Fatima La'Juan Muse

Texas should respond aggressively to New World screwworm while making sure the burden of containment does not fall unfairly on the ranchers who are doing the right thing.

I support strong surveillance and early detection, adequate staffing for inspectors and veterinarians, rapid diagnostic capacity, targeted animal-movement restrictions when necessary, and continued use of sterile insect technology. Sterile insect releases helped eradicate screwworm from the United States in the past, so this is an example of using a proven scientific tool rather than starting from scratch.

Quarantines and movement restrictions should be based on actual surveillance and risk and should be as geographically targeted as possible. When government restrictions are necessary to protect the broader agricultural economy, Texas should also consider financial assistance for producers who suffer documented losses because they reported an infestation and cooperated with containment efforts. We should never create a system in which a rancher has a financial incentive to delay reporting a suspected case.

I also support sustained investment in agricultural biosecurity beyond the current outbreak, including rural veterinary capacity, Texas university research, improved monitoring technology, and coordination with federal and local officials.

Border and livestock-movement restrictions should be based on current disease surveillance and scientific risk assessment, not politics. As new evidence becomes available, Texas should be willing to adjust its response.

My guiding principle is simple: follow the pest, follow the data, and use the least disruptive measures that will effectively protect Texas livestock and the people whose livelihoods depend on them.

Keywords: Early detection and surveillance; proven sterile insect technology; targeted quarantines; protect cooperating ranchers from extraordinary losses; invest in veterinary and research capacity; evidence-based border controls; follow the data.

Texas can welcome technological investment without giving billion-dollar corporations a blank check.

I support requiring major data center developments to complete independently reviewed assessments of their projected water use, electrical demand, infrastructure needs, traffic, environmental impacts, and effects on surrounding communities before final approval. Those studies should be paid for by the developer, conducted under transparent standards, and made available to the public.

Water use must be treated seriously, particularly in rural communities that depend on groundwater. Large data centers should disclose their projected annual and peak water demand, the source of that water, drought-year usage, effects on aquifers and neighboring wells, and available conservation or reclaimed-water alternatives. When a project creates measurable infrastructure or environmental impacts, the developer should be responsible for appropriate mitigation.

I also believe large new electrical loads should pay a fair share of the transmission, substation, and other infrastructure costs they create. Residential customers and small businesses should not see their utility bills increase because a hyperscale data center requires major new grid infrastructure.

During genuine grid emergencies, hospitals, water systems, emergency services, homes, and other critical needs must come before large industrial computing loads that can safely reduce consumption.

I support giving counties meaningful authority over hyperscale data center development in unincorporated areas, including the ability to establish reasonable requirements for setbacks, noise, water protection, road impacts, emergency planning, and other local concerns. Counties should also have the authority to temporarily pause major developments when additional study of cumulative impacts is necessary. Residents deserve public notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before major agreements are finalized.

I do not support special tax carve-outs for hyperscale data centers. Texas should be a good place to do business, but that does not mean taxpayers should subsidize some of the wealthiest corporations in the world. If a project is economically viable, it should pay its fair share of taxes and infrastructure costs.

I would also prohibit nondisclosure agreements that prevent public officials from informing their constituents about proposed developments with major effects on community resources, and I support financial assurance or bonding for eventual decommissioning so taxpayers are not left with future cleanup costs.

Economic development is valuable, but it should not come at the expense of water security, grid reliability, local communities, or ordinary taxpayers.

Keywords: No special tax carve-outs; growth pays for growth; independent water and energy impact studies; protect residential ratepayers; county authority and local control; public notice and transparency; developer-funded mitigation; protect groundwater; no secret deals.

Texas needs a long-term water strategy that treats conservation, infrastructure, groundwater protection, flood management, water quality, and agriculture as connected issues rather than separate problems.

My first priority would be fixing the infrastructure we already have. Texas should invest in repairing aging pipes, leaking rural water systems, treatment facilities, pumps, wastewater infrastructure, and other systems that waste water before it ever reaches a home, farm, or business. We should expand water reuse, reclaimed-water systems, conservation, groundwater recharge where appropriate, and new water-supply projects when repair and conservation alone are not enough.

Agriculture should be treated as a partner in conservation, not as the enemy. Farmers and ranchers help feed Texas, support rural economies, and often operate on much tighter margins than large industrial users. If we ask producers to invest in more efficient irrigation, soil-moisture technology, precision agriculture, or other conservation measures that benefit the entire aquifer, Texas should help make those investments affordable through grants, cost sharing, technical assistance, and other incentives.

I support strong local groundwater management and better scientific monitoring of aquifer conditions. Texas should make it easier and more affordable for communities that want groundwater protections to establish and operate groundwater conservation districts, including access to technical assistance and reliable data.

At the same time, I believe we should distinguish ordinary agricultural use from large new industrial or commercial groundwater withdrawals. Major new industrial users should be required to disclose projected withdrawals, assess effects on aquifers and neighboring wells, demonstrate conservation efforts, and address harm caused to surrounding water supplies.

I would not support a one-size-fits-all statewide requirement to meter every agricultural well. Aquifers and local conditions vary considerably across Texas. I do support expanded voluntary and incentivized agricultural metering, allowing local groundwater districts to require measurement when conditions warrant it, and providing state assistance so the cost does not fall entirely on producers.

On water quality, identifiable polluters should be held accountable. For agricultural runoff and other diffuse pollution sources, I favor conservation partnerships, technical assistance, and practical mitigation before punitive approaches whenever those methods can effectively protect water quality.

Finally, Texas should stop treating flooding and drought as unrelated. Where technically appropriate, flood-control investments should also consider stormwater capture, retention, aquifer recharge, and other ways to preserve water for future use.

Conservation should help keep Texas farms productive, not regulate them out of existence.

Keywords: Fix aging infrastructure first; agriculture as a conservation partner; incentives instead of unfunded mandates; protect groundwater; stronger scrutiny of large industrial withdrawals; local groundwater management; hold polluters accountable; connect flood and drought planning.

Texas needs a reliable electric grid, but reliability should not become an excuse for blank checks, poor planning, or shifting unnecessary costs onto residential customers.

I support maintaining and enforcing strong weatherization requirements for generators and transmission facilities. Compliance should be verified through meaningful inspections, and there should be real consequences when companies fail to meet required standards. Reliability also requires fuel security; dispatchable generation is only useful if it can actually obtain fuel during extreme conditions.

Texas should maintain a diverse energy portfolio. I do not believe reliability should become a partisan contest between natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear power, battery storage, or other technologies. We should evaluate resources based on reliability, affordability, resilience, environmental impact, and the role each can play in supporting the overall system.

I support strategic expansion of transmission infrastructure, but major investments should be based on validated demand rather than speculative projects that may never be built. Companies proposing extremely large new electrical loads should demonstrate meaningful financial commitment before Texans are asked to finance major infrastructure on their behalf.

Large new industrial customers should pay an appropriate share of the grid costs they create. A Texas family should not pay a higher electric bill because a hyperscale data center requires a new substation or transmission expansion.

During grid emergencies, large flexible industrial loads should be expected to reduce consumption when it can be done safely so that hospitals, water systems, emergency services, homes, and other critical needs can remain powered.

I also support energy-efficiency and demand-reduction programs when they are more cost-effective than building additional generation or transmission. Helping homes, schools, businesses, and public facilities improve HVAC systems, insulation, energy controls, storage, and other efficiency measures can reduce peak demand without sacrificing safety or comfort.

Texas should also strengthen backup-power and resilience capabilities for hospitals, water and wastewater systems, emergency facilities, shelters, and other critical community infrastructure.

Finally, when the state provides financing or other support to private energy developers, Texans should receive a measurable public benefit in return. Projects should have enforceable performance requirements, taxpayer protections, accountability, and clear reliability benefits.

Public money should buy a public benefit.

Keywords: Reliability without blank checks; enforce weatherization; diverse energy portfolio; validated demand before major transmission spending; large loads pay their share; protect critical services; energy efficiency and resilience; accountability for state-supported projects.

Texas has an enormous stake in maintaining a strong and stable research infrastructure. Our universities, hospitals, scientists, clinicians, technicians, and research staff contribute to medical innovation, economic development, workforce growth, and discoveries that improve lives.

I oppose arbitrary blanket caps on legitimate research infrastructure costs. Facilities and administrative expenses are not simply unnecessary overhead; they can include laboratories, utilities, information technology, regulatory compliance, hazardous-material management, data security, and other systems required to conduct responsible research.

I support continuing a negotiated, evidence-based reimbursement system in which institutions document legitimate costs and federal agencies review those costs. At the same time, taxpayer dollars should always be subject to transparency, auditing, and accountability. The answer to concerns about research costs should be careful oversight, not an arbitrary one-size-fits-all reduction that could destabilize institutions conducting very different types of research.

I also support greater predictability in federal research funding. Multi-year scientific studies, clinical trials, laboratories, and research teams cannot responsibly plan when funding rules change abruptly in the middle of ongoing work. Significant changes in federal research policy should be evidence-based, transparent, and implemented through an orderly process with adequate transition periods.

Texas should not automatically replace every federal funding reduction dollar-for-dollar. That could create an unsustainable open-ended obligation for state taxpayers. However, I would support carefully targeted temporary bridge funding when a sudden federal disruption threatens high-value ongoing Texas research, critical clinical trials, or specialized research capacity that would be difficult or impossible to rebuild once lost.

Research infrastructure is also human infrastructure. When research funding becomes unstable, Texas risks losing scientists, clinicians, technicians, and years of specialized expertise. Those consequences should be considered when policymakers evaluate proposed cuts.

Fiscal responsibility does not mean starving research of the infrastructure necessary to conduct it. It means paying legitimate costs, requiring accountability, protecting valuable long-term investments, and ensuring taxpayers receive meaningful value from those investments.

Keywords: Protect Texas research infrastructure; oppose arbitrary blanket caps; negotiated evidence-based reimbursement; transparency and auditing; stable long-term funding; protect ongoing research and clinical trials; targeted bridge funding when necessary; research infrastructure is human infrastructure.

Public-health policy works best when people trust the information they receive. I do not believe the right response to vaccine concerns is to ridicule or dismiss parents who have questions. Policymakers and health professionals should listen respectfully, provide clear and accurate information about risks and benefits, acknowledge uncertainty when it exists, and make credible medical guidance accessible.

At the same time, infectious diseases do not stop with one household. Vaccination decisions can affect infants, immunocompromised individuals, and others who may be unable to protect themselves. Policymakers therefore have an obligation to consider both individual choice and community health.

I support maintaining Texas’s existing school vaccination framework, including legitimate medical, religious, and reasons-of-conscience exemptions. However, I believe Texas should restore a more deliberate and accountable process for obtaining a conscience exemption rather than making blank exemption affidavits instantly downloadable. Families who have sincere objections would still retain the right to seek an exemption but exercising that exemption should involve an affirmative request rather than making opting out as frictionless as downloading an ordinary school form.

I also support strong outbreak-specific protections. During a confirmed outbreak or meaningful exposure, public-health officials and schools must be able to use evidence-based measures to protect students, staff, and vulnerable members of the community, including temporary exclusion from school when medically appropriate.

Texas should also invest in vaccine access, public education, trusted community partnerships, and clear communication from medical professionals. Barriers such as cost, transportation, lack of a regular healthcare provider, or difficulty obtaining appointments should not prevent families who want vaccination from receiving it.

Any future changes to Texas vaccination or exemption policy should be informed by Texas-specific disease and exemption data, infectious-disease specialists, pediatricians, epidemiologists, schools, parents, and local public-health professionals.

The goal should not be to win an ideological argument. It should be to prevent avoidable illness and death while maintaining public trust and respecting legitimate concerns.

Keywords: Listen without dismissing concerns; maintain current exemption rights; restore a deliberate conscience-exemption process; strong outbreak protections; improve vaccine access and education; protect vulnerable Texans; use Texas-specific evidence.

Scientific evidence should be foundational to policymaking, particularly when government is making decisions about public health, agriculture, water, energy, environmental regulation, infrastructure, or emerging technology.

My approach would begin with the best available evidence before deciding what I want the answer to be. Policymakers should not begin with an ideological conclusion and then search for an expert or study that supports it.

When scientific claims conflict, I would examine the quality and weight of the evidence. That includes whether research has been peer reviewed, whether findings have been replicated, the size and quality of the evidence base, whether multiple independent sources reach similar conclusions, the qualifications of the experts involved, the relevance of their expertise, known limitations, and potential financial or organizational conflicts of interest.

I do not believe that simply finding two people who disagree means there are automatically two equally credible scientific positions. Sometimes the evidence is genuinely uncertain. At other times, decades of replicated research overwhelmingly support one conclusion while a small number of claims point elsewhere. Policymakers have an obligation to understand that distinction.

A genuine scientific consensus deserves substantial weight because it generally reflects a large body of accumulated evidence. At the same time, science must always remain open to testing and revision. I would respect scientific consensus while remaining willing to reconsider policy when credible new evidence changes our understanding.

Policymakers should also be transparent about uncertainty. The public deserves to know what we understand, what remains uncertain, what assumptions are being made, what risks are being considered, and what new evidence might cause a policy to change.

Uncertainty should not always mean inaction. When the potential harm is severe and the available evidence strongly suggests preventive action is warranted, precaution may be appropriate even before every question has been resolved. The response, however, should remain proportional to the evidence and the potential risk.

When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, elected officials must listen carefully to the public. Community values, lived experiences, costs, rights, and acceptable tradeoffs are legitimate parts of democratic policymaking. But public opinion should not require government to distort or ignore factual evidence.

Experts help us understand the facts and likely consequences of different choices. The public helps determine values and priorities. Elected officials are responsible for responsibly integrating both.

Finally, policymakers should explain the evidence behind major decisions and be willing to change course when better evidence emerges. Changing policy because the evidence changed is responsible leadership, not weakness.

Science should inform policy, not dictate values—but policy should never require us to ignore facts.

Keywords: Evidence before ideology; evaluate the weight and quality of research; scientific consensus deserves substantial weight; transparency about uncertainty; proportional precaution; listen to public values without ignoring facts; explain decisions; change policy when the evidence changes.