Austin, TX – Texas Republicans spent years demanding control of their own primary. Now they have a new Secretary of State, Robert S. Howden, appointed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, and the man taking over the state’s election machinery is inheriting a lawsuit in which his office is expected to defend the very open primary system the GOP wants to dismantle.

The Republican Party of Texas filed the federal lawsuit in September 2025, arguing that Texas’ open primary system violates the party’s First Amendment right of association. Under the current system, Texas voters do not register by party and may choose which party’s primary to vote in during an election cycle. The GOP wants only registered Republicans participating in Republican primaries.

The case is pending in federal court in Amarillo before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

And Robert S. Howden has now inherited it.

Howden Steps Into the Fight

Gov. Abbott appointed Howden as Texas’ 116th secretary of state on July 17, effective July 18. Howden previously served as Abbott’s senior adviser and director of legislative affairs and has worked in the administrations of four Republican governors. As secretary of state, he is Texas’ chief elections officer.

Abbott has been quite clear about where he stands.

At the 2026 Republican Party convention, he said Texas would eventually make clear that “only Republicans vote in Republican primaries.” Abbott has also said lawmakers “can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be,” indicating that he expects the Legislature to address the issue during the 2027 session.

But that doesn’t mean the Secretary of State’s office is supposed to simply surrender in court.

That was the position taken by Howden’s predecessor, Jane Nelson.

Nelson argued that changing Texas’ primary system was a job for the Legislature, not a federal judge. In an October 2025 statement, she said it was her responsibility to defend existing election laws and that she would implement whatever changes the Legislature lawfully enacted.

The Attorney General’s office took the opposite position.

Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the Texas GOP, asking the federal court to strike down portions of the Texas Election Code governing open primaries. According to reporting by The Texas Tribune, Nelson’s lawyers said Paxton’s office gave them less than an hour’s notice before taking the opposing position.

So the Republican Party sued the Republican-controlled state government. The Republican Attorney General joined the plaintiffs. And the Republican Secretary of State fought the lawsuit.

That’s not exactly the tidy party unity politicians like to advertise.

The Real Fight Is Over Who Controls the Nomination

The GOP argues that crossover voting allows Democrats and independents to influence Republican nominations, potentially helping candidates who are less conservative than the party base.

The lawsuit specifically pointed to the 2024 Republican primaries involving former House Speaker Dade Phelan and Rep. Gary VanDeaver. Both won their races by fewer than 800 votes, and the party argued that crossover voters helped determine the outcomes.

The party has already made closing primaries an official priority. Republicans adopted rules supporting closed primaries in 2024 and renewed that push at their 2026 convention.

But changing the system is not as simple as flipping a switch.

Texas has more than 18 million registered voters, and the state’s registration system was never designed around party registration. Moving to closed primaries could require new registration procedures, computer-system changes and a method for existing voters to establish party affiliation.

The GOP wants the courts to clear the way, preferably in time for 2028.

OPINION

The United States of America – The framers of our Constitution weren’t building a pure democracy; they were building a balancing act. And they knew exactly what they were doing.

The original Constitution divided political power among different interests. The People elected the House of Representatives. State legislatures selected Senators. The Executive branch was headed by a President chosen through the Electoral College. Everybody had skin in the game. Everybody had a seat at the table. And nobody got all the power.

That arrangement wasn’t some accident buried in old parchment. It was deliberate.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution plainly stated that senators would be “chosen by the Legislature” of each state. According to James Madison in Federalist No. 62, appointment by state legislatures was designed to create a direct connection between the states and the federal government. He wrote that this method would “form a convenient link between the two systems.” The Senate was never intended to represent the passions of the public. The House already did that. The Senate represented the states themselves.

And that’s because the United States was formed by sovereign states entering into a union, not by Washington handing power down from on high.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates spent weeks fighting over representation. Large states wanted population-based representation. Smaller states feared being steamrolled. The eventual Connecticut Compromise created two chambers, one representing the People and one representing the States. It was a compromise that helped save the convention from collapse. Benjamin Franklin himself urged concessions to preserve the union.

Madison argued repeatedly that the Senate’s structure would act as a stabilizing force. The upper chamber would provide experience and continuity while insulating the country from sudden swings in public opinion. The U.S. Senate’s own historical records note that senators were intentionally made older and selected by state legislatures to provide stability and restraint.

Then came 1913.

The Seventeenth Amendment fundamentally changed the arrangement by transferring the election of senators from state legislatures to popular vote. Supporters argued it would reduce corruption and legislative deadlocks. It certainly changed things, but it also removed the states themselves from direct representation in Washington. The National Constitution Center describes the amendment as the only major constitutional change affecting the structure of Congress since the Bill of Rights.

Since then, senators have become national politicians rather than ambassadors of their state governments. Their incentives changed. Governors and legislatures may protest federal mandates, but their senators often answer first to national donors, party leadership and television cameras.

That’s a very different system than the one the founders designed.

State governments today have no institutional voice inside Congress. They sue Washington. They lobby Washington. They beg Washington. But they no longer possess representation within Washington itself, which is exactly what the original Senate provided.

Supporters of the Seventeenth Amendment point to corruption scandals that occurred before 1913. Those problems were real. But replacing one flaw with another doesn’t necessarily count as progress, history is full of reforms that created new problems while solving old ones.

The Constitution was built on competing interests checking one another. The House represented the people. The Senate represented the states. The president represented the nation as a whole. It wasn’t complicated.

We’ve drifted far from that arrangement.

Today Washington treats states less like partners and more like administrative districts. Federal agencies dictate policy, Congress spends borrowed money with abandon, and senators spend more time chasing campaign cash than defending state sovereignty.

Maybe the old system wasn’t perfect. Nothing designed by human beings ever is. But the framers understood something modern politicians often forget… Power needs rivals.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment wouldn’t weaken democracy. It would restore federalism. It would give state governments a genuine stake in the game again and force Washington to remember that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.

We shouldn’t expect the people who benefit from the current arrangement to voluntarily surrender power. Congress is not likely to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, and senators certainly aren’t inclined to vote themselves out of their present status. The framers anticipated moments like this.

That’s why Article V of the Constitution gives the states another path, a convention for proposing amendments called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. If Americans truly want to restore federalism and return the states to their rightful place in the constitutional order, the answer probably won’t come from Washington. It’ll have to come from the states themselves, from the People. The people created the states, the states created the federal government, and sometimes it’s necessary to remind Washington who’s really supposed to be in charge.

For those who believe the time has come to restore the constitutional balance our founders envisioned, organizations like Convention of States Action are already leading the fight. Visit https://conventionofstates.com/, get informed, and get involved, because Washington isn’t going to limit itself unless the states and the people demand it.

Sources: Article I of the Constitution, James Madison’s Federalist No. 62, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, and historical material from the U.S. Senate and Library of Congress.

FATE, TX – Voters in Fate may soon face a familiar name on the ballot, but beneath the surface of Allen Robbins’ political comeback lies a record that could reshape how residents view his return. As the May 2026 city council election approaches, Robbins, a former Fate councilman, is seeking another term, bringing with him a documented voting history that raises pointed questions about taxes, fees, and development decisions that directly affected residents’ wallets and the city’s character.

Public records from the City of Fate show that during his previous tenure, Robbins not only introduced a series of consequential motions, but in each instance, those motions ultimately passed the council. The result was a slate of enacted policies that increased costs and advanced higher-density development, leaving a clear legislative footprint for voters to evaluate.

Below are seven key actions tied to Robbins’ record that voters may weigh as they consider his candidacy.

1. Ratifying a Property Tax Increase

Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-036, ratifying a property tax increase embedded in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2023–2024. The motion passed, formally locking in the increased tax burden tied to that budget cycle.

2. Supporting a 5.96 Percent Tax Rate Increase

Robbins also made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 0-2023-037, setting the property tax rate at $0.26421, an effective increase of approximately 5.96 percent. The council approved the measure, resulting in a higher rate applied to property owners across the city.

3. Approving Increased Solid Waste Fees

Through Ordinance No. O-2023-038, Robbins moved to approve updated rates for solid waste and refuse collection services. The motion passed, leading to increased service charges for residents.

4. Road Fee Adoption

Although introduced by another council member, Robbins voted to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-039, establishing a $3 road fee for both single-family and multi-family residential units. The measure adds a recurring fee impacting nearly all households.

5. Zoning Change with Financial Penalties

Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. O-2023-021, which amended zoning classifications on approximately 3.18 acres from Mixed Use to Mixed Use Transition for a Townhouse Development.

6. Approval of a 179-Unit Townhome Development

Through Resolution No. R-2023-055, Robbins moved to approve a Type III development plan for a 179-unit townhome project on approximately 13.9 acres. The council approved the motion, clearing the way for the higher-density development to proceed.

7. Advancing a Maximum Tax Rate Above Key Thresholds

Robbins also made the motion to approve Resolution No. R-2023-058, setting a maximum tax rate that exceeded both the no-new-revenue rate and the voter-approval rate, within the de minimis threshold allowed under Texas law. The motion passed, advancing the process for adopting the higher rate and triggering required public notices and hearings.

Context and Verification

Each of these actions is documented in official City of Fate council records from 2023. Motions made by a council member are a critical procedural step in municipal governance, and in these cases, each motion successfully resulted in council approval, meaning the policies were not merely proposed, but enacted.

Municipal leaders often justify such decisions as necessary responses to growth, infrastructure demands, and service costs. Fate, like many North Texas communities, has experienced rapid expansion, increasing pressure on roads, utilities, and public services.

The Stakes in 2026

As Robbins seeks a return to office in May 2026, voters are presented with a clear and verifiable record of policy actions that translated into tangible outcomes, higher taxes, new fees, and expanded development density.

Whether those outcomes are viewed as responsible governance or excessive government expansion will likely shape the election.

Opinion: A Pattern, Not an Accident

Seven motions. Seven approvals. One consistent direction.

That pattern is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Robbins’ record reflects a governing philosophy that leans toward increasing revenue through taxation and fees while accommodating denser residential growth.

Supporters may argue these were necessary decisions in a growing city. That is a fair argument. Growth requires infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money.

But voters should also ask whether every increase was necessary, whether alternatives were explored, and whether the cumulative impact on residents was fully considered.

Because while each individual vote might be explained away, together they tell a broader story, one of a councilman comfortable with expanding both the cost and scope of local government.

In a community like Fate, where many families moved seeking affordability and space, that story carries weight.

And in May 2026, voters will decide whether it carries enough weight to keep Allen Robbins out of office, or return him to it.