you talk to real people in the community, they remember it.

Cohen:

• Helped organize grassroots outreach to Latino and low-income communities

• Built networks through Hays Latinos United

• Supported vaccine access + information distribution
  

👉 This wasn’t messaging—it was direct, on-the-ground organizing during a public health crisis rather than procurement-driven controversy.

Policy accomplishments (from her term)

According to public records and campaign disclosures:

• Helped secure Hays County’s first mobile vaccine unit (Hays Co Official Website)

• Supported the creation of an animal welfare division (San Marcos Daily Record)

• Backed infrastructure and road improvements in East Hays (The Hawk’s Eye - Consulting & News)

• Part of leadership that:

  • Hired the county’s first administrator

  • Expanded county capacity during rapid growth
    

👉 This is what pragmatism looks like: incremental, structural, often invisible work that actually runs a county instead of embroiling it in scandal, financial mismanagement, and ineffective grandstanding.

Advocacy

Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Cohen has:

• Supported expansion of mental health services, including initiatives connected to schools and community programs within the county. She focuses on prevention and access, not just crisis response. (Hays Co Govt Website)

• Supported immigrant communities. Founded Hays Latinos United specifically to address disparities impacting Latino communities and underserved communities for COVID relief. (University Star)

• Mentored for the Seedling Mentor Program, which helps children dealing with the impact of parental incarceration or those who have been deported. (KUT)

• Built coalitions focused on equity and access by consistently supporting food distributions, school supplies, coats and sneakers, and toy drives for families facing hardships. (KBAD)
  

👉 But here’s the difference:

Her advocacy profile is not just ideological; it’s implementable:

services → access → infrastructure.

She’s progressive in outcomes but pragmatic in execution.

Now compare: Cohen vs. Ruben Becerra

This is where the lie really falls apart.

Same governing body

• Both sit on the Hays County Commissioners Court

• Most votes are on:

  • Budget approvals

  • Contracts

  • Infrastructure decisions

👉 These are shared votes, not partisan roll calls. The Hays County Commissioners Court is the county’s governing body. It controls the budget, infrastructure, public health, and law enforcement funding.

Where they align

In practice, Cohen and Becerra have:

• Voted together on county operations and funding items

• Participated in joint decisions of the court

• Been part of unanimous or near-unanimous votes (common in county governance)

Example:

• The court unanimously voted on contractor-related decisions, even amid controversy (San Antonio Express-News)

👉 Translation:

They govern together more than they oppose each other.

Where they differ

The real divide is not party.

It’s style + leadership + approach:

Even reporting notes:

• Cohen has criticized Becerra’s leadership style, not his party identity (San Antonio Express-News)

👉 That’s a governance disagreement. NOT an ideological flip.

So why does he call her a “Republican”?

Because it’s effective if people don’t check. This tactic relies on:

• Low-information voters

• Emotional triggers

• Internal division

It turns:

“I disagree with her decisions”

into:

“She’s not one of us”

The reality voters deserve

• Michelle Cohen is a Democrat

• She has a governing record, not just an advocacy record

• She has:

  • Delivered programs

  • Participated in shared county decisions

  • Built coalitions

And importantly:

👉 Her voting behavior exists within the same system as Becerra’s

👉 Which means disagreements are nuanced— NOT evidence of ideological betrayal

If you’re going to criticize Michelle Cohen, do it honestly— but cite your sources and stand on facts. What voters don’t need are tired tactics from men in power that try to undercut capable, informed women who’ve done the actual work and earned their way to the gavel.