Phil Martin

Agree

If human life has inherent worth, that worth doesn't switch on partway through development or switch off before a natural end. Legal protection should track the whole continuum of human life - from conception through natural death - rather than drawing lines based on convenience, dependency, or stage of development.

The school's role should be limited and supportive, not central. Its first responsibility is to involve the student's parents - this is squarely a family matter, not one for the school to navigate on its own. From there, the school can offer counseling and connect the family to outside resources and support services, but it shouldn't act as an intermediary making decisions or providing care that belongs with parents and family.

Agree

Student loan forgiveness doesn't erase the debt - it transfers it to taxpayers who never took out the loans, including those who paid their own way through school or chose not to attend college at all. That's not fairness, it's a cost shift, and it rewards the decision to borrow at the expense of people who made different choices or already met their obligations.

Education funding should be primarily a state and local responsibility, not a federal one - local communities know their schools' needs better than Washington does. Where federal dollars are involved at all, they should be limited to Pre-K through 12th grade. Funding college is not an appropriate federal role; higher education is a personal investment, not a public entitlement.

To me, it means public schools should stay focused on education, not religious instruction. Teaching faith is the parents' job, not the school's. With so many different religions represented in a public setting, there's no way to give each equal time and treatment without eating into instructional time - and since school exists to educate, that's where its focus should remain.

Neutral

Genuinely conflicted here. My family came over as legal immigrants, so I don't take that process lightly. At the same time, I recognize two different realities within illegal immigration: some individuals cause real harm, and enforcement against that matters. But many others work hard, assimilate, and are good people. I can't collapse that into a single yes or no.

Strongly Disagree

This is consistent with my other answers: parents, not the school, should be the ones directing decisions around pregnancy and gender-related care. Bringing organizations like Planned Parenthood into schools as an instructional or service resource inserts an outside provider with its own agenda into a role that belongs to families, not the school system.

Strongly Agree

Learning requires an environment where students and teachers feel safe and where disruption doesn't derail the classroom for everyone else. Consequences aren't about punishment for its own sake - they establish clear expectations and boundaries, which is what actually makes order, focus, and real learning possible.

Strongly Agree

Students can't understand their rights, responsibilities, or system of government without a solid grounding in founding documents like the Declaration and Constitution. That knowledge naturally cultivates patriotism - not blind allegiance, but an informed appreciation for the principles and sacrifices that built the country they're inheriting.

Strongly Agree

I view myself as a Ronald Reagan Republican - control belongs primarily with local communities and states, with the federal government serving as a backstop and support, not a driving force. Education is one of the clearest examples: decisions about curriculum and schools should be made close to the students they affect, not dictated from Washington.

It should include: abstinence; consent; contraceptive methods; human anatomy/the reproductive system; physical and emotional health outcomes and stages of pregnancy and fetal development IT SHOULD NOT INCLUDE: abortion methods and side effects; sex acts and pleasures of sex; sexual orientation and gender identity

Strongly Disagree

UIL eligibility turns on enrollment status, not a protected trait, so courts apply only rational-basis review. The district needs merely a legitimate reason: grades and attendance can be verified only for students under its own curriculum. Opting out of public school is voluntary, with known tradeoffs, not an imposed exclusion. Where states wanted homeschoolers included, legislatures acted via statute — courts never held the rule unconstitutional.

Mathematics Science Language Arts American History Civics Personal Finances Information Technology Vocational Learning Foreign Language Physical Fitness Art & Music Note: Critical Race Theory, Gender Identity, Political Activism, Sexuality, and Social Emotional Learning were omitted.

Agree

Academic achievement gives students the tools to think and act competently; character formation gives them the values to use those tools well. Self-government depends on citizens who are both capable and principled - skilled enough to participate, and grounded enough in civic virtue and tradition to sustain the institutions that make self-government possible in the first place.

Disagree

The competition model assumes public schools can respond to lost enrollment by simply improving. In practice, school choice pulls funding and students away unevenly, leaving districts with fixed costs (buildings, staff, transportation) but shrinking resources. That strains the district's ability to allocate resources effectively, weakening the very schools competition is supposed to improve.

Strongly Disagree

These spaces exist specifically because of biological differences - physical safety, privacy, and fairness in competition. Allowing biological males into women's sports, shelters, locker rooms, or prisons undermines the very purpose these protections serve, particularly for vulnerable populations like abuse survivors and incarcerated women. Sex-based distinctions here aren't arbitrary; they're the reason these spaces were created in the first place.

I am a lifelong Roman Catholic and a strong believer - my faith shapes how I see the world and how I try to live. At the same time, I believe deeply in religious freedom: everyone has the right to their own beliefs, or none at all. What matters most to me isn't which path someone follows, but the substance of who they are - being a genuinely good person, in character and in action, inside and out.

Strongly Agree

Parents bear primary responsibility for their children - no one has a greater stake in a child's wellbeing or knows them better. Government's role should be to support and protect that responsibility, not override it. Recognizing parental rights over health and educational decisions isn't just sound policy; it reflects where the fundamental duty of care actually resides.

Strongly Agree

Strongly agree. This mirrors what I said about faith - character is what actually matters, not the categories people are born into. Judging someone by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is simply the natural extension of that same principle: substance over surface, who a person truly is over any label attached to them.

Neutral

I hold the sacrament of marriage exactly as stated: a sacred union of one man, one woman, and God - something no government can define or alter. That said, I separate the sacrament from the legal question. Government has legitimate authority to recognize civil unions; that recognition is a distinct, civil matter and should occur outside the church, not within the sacrament itself.

Strongly Agree

Compassion for someone struggling isn't the same as affirming the condition itself. Both are, at root, mental health conditions -and the standard of care for any mental health condition should be treatment aimed at healing, not validation of the belief driving the distress. Affirmation without treatment doesn't help people long-term; it entrenches the condition.

Agree

Literary merit is a real, distinguishable category, and we already have qualified people to assess it - school librarians with master's degrees in library science, trained specifically in collection development and age-appropriate curation. We should lean on that expertise rather than blanket obscenity standards that don't account for context or literary value.

Strongly Disagree

Voting is one of the most consequential civic acts a person can take, and verifying identity is a basic safeguard for its integrity. Photo ID is already required for routine tasks like boarding a flight or opening a bank account; requiring it to vote isn't an unreasonable burden, it's a baseline protection against fraud and a way to maintain public confidence in election outcomes.

No.

No.

2014 Republican Primary 2016 Republican Primary 2018 Republican Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election 2022 Republican Primary 2022 General Election

Republican.

Lean Conservative

Strongly Agree