Promises Aren't Results: Texas Deserves More Than Campaign Slogans

By Gabriel F. Gonzales II

Opinion, November 3, 2026

The groundwork has been laid. The campaign signs are up, the doors have been knocked on, and the speeches have been delivered. Across Texas, candidates and campaign workers have sacrificed evenings, weekends and time with their families. Today, voters begin delivering their verdict.

Their choices will shape the public schools where children learn, the infrastructure protecting neighborhoods from floods, and the government budgets supported by taxpayers. They will also determine who has the power to turn campaign promises into policy.

Before the final ballots are counted, there is a question worth asking: are Texans examining candidates’ qualifications, decisions and workable plans—or accepting promises because they sound appealing?

A campaign slogan is not legislation. An audit is not a balanced budget. A pledge to support teachers does not automatically put resources into classrooms. And announcing public spending does not prove that the money accomplished what was promised.

A promise is not a plan. A plan is not a result. And public office is not an exemption from accountability.

The standard is simple: incumbents should explain what they have actually delivered; challengers should show how their proposals could be implemented. It should be applied to candidates of every party. The amount of money a campaign raises does not change that obligation.

The Governor’s Race: Education Beyond the Billion-Dollar Announcement

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa and Libertarian Pat Dixon are seeking the governor’s office. Hinojosa previously served as a trustee and board president in Austin ISD before joining the Legislature. Her campaign proposes changes to standardized testing, the school accountability system and state takeovers of locally governed districts; she also wants to repeal Texas’ education savings account program. Abbott supports the program and points to the school-finance package enacted in 2025. The differences concern both educational priorities and how the state exercises power over schools.

What House Bill 2 actually changed

House Bill 2 provided roughly $8.5 billion in additional school funding across the biennium, much of it directed to compensation and specialized programs. But the state’s foundational basic allotment moved from $6,160 to $6,215 per student in average daily attendance for the 2026–27 biennium—an effective adjustment of $55. That does not mean districts received only $55 in additional funding; the law includes other allotments. It does mean that a headline appropriation and unrestricted operating flexibility are not the same thing.

In Clear Creek ISD, trustees adopted a budget exceeding $430 million with a roughly $23 million deficit for 2026–27. The district had about 38,780 students in 2025–26, compared with 42,388 in 2019–20—a loss of approximately 3,600 students. Officials have identified declining enrollment and rising expenses among their challenges. The figures do not assign blame to one official. They demonstrate why state formulas, district costs and enrollment trends must be considered together.

House Bill 2 also created a teacher-retention allotment. In school systems with more than 5,000 students, the allotment is $2,500 for eligible classroom teachers with three to four years of experience and $5,000 for those with at least five years. Smaller systems receive $4,000 and $8,000, respectively. The particular allotment does not cover teachers in their first two years, although other provisions of the law support educator compensation and preparation.

The questions now are measurable: will early-career teachers stay? Will schools fill vacancies? How much spending flexibility will districts have as enrollment shifts? What has changed for students?

Vouchers: public money and public reporting

Abbott also signed Senate Bill 2, establishing an education savings account program funded by a $1 billion initial appropriation. Supporters describe expanded parental choice; opponents raise concerns about public funding of private education, access and oversight. The program has a separate appropriation rather than automatically diverting an identical sum from each student’s former district, but its cost and results remain legitimate subjects of public scrutiny.

Which participating schools must report educational results? What spending information should be released without compromising student privacy? How will the Legislature know whether the program is meeting its goals? Hinojosa proposes repeal, which would require legislative action. Abbott supports continuation. The important distinction is a substantive argument over how to fund and oversee education—not whether either side can produce the louder advertisement.

For Texas schools, the final measure of policy is what students learn, what teachers experience and what local communities can sustain.

Vikki Goodwin, Dan Patrick and the Power to Decide Which Bills Move

The lieutenant governor presides over the Texas Senate and, under Senate rules, exercises significant influence over committee assignments and the legislative agenda. Republican incumbent Dan Patrick has held the office since 2015. Democratic challenger Vikki Goodwin has served in the Texas House since 2019. Their public records and proposals provide a more useful comparison than years in office alone.

Goodwin’s legislative record includes Cati’s Act, addressing drowning prevention in certain child care settings, and sponsorship of the Natalia Cox Act, strengthening notification protections for domestic-violence victims. Her official House biography also identifies legislation involving recovery services and the Texas Food Security and Resiliency Council. Those are identifiable pieces of legislative work, not just general statements about caring for families.

Her education positions are similarly documented. On April 16, 2025, she voted against the bill establishing education savings accounts. She also opposed tabling an amendment that would have put the voucher question before voters. She supported the House version of the school-funding bill, which offered a larger basic-allotment increase before Senate changes. Goodwin has proposed raising that allotment to at least $7,500 per student. The proposal is specific, but it also requires a credible revenue source and legislative coalition.

Goodwin’s Texas Cares health plan seeks wider insurance coverage through a state-administered approach, federal resources and other financing mechanisms. The public deserves details about eligibility, cost, administration and legal authority. Patrick, in turn, can be evaluated through the school-choice legislation, tax measures and other Senate priorities advanced during his tenure. Supporters view those accomplishments as evidence of leadership; critics question their consequences for public schools and state spending.

The central issue is not whether one candidate has held office longer. It is how each would use a powerful office, what the Legislature could actually enact, and what evidence would demonstrate the promised results.

The U.S. Senate: James Talarico, Ken Paxton and the Public Record

Democrat James Talarico, Republican Ken Paxton and Libertarian Ted Brown are on the U.S. Senate ballot. Talarico taught sixth-grade language arts in San Antonio before entering the Texas House. His legislative work has involved public education, prekindergarten classroom sizes, student health and access to opioid-overdose reversal medication on campuses. A January Texas Tribune review found that he was principal author of nearly 200 bills, 16 of which became law; eight of those enacted measures related to education, child care or workforce development for young people. The figures show both concrete accomplishments and the limits of what one lawmaker can enact.

The impeachment record must be described accurately

Paxton has served as attorney general since 2015 and previously served in the Legislature. On May 27, 2023, the Republican-controlled Texas House voted 121–23 to impeach him, adopting 20 articles alleging misconduct, including abuse of office and matters involving developer Nate Paul. Sixty Republicans supported impeachment. In September 2023, the state Senate acquitted Paxton on all 16 articles considered at trial; four additional articles were dismissed. He remained in office and has denied wrongdoing.

An impeachment is not a criminal conviction, and an acquittal must not be presented as a finding of guilt. At the same time, the House vote and the allegations examined during the process are part of the historical record. Both the accusation and the outcome matter.

In a separate whistleblower case, a Travis County court entered a roughly $6.6 million judgment against the Office of the Attorney General in April 2025. Paxton’s office withdrew its appeal in July. That was a civil judgment against the state agency, not a personal criminal conviction against Paxton, but the litigation and financial consequences belong in an assessment of the office’s administration.

The next U.S. senator will participate in national decisions about federal spending, healthcare, education funding, and Social Security’s long-term finances. Candidates should explain how their state-level records or proposed federal policies translate into legislation, oversight and constituent service. Voters should not be asked to ignore either a documented achievement or a documented controversy.

State Board of Education District 7: Tiffany Perkinz and Julie Pickren

For an educator and historian, the Texas State Board of Education deserves close attention. Its members help establish curriculum standards and approve instructional materials. In District 7, Democrat Tiffany Perkinz faces Republican incumbent Julie Pickren. This is the only State Board contest examined here because the two candidates’ records raise concrete questions about classroom experience and curriculum decisions.

Perkinz’s classroom experience and published answers

Perkinz describes herself as a certified Texas educator with an M.A. in English, an M.Ed. in Administration and approximately a decade of classroom experience. In the League of Women Voters questionnaire, she argues for teacher input, clear age-appropriate standards and the selection of reading materials on literary merit, instructional value and student need. She also addresses AI literacy, including verification of claims, recognition of manipulated media and protection of student privacy. Those are detailed positions directly related to student learning.

Pickren’s board record and the June curriculum dispute

Pickren previously served on the Alvin ISD Board of Trustees and has been on the State Board since 2023. Her focus includes parental authority, school choice and her approach to curriculum content. Those are policy positions the public can examine through board proceedings and votes.

The record is especially important because of the board’s 2026 social studies debates. In June, the board approved a required reading list incorporating Bible passages and moved ahead with revisions to elementary and middle-grade social studies standards. Supporters said the revisions better reflected foundational history and religion’s influence on American development; critics questioned the treatment of slavery, civil rights, cultural diversity and non-Christian traditions.

The Texas Tribune reported that Pickren and fellow member Brandon Hall opposed proposed amendments intended to expand discussion of race-based slavery and segregation. The adopted standards still addressed those subjects; the dispute concerned depth and framing, not whether the topics had been eliminated entirely. That distinction matters when criticizing an official vote.

The same reporting documented a public conflict involving board member Marisa B. Pérez-Díaz. After critical social-media statements from Pickren and Hall, Pérez-Díaz sent cease-and-desist letters alleging harassment and harm to her reputation. Pickren and Hall rejected those allegations, defending their criticism as political speech. The allegation is not an established legal finding, and it should not be reported as one.

The substantive public-policy questions remain: what sources support the history standards, how are competing historical interpretations addressed, and what role should academic experts and classroom teachers have in setting them? Perkinz’s published instructional proposals and Pickren’s recorded board decisions offer two different types of evidence to examine.

For officials entrusted with what students learn, a clear explanation of the educational evidence behind each decision is not an unreasonable demand.

House District 129: Albert Wittliff, Scott Bowen and School Choice

In the Clear Lake area, Democratic candidate Albert Wittliff faces Republican Scott Bowen for Texas House District 129. Wittliff describes experience in federal service, diplomatic security, crisis management and hurricane response. His campaign focuses on public education, insurance affordability, flood protection and grid reliability. Bowen brings a chemical-engineering career and six years of service on the Clear Creek ISD board.

Bowen’s school-board tenure included contentious curriculum debates, and he lost the May 2025 reelection contest to Rebecca Lilley, who received about 53.7% of the vote to Bowen’s 46.3%. An election result establishes the outcome; it cannot, by itself, establish the motives of individual voters.

Their 2026 League of Women Voters responses show a clear policy difference. Wittliff supports repealing education savings accounts or, if repeal fails, requiring stronger academic and financial reporting from private providers receiving public funds. Bowen describes parental choice as the main form of accountability for the program, while saying safeguards should ensure that funds are spent for educational purposes. These are not identical approaches to oversight.

Bowen also backs proposals involving school property taxes and grants of up to $10,000 for certain storm-mitigation improvements. Wittliff emphasizes insurance costs, coastal protection, school finance and energy infrastructure. Each proposal raises questions about authority, recurring revenues, implementation and measurable effects.

The standard should be the same for both candidates: professional experience should be weighed against the demands of legislating, while past decisions and current proposals should be examined on their merits.

Senate District 11: Dennis Paul and Shannon Dicely

Republican Dennis Paul and Democrat Shannon Dicely seek the Texas Senate District 11 seat. Paul is an engineer and longtime state representative whose legislative work has involved coastal storm protection, including creation of the Gulf Coast Protection District. Those responsibilities are directly relevant to Galveston Bay communities vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding. He supports public-school funding while also supporting educational choice.

Dicely’s proposals emphasize school finance, teacher compensation, healthcare access, homeowners insurance and infrastructure resilience. Her approach to education funding and vouchers differs from Paul’s. For a coastal district, the practical questions are whether proposals are funded, technically feasible and capable of surviving the legislative process. Public statements should be considered alongside each candidate’s professional and public record.

Harris County Judge: Orlando Sanchez and Letitia Plummer

The title “county judge” can mislead voters: in Harris County, the office is primarily executive and administrative. The county judge presides over Commissioners Court and participates in budgeting, disaster preparedness, infrastructure and other services. Republican Orlando Sanchez brings experience on Houston City Council and as Harris County treasurer. Democrat Letitia Plummer is a dentist, business owner and former Houston councilmember. Both backgrounds have direct relevance to public administration.

In separate October interviews with KPRC, Sanchez pledged to lower the county property-tax rate in his first budget but did not say by how much. He identified staffing and communications expenditures as potential areas for savings without giving itemized estimates. Plummer discussed controlling expenses, renegotiating healthcare costs and looking at possible shared services with Houston, but did not pledge a first-budget rate reduction.

Neither response alone establishes what the budget impact would be. A tax reduction requires a revenue estimate and a spending plan. Contract renegotiations require actual savings calculations. And both candidates’ flood-control approaches would depend on engineering, funding, procurement and cooperation with other commissioners. The public should ask for those details while recognizing the relevant experience each candidate brings.

Precinct 2: Adrian Garcia, Richard Vega and the Difference Between an Audit and Savings

Democratic incumbent Adrian Garcia faces Republican Richard Vega for Harris County commissioner in Precinct 2. Garcia can be assessed through a governing record; Vega through his prior experience and his published proposals. Both should face difficult but specific questions.

Which results can residents verify?

In his voter-guide responses, Garcia reports more than six million linear feet of neighborhood ditch maintenance and about half a billion dollars invested in flood protection. He also cites an acquisition of 1,137 acres to expand the Armand Bayou Nature Center; the future restored preserve could, he says, hold as much as four billion gallons of stormwater. That is a projection of potential capacity—not proof that the restoration has already achieved it.

These are specific claims that can be checked against budgets, drainage-maintenance logs, construction milestones and engineering assessments. They do not eliminate the need to question projects that remain unfinished or behind schedule. Reported spending and activity must be separated from measured improvement for flood-prone neighborhoods.

Where does Vega’s plan become operational?

Vega’s questionnaire calls for departmental budget reviews, reducing unnecessary spending, consolidating duplicated services and accelerating flood-control projects. He also criticizes delays in the county’s 2018 flood-bond program. These concerns are legitimate subjects for debate, but his published answers do not assign savings figures to specific spending cuts or provide a project-by-project construction timetable.

Which departments would be reviewed first? What contracts or functions have been shown to overlap? What would an audit cost? What savings are realistically available—and who has the authority to approve the changes? Which delayed flood projects would be prioritized, and which engineering or funding barriers would be removed? Without that information, voters have goals to consider but less detail about how the proposed changes would actually work.

Garcia must substantiate the outcomes of the work he reports. Vega must substantiate the feasibility of what he proposes. Neither past spending nor future criticism is a substitute for measurable public benefit.

An audit can identify a problem. It is not, by itself, a savings figure or a completed flood-control project.

Congressional District 9: Leticia Gutierrez, Alex Mealer and the Price of Visibility

The newly redrawn 9th Congressional District includes eastern Harris County, Liberty County and communities connected to the Houston Ship Channel. Democrat Leticia Gutierrez and Republican Alex Mealer bring markedly different experience. Gutierrez is a Houston East End environmental and community advocate whose work has included industrial air pollution and neighborhood health. Mealer is an Army veteran and former energy-finance professional with a background in business. Their approaches to energy, economic development, regulation and public health invite close examination.

Mealer previously ran for Harris County judge in 2022, losing to Lina Hidalgo by more than 18,000 votes. She filed an election challenge alleging administration problems, then withdrew the case in September 2023. Administrative problems were documented, but the withdrawn proceeding did not establish that the election result should be overturned. Mealer said her purpose was to investigate problems affecting future elections. Both the complaints and the outcome belong in an accurate account.

Campaign money is not a governing qualification

Campaign finance reports through October 14, 2026 show about $2.78 million in receipts for Mealer’s committee and roughly $215,000 for Gutierrez’s. Independent political groups have also spent heavily in the district. The totals establish a difference in available campaign resources, not a difference in honesty, judgment or ability to represent constituents.

What specific federal projects would each prioritize for roads, drainage, port infrastructure and neighborhoods near industrial facilities? How would they balance employment and environmental health? How would they work with local authorities? Those answers are more relevant to the work of Congress than the number of advertisements a candidate can afford.

Money can buy visibility. It cannot replace a public record, explain a policy or deliver a result.

When the Campaign Signs Come Down

This Election Day includes serious differences about school funding, vouchers, state oversight, healthcare, flood protection, public spending and the responsibilities of elected officials. The arguments are not made clearer by treating one party’s promises as accomplishments or the other party’s record as irrelevant.

Candidates seeking another term should account for the decisions they have made. Challengers should describe the legal authority, costs and timetable behind their alternatives. Professional expertise deserves recognition; legislative votes, public budgets and documented disputes deserve examination. Any allegation should be clearly distinguished from a finding.

Tomorrow, teachers will return to classrooms. Families will continue paying insurance premiums. Residents will still want drainage projects completed before the next major storm. Older Americans will continue navigating retirement costs, while Congress faces long-term questions about Social Security. None of those responsibilities disappears when the election is over.

As an educator, I know the students in Texas classrooms will inherit the consequences of decisions made before many of them are old enough to vote. As a historian, I know elections are remembered for their outcomes—but their lasting meaning comes from what officeholders do afterward.

Promises aren’t results. Campaigns aren’t accomplishments. And winning an election is not the same thing as governing effectively.

The groundwork has been laid. The candidates have made their arguments. Now the people of Texas will have their say. After the votes are counted, the public should keep asking the questions that matter: What was promised? What was done? And what actually changed?

One Lone Star. Millions of Stories. A Place for Everyone.

Gabriel F. Gonzales II is a Texas educator, historian and contributing writer for My Local Press. His work focuses on education, history, public affairs and government accountability.