Jarell Carr

At the end of its party convention in San Antonio, the Texas Grand Old Party (GOP) released a draft of its official platform on May 25. In the draft, the party stated its beliefs and electoral goals.

The new Texas GOP platform does not properly address the deep problems facing our state, such as the increasing cost of living, skyrocketing summer heat waves from climate change and the controversy caused by Texas’ near-complete illegalization of abortions.

One concerning proposal highlighted in the platform is to have the state legislator directly govern the city of Austin. The proposal would undoubtedly cause many issues for the state and city as a whole. After all, does the Texas GOP seriously suggest a distant legislator is better fit to manage Austin’s sewers, electricity, rivers and commercial activity than city management?

However, the Texas GOP does not lay out an actual plan for how they would directly manage Austin or smooth the concerns of the nearly one million residents who would lose their ability to govern themselves directly.

Another troubling proposal is to ban all members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from attending Texas public schools. Again, this proposal, made without any actual plan, is part and parcel with a separate anti-Chinese GOP proposal. Another proposal within the platform—and itself a proposed bill in the Texas senate—would ban Chinese citizens from buying property in Texas, regardless of whether they were also legal residents or even citizens of the United States.

These proposals are both done under the guise of national security. Republican State Senator Lois Kolkhorst introduced the bill to the Texas Senate and said, “Passing this law delivers some basic safeguards to ensure Texans remain in control of Texas land.”

Yet, in reality, these acts would only harm a minority group in Texas by limiting both their ability to receive an education and even buy a home for themselves.

While these components of the draft are alarming, the most disconcerting part is the hardcore anti-civil rights agenda being pushed forward by the Texas GOP.

The platform’s section on “Homosexuality and Gender Issues” opens with the utterly deranged line that “Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice” and later doubles down on that sentiment by stating,  “We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and family between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western Civilization.”

Outside of the ill-formed notion of heterosexual dominance in Western history, the Texas GOP is trying to re-litigate an issue that 44% of Texans agreed on in 2023: that same-sex marriage should be legal.

It goes without saying that this outdated homophobic agenda stands directly opposed to the makeup of many public Texan institutions, such as Texas State, which have LGBTQ populations.

Programs such as Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI), which was recently banned by the Texas Legislature, and other resources for LGBTQ students such as counseling, medical support and financial aid are under attack by the Texas GOP.

The platform is handling the issue of abortion in a dissatisfying way as well, directly stating their plan to “abolish abortion,” much like their other proposals.

Their plan regarding abortion completely ignores the health risks of banning this medical practice. One study by researchers from Johns Hopkins University found infant mortality rose by 8% alone after the near-total banning of abortion in Texas. Yet, the Texas GOP is ignoring this fact and the fact 80% of Texans support abortions for women whose lives are endangered and for sexual assault-related pregnancies.

These proposals by the Texas GOP can and will impact the residents of San Marcos. The best thing residents can do is educate themselves on the reality of these ideas to make informed decisions for themselves and others on the ballot.

– James Phillips is an international relations junior

The University Star welcomes Letters to the Editor from its readers. All submissions are reviewed and considered by the Editor in Chief and Opinions Editor for publication. Not all letters are guaranteed for publication.