AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Mitch Little is the GOP candidate for state House District 65, northwest of Dallas. He will face Democrat Detrick Deburr in the November election, but Little is favored to win in the Republican-leaning district.
With expectations that he’ll be in the House in January, Little is signing the “Contract with Texas” — a commitment to procedural changes that some House conservatives say will make the chamber more efficient in passing conservative priorities.
Little, who served as a lawyer for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton during his impeachment trial, discussed the contract and Paxton’s legal status with KXAN’s Capitol correspondent Ryan Chandler.
Ryan Chandler: I have your “Contract with Texas” here. For people who are unaware, run us through the problems that you see existing now in the Texas House and what you would push for when you are a freshman member next year.
Mitch Little: “Yes, Ryan. So I think, fundamentally, what March 5 told us in terms of the election and the results that happened there, Texans are fundamentally annoyed, frustrated, disappointed with the obstruction, the dysfunction within the Texas House.”
“Our desire in creating the ‘Contract with Texas’ is to create a framework where a future speaker is going to have a chance to succeed in ways that are going to inspire Republican voters and empower people in the legislature to do the things that they send us down there to do.”
“Some of the fundamental changes that we’re wanting to make are ensuring that we elect a speaker from within the Republican caucus alone, that we remove the process or remove the practice of having Democrats chairing committees in the House, and fundamentally, too, we want to limit the term of the speakership.”
“Because historically in Texas, the role of speaker has been the role of a servant, someone who has stepped out of their everyday legislation job in order to lead the body, and fundamentally, this has kind of transformed over time into an imperial speakership where power is centralized and really taken out of the hands of the state representatives. We need to fix that.”
Speaker Phelan on his part has heralded the last two sessions that he has presided over as the most conservative in Texas history, and I think a lot of conservatives saw wins, from abortion, access to gun rights to border funding. What legislation did you see fail in this last session that you think should and could pass next session, if the reforms you’re pushing for are implemented?
“Great questions. Fundamentally, the border security bill lost under his leadership, that should have never happened, HB 20.”
“We should have been able to get the bill dealing with the ownership of real estate in the state of Texas by China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, we should have been able to get that out of the state affairs committee. Under his leadership, we were unable to. Under his leadership, we were unable to pass school choice.”
“These are legislative priorities that the voters, the grassroots state Republican executive committee, the convention has. These are the priorities that have bubbled up to the legislation, and we should have passed them. We were unable to for whatever reason.”
“I think that voters in Texas will have an opportunity to see those priorities come to fruition under someone else’s leadership that is not so concerned with what’s going on down in Austin, the lobby, etc.”
Now, you said someone else’s leadership. I know you were present for Rep. Oliverson’s announcement that he’s running for speaker. Are you throwing your support behind him? Are you keeping your powder dry? Do you know of anybody in mind that you would like to see as Speaker?
“I hate that metaphor, keeping your powder dry, it infers that we’re gonna have a fight. My hope is that we won’t have a fight.”
“I think some things that Dr. Oliverson had to say were inspiring, they’re pointing us in the right direction.”
“I don’t know that we fully know who all the candidates for speaker will be yet, but I will just say that I’m encouraged at how the public narrative is shifting away from how things had been done historically, under previous Republican leadership in the Texas House. I think we’ve got a shot to make the reforms that we’re trying to point the nose of the boat at.”
You must have some names at the top of your mind, though?
“There’s plenty of names, there are over 80 of them. But I think there’s a smaller subset of Republicans in the Texas House, who are one, willing to agree to the reforms that we’ve laid out in the ‘Contract with Texas’, and two, are willing to kind of buck the establishment vehicle for leadership in the Texas House.”
“You know, I’ll just say, Ryan, I think the silence is deafening. We released the ‘Contract with Texas’ a little while ago, we haven’t really heard a response from the existing leadership in the House to say, hey, there’s some good ideas here. I think we could make some changes.”
“There has essentially been a void of response. And I think, fundamentally, Ryan, that goes to the fact that these are reforms that the voters want, and no one really wants to publicly oppose them and certainly not before the run-offs, which are going to have a significant impact on whether we’re going to be able to obtain these reforms in house.”
Looking at the way that the House functions, Democrats will argue there are a lot of things the Texas House would like to do that Republicans can’t do alone. Any constitutional amendment, for example, like the property tax cut, takes more votes than Republicans have. Do you worry that if you stripped Democrats of their chairmanships, that they may take their ball and go home and block the house from passing any big things?
“No, I don’t. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think fundamentally this contract with Texas is about us. It’s about what the voters are saying, as far as the existence of republicanism in Texas and how they want us to lead.”
“I think most of the bills that come through the Texas House have some bipartisan support. I think we’ll continue to work well with our opposition on the other side of the aisle. In fact, a lot of times they won’t be opposition.”
“I think we’ll work hand-in-glove to pass a budget, we will work together with them as long as the voters feel enfranchised by the people that they’ve hired to go down there and do that job.”
“So this is not a condemnation of the left or Democrats at large. I think the point of this is to ensure that leadership in the House is handled in the way that it’s supposed to be handled, and the way that voters expect us to handle it.”
You first rose to prominence defending Ken Paxton successfully in his impeachment trial. You came off another big win just last week, I believe, in his securities fraud deal. He’s not out of the woods yet, though, legally speaking. What does Ken Paxton’s future and what is your role look like in that with the whistleblower case? And with the federal inquiry?
“Big questions. So, let’s go back and start with the premise that these are big wins. I think from the perspective of someone who hasn’t lived it for the last nine years, these probably feel like big wins. If you’ve lived under the threat of an indictment for nine years, and having it resolved, obviously, is beneficial and something to be celebrated. But the fact that it existed is very painful for the Paxton family.”
“It never should have happened that way. We can say the same thing of the impeachment. I think it’s something that I delight in having risen to prominence trying to protect someone who never should have been under the attacks they were under. I mean, I enjoyed the role that I played.”
“Your question was what is next for Ken Paxton? I think the answer to that is whatever he wants.”
“I think there are significant political opportunities for him, there will continue to be, but the reason for that is not that he’s no longer dealing with lawfare. The reason for that is the man stays connected to the grassroots and continues to fight for us, wherever he is, in Austin, at the United States Supreme Court, etc. I think he’s got some good opportunities that lie in front of him.”
You used a phrase on Twitter last week, I believe, and I forget the exact phrase, but you said essentially, that this is the start of a new era in Texas politics, and the retribution, if you will, starts now in terms of the Paxton wing of the party and the hold that they will have in the house. What exactly did you mean by that?
“What I said was we’re in the preamble of reform. I think those were the words that I used, and to be clear, Ryan, this is not about retribution. No one is on a revenge tour. No one’s trying to make anyone else’s life difficult.”
“What we’re trying to do is carry out the mission that the voters gave to our representation, and so I think the ‘Contract with Texas’ is a good initiation point for those reforms. Because unless you have control of the leadership in the House, and you have control over the rules process, you can’t ensure fundamental fairness for everyone in the house.”
“The rules have historically been whatever the speaker says they are, in this form of legislative Calvin Ball that we’ve had. And so that can’t continue. I think the voters expect us to go down to Austin and enact their wishes. And they’ve been pretty clear about what it is that they want.
“So to the extent that anybody thinks we’re headed to Austin on a revenge tour, or there’s retribution for lawfare or the impeachment or what have you, that’s simply not the case. And I don’t think our voters in Texas would be inspired by that either. They just want us to get the job done.”
“They want us to advance school choice. They want us to advance these reforms around ensuring that our enemies throughout the world don’t own Texas real estate. They want us to ensure that we’re protecting life and the sanctity of life, ensuring that we don’t have DEI in our higher education, in our public school system. These are the changes that our voters want, and we need to make them the priority.”
I put this question to Representative Oliverson, when he announced a couple of weeks ago, I’ll put it to you as well. This can all get very in the weeds and process like, but at the end of the day, we’re talking about policy that will impact Texans. And when you’re in the house, you just named a lot of legislative policies there, what is your top priority? What will you come away with at the end of the next session and consider it a success if it is able to pass?
“That’s a great question. Right now, Ryan, these reforms that are described in the ‘Contract with Texas’ are my number one priority. Because everything else flows from that, if you have good leadership, if the head is healthy, the body will be healthy, if the head is sick, the body is going to be sick.”
“I want to ensure that we are not disenfranchising or marginalizing conservative representation in the Texas House, as we have in previous sessions.”
“I think the fastest way to ensure that you don’t get what you want is to tell everyone exactly what your plans are. So I’m not gonna take the bait there and tell everybody what my particular policy goals are for House District 65, or the state at large, we need to start by reforming the house.”
“If the head is healthy, then we’re going to generate healthy policy out of the Texas House. I’ve already described for you some of those: school choice is a big one. The real estate issue is a big one, ongoing property tax mitigation to try to put money back into the pockets of voters in Texas. I think we’ll continue to push things in that direction.”
It’s interesting, though, there are other policies that you’re not willing to discuss at this time?
“I think I’ll lay aside my personal policy goals and say that this is the most significant priority that we have is reforming the Texas House.”
