Brittany Black
DemocraticQ1 In June 2026, USDA confirmed New World screwworm in Texas livestock for the first time in decades; as of early July, dozens of infestations have been confirmed across South Texas (USDA APHIS , 2026). USDA estimates a full-scale outbreak comparable to past infestations could cost the regional economy billions of dollars (USDA APHIS). What policies, if any, would you support to respond to the current outbreak and improve Texas’s agricultural biosecurity (practices and safeguards that prevent pests and diseases from spreading through livestock populations), and what evidence or considerations would inform that approach?
Texas agriculture is too important to our economy and food supply to wait until an outbreak becomes a crisis. I support a coordinated state and federal response that prioritizes rapid detection, livestock surveillance, veterinary capacity, movement controls when scientifically justified, and proven eradication tools such as sterile insect release.
We should also invest in long-term biosecurity: stronger monitoring at high-risk entry points, better communication with ranchers and veterinarians, and emergency resources that can be deployed quickly without leaving individual producers to shoulder the cost of protecting the broader agricultural economy.
My decisions would be guided by USDA and Texas animal-health data, veterinary and entomological expertise, economic impact assessments, and the effectiveness of previous eradication efforts. Good agricultural policy should protect both producers and consumers while responding proportionately to the actual risk.
Keywords: Protect Texas agriculture; rapid detection; biosecurity; science-based response; support Texas ranchers; prevention costs less than crisis
Q2 Texas is on track to become the nation’s leading data center market within the next three years (Bloom Energy, 2026). The state’s grid operator has more than doubled its 2030 forecast for data center power demand over the past year (ERCOT, 2025). Such growth brings economic opportunity while placing significant demands on water, land, and energy systems, raising questions about tax incentives, utility costs, and local community impacts. What policies, if any, would you support around water/energy allocation, tax incentives, or utility costs for data center development in Texas, and what evidence informs that position?
Texas should welcome innovation and economic development, but growth has to pay its own way. Data centers can consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, and families and existing businesses should not be forced to subsidize the infrastructure required to serve exceptionally large new industrial loads.
I support requiring large-load developments to provide transparent projections of their electricity and water needs, demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity, and bear an appropriate share of grid and transmission upgrades attributable to their projects. During periods of scarcity, residential customers and essential services must be protected.
Tax incentives should also be tied to measurable public benefits — including permanent Texas jobs, infrastructure investment, and community impact — rather than awarded simply because a project is large.
Texas can lead in technology without writing blank checks to some of the world’s largest corporations. Economic development should make communities stronger, not make residents’ electric and water bills higher.
Keywords: Growth should pay its own way; protect ratepayers; data-center accountability; grid capacity; water conservation; responsible economic development
Q3 Texas faces flooding while simultaneously experiencing water scarcity driven by drought, groundwater depletion, and population growth (TWDB, 2024). Hundreds of Texas waterways are listed as impaired for bacteria, mercury, and other pollutants, threatening water quality for communities across the state (TCEQ, 2024). Agriculture is the largest consumer of the state’s groundwater, yet it is also well positioned to be a valuable partner in conservation efforts. What policies, if any, would you support to improve Texas’s water infrastructure, and what considerations would guide your approach to the state’s agricultural economy?
Texas cannot continue treating flooding, drought, water quality, and infrastructure as separate problems. They are parts of the same long-term water challenge.
I support major investment in repairing aging and leaking water systems, expanding water reuse and conservation, improving stormwater and flood-control infrastructure, protecting groundwater supplies, and strengthening water-quality monitoring. Rapidly growing communities need infrastructure investment to keep pace with population growth rather than continually playing catch-up.
Agriculture must be a partner in this effort, not treated as the enemy. Farmers and ranchers feed Texas and support a major part of our economy. I would favor incentives and technical assistance for efficient irrigation, drought-resistant practices, conservation technology, and voluntary water-saving measures that reduce consumption without threatening agricultural livelihoods.
Our goal should be to preserve Texas water for future generations while protecting the people and industries that depend on it today.
Keywords: Texas water security; fix aging infrastructure; conservation; flood resilience; protect groundwater; partner with farmers
Q4 The Texas power grid continues to face strain from extreme heat and increasing demand, including from data centers. What policies, if any, would you support to improve grid reliability for Texas consumers and businesses?
Grid reliability is fundamental infrastructure. Texans should not have to wonder whether the electricity will stay on during the hottest or coldest days of the year.
I support an all-of-the-above reliability strategy: additional generation, energy storage, stronger transmission infrastructure, weatherization, demand-response programs, and faster deployment of resources that can improve reliability. Texas should evaluate energy sources based on reliability, cost, scalability, and their ability to strengthen the grid rather than political ideology.
We also have to plan for extraordinary new demand from data centers and other large industrial users. Large loads should be connected where and when the grid can reliably accommodate them, and the cost of infrastructure needed primarily to serve those projects should not simply be shifted onto families and small businesses.
Texas is an energy state. We have the technology and expertise to build one of the strongest grids in the country. We need the planning and accountability to match it.
Keywords: Reliable Texas grid; all-of-the-above energy; protect ratepayers; storage and transmission; weatherization; large-load accountability
Q5 Texas universities and hospitals receive approximately $1.9 billion annually in NIH funding across 118 research sites, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and driving medical and scientific innovation (FASEB, 2025). NIH grants reimburse institutions for both direct research costs and indirect costs, the facilities, administration, and support infrastructure that make research possible. A 15% indirect cost cap proposed by NIH in 2025, currently blocked by federal courts, would sharply reduce this reimbursement below the rates Texas institutions have negotiated, cutting an estimated $300 million in annual support that institutions would need to absorb or backfill (Kamerlin & Elias, 2025). What policies, if any, would you support at the state or federal level to protect the long-term stability of Texas’s research infrastructure, and why?
Texas should be competing to attract researchers, physicians, scientists, biotechnology companies, and federal research dollars — not creating conditions that drive them elsewhere.
I support protecting stable, competitive research funding for Texas universities and medical institutions. Indirect research costs are not meaningless administrative expenses; they help support laboratories, equipment, cybersecurity, regulatory compliance, facilities, and other infrastructure necessary for research to occur.
Changes to federal reimbursement should be based on transparent evidence about actual research costs rather than an arbitrary one-size-fits-all percentage. At the state level, Texas should also maintain strong research institutions and consider strategic investments when federal changes threaten research capacity that is particularly important to our economy or public health.
Research funding creates jobs, trains our future workforce, produces medical breakthroughs, and attracts private investment. Protecting Texas’s research infrastructure is an economic-development strategy as much as a scientific one.
Keywords: Protect Texas research; medical innovation; Texas jobs; research infrastructure; competitive universities; evidence-based funding
Q6 Texas kindergartners’ measles vaccination rate fell to 93.24% in the 2024-2025 school year, a decline from prior years amid a national resurgence (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2025). That year, Texas recorded 762 confirmed measles cases, including the deaths of two unvaccinated school-age children, in the state’s largest outbreak since 1992 (Texas DSHS, 2025). Measles can cause serious complications: roughly 1 in 5 unvaccinated people who contract it are hospitalized, and it can lead to pneumonia, brain swelling, or death (CDC). As a policymaker, how do you approach engaging with communities that have concerns about infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety, and what policies, if any, would you support related to these issues, and why?
Public health works best when people trust the information they receive. When parents or community members have questions about vaccines, government should not dismiss them. We should listen, answer questions transparently, acknowledge uncertainty when it exists, and make credible medical information easy to access.
At the same time, policymakers have a responsibility to take infectious disease seriously. The 2025 Texas measles outbreak resulted in hundreds of infections, hospitalizations, and the deaths of two children. Decisions involving outbreaks should therefore be informed by epidemiologists, pediatricians, infectious-disease specialists, local health professionals, and the best available scientific evidence.
I support strong disease surveillance, rapid outbreak response, access to vaccination, public education, and transparent reporting of both benefits and risks.
People deserve both respect and accurate information. We need to do both build trust and protect public health.
Keywords: Trust through transparency; evidence-based public health; protect children; informed communities; disease prevention; access to vaccination
Q7 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge the helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such policy making related to public health, energy, agriculture, and environmental regulation. What role, if any, should scientific evidence and expert input play in your policymaking process, and how would you evaluate competing or uncertain scientific claims when making policy decisions? What role, if any, should that process play when scientific consensus and public opinion diverge?
Scientific evidence should play a major role in policymaking because good government requires understanding the likely consequences of our decisions.
That does not mean treating every scientific claim as equally credible. I would look at the quality and reproducibility of the research, the strength of the underlying data, peer review, relevant professional expertise, conflicts of interest, and whether findings are supported by multiple independent sources.
When credible experts disagree, policymakers should understand why. Sometimes disagreement reflects legitimate uncertainty, and policy should acknowledge that uncertainty rather than pretending it does not exist. We should continue evaluating new evidence and adjust policies when the facts change.
Public opinion also matters in a representative democracy, particularly when deciding how policies are implemented. But public opinion cannot change physical or biological facts. When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, my responsibility is to listen to constituents, communicate the evidence clearly, weigh consequences and individual rights, and make the decision I believe best protects the people I represent.
Good policy should be evidence-based, transparent, accountable, and willing to change when better evidence emerges.
Keywords: Evidence over ideology; follow the data; transparency; independent expertise; acknowledge uncertainty; listen to constituents; accountable policymaking