Nelson Range

No Answer

Strongly Agree

The issue with this question is that it isn't in any conceivable place the government's role to "allow" or "disallow" anything in this matter. Convictions and stances on this issue are held firmly on all sides; disagreeing with what another individual believes is not the basis of establishing criminal law. I personally don't advocate the practice of abortion, and would wish tomorrow that it would cease entirely. Likewise, I cannot envision an action appropriate that would cease the practice which would not also violate the privacy and self-ownership of the prospective parents. If such a private decision is made criminal by inserting the ominous and unwieldy apparatus of government bureaucracy today, what would there be to prevent at some future date, the same exact practice will not be made mandatory? This is within the purview of family, faith, and health care, and is most definitely not a matter the state or federal government can provide any meaningful outcome.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

The state court system and correctional system is incredibly large and difficult to keep funded. Making smart improvements at the most local level possible will go far in reducing this cost. Texas arrests 890 per

Agree

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Yes

The original colonies arose partly out of protest of the existing system of government, which often involved church sanction of the throne, or government mandate of the particulars of religious worship. It is incredibly important that religious liberty be maintained. This protection extends 2 ways, in that government is constitutionally limited from making legal limits or prohibitions to practice of religious belief. Likewise, religious institutions cannot impose matters of faith in establishing laws that apply to all. Because all are free to worship as they choose, none are free to restrict the beliefs of others or incorporate their specific beliefs into law, so long as others are not harmed or defrauded as a result. It's stated clearly in both the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution.

Strongly Disagree

Government subsidization of what should be a free and open market will always lead to diminished value and a sub-standard product, because subsidization and favoritism in government are no different than monopolization of private business. The primary means to improve the quality and accessibility of healthcare to most Americans is to lift restrictions to a free and open market and cease government involvement in it entirely. Without the strong motivating force of market competition, government-subsidized healthcare has little reason to reduce bureaucratic bloat, wasteful spending, and prevent corruption. A completely free and open market of private healthcare, with reasonable policies preventing actual (not imagined) discrimination would improve both cost to all and access to those who need it most. Today there are also charitable organizations willing to help those incapable of providing their own coverage, although free market competition would not require this to operate.

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

The term "immigration" is commonly misinterpreted in public speech from the concept of "naturalization" to citizenship. Citizenship should be limited to those agreeing to affirm the identity of and responsibilities entailed by the country offering this action. Simple movement of individuals across privately owned property is a matter best left between the property owner and the individual. State government and Federal government has no stake in this matter, therefore has no claims to make in either promotion or prohibition of it.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

I believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God. For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven; He became a man by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us, he suffered and was buried. The third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. I believe these things not because someone commanded me to believe them, and not because I found them to be the most intellectually satisfactory. I believe them because He has made a real and lasting change to my life, my motivations, my peace, and my relationships with others. I believe them because I see the change He brings to others who believe and take action to follow Him with all of their life's pursuits.

No Answer

This question ridiculously limits the vast experiences and convictions of a single human being to a simple linear scale. Each individual has a unique set of gifts and perspective on the world that no one else will have. Each of the topics listed: economic, social, foreign policy, and immigration will evoke a wide range of opinions from individuals, and the act of assigning valuations of opinion have birthed the severe tribalism that today thrives in our country.

The duty of State House Representative is to adequately convey the public will to enact or reform legislation and to protect the inherent rights and freedoms of each citizen of their district. This requires no special education or qualification, and having none helps demonstrate there are no further unseen motivations for supporting laws that benefit corporations, other governments, or nonprofits that are not interested in protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens. Article 3, Sec. 7. QUALIFICATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES. No person shall be a Representative, unless he be a citizen of the United States, and, at the time of his election, a qualified voter of this State, and shall have been a resident of this State two years next preceding his election, the last year thereof a resident of the district for which he shall be chosen, and shall have attained the age of twenty-one years.

No, none.

I'm a commonsense Texan willing to listen to any who have something to say. The atmosphere today has become far too divisive and tribalistic. This country has an admirable heritage of hearing out the opinions and views of all, and finding common ground. We need desperately to find this heritage again.

No Answer

Disagree

Yes

None, other than verification of the individual purchasing the item. Limiting purchase of firearms accomplishes 2 things: ensures that only criminals with malicious intent possess firearms; and places the restriction to possess in the hands of governments, who have incentive for reducing their sale so that none are able to offer opposition should unreasonable rule be enforced.

Agree

Agree

Disagree

End corporate subsidy and tax breaks. Free markets do not require public subsidy to be profitable, and public funds such as the "Texas Enterprise Fund" and others are an entirely inappropriate use of taxpayer resources, which are without voter consent. Repeal of ad valorem property taxation. There is currently a multi-partisan initiative to end several extraneous taxes levied on the public, the largest of which being property taxes. Demanding taxation of property that is already purchased and owned by an individual is unethical, and jeopardizing home ownership from failure to pay the state amounts to little more than feudalistic extortion. HB 3247 83(R) is a past record of the support such a measure would receive. Decriminalization of drug possession. Large numbers of arrests and incarcerations each year in Texas are attributed to social choices. This overloads the penal system and reduces the space needed for sentencing offenders of violent crimes.

This question is quizzical, and seems something is being suggested here further than what is at face-value. Racism is a real and present threat that must be approached as a social issue. It, much like many other issues, cannot simply be erased by passage of law. Individuals must be willing to participate on a personal level to ensure that racism ends, and to guard against allowing it to pervade public policy in any manner. I see no immediate threat to domestic security inherent to that conversation.