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.

Thune’s Dismissive Smear of Election Integrity Concerns Demands His Immediate Ouster

Opinion – Senate Majority Leader John Thune has revealed his utter contempt for the American electorate. Amid mounting pressure to advance the SAVE America Act—a straightforward bill requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship to safeguard federal elections—Thune shrugged off the grassroots outcry as nothing more than a “paid influencer ecosystem.”

This arrogant dismissal, captured in recent comments to reporters, isn’t just tone-deaf; it’s a betrayal of the millions of everyday Americans who demand secure elections as a cornerstone of our republic.

Thune’s remarks didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They came as conservatives, including President Trump and a chorus of activists, ramped up calls for the Senate to use procedural tools like a talking filibuster to force a vote on the SAVE Act.

The legislation, already passed by the House, addresses widespread fears of voter fraud by ensuring only citizens cast ballots—a measure supported by an overwhelming 80-90% of Americans across party lines, according to polls from Gallup, Rasmussen, and others. Yet Thune, ensconced in his leadership perch, waved it away, implying the push is manufactured by compensated online agitators rather than genuine civic concern.

As one critic aptly put it, this reduces the legitimate worries of voters to a “social media echo chamber,” ignoring the real-world efforts of poll watchers, state lawmakers, and ordinary citizens who’ve fought for transparency since the chaotic expansions of mail-in voting during the 2020 pandemic.

Let’s be clear: Thune’s words aren’t a mere slip; they’re a window into the soul of a career politician who’s lost touch with the base that elevated Republicans to Senate control. Public skepticism about election integrity isn’t fringe—it’s mainstream. Polls consistently show that a significant portion of voters, including independents and minorities, harbor doubts about the security of our processes, fueled by irregularities in battleground states and the rapid, unchecked changes implemented under the guise of COVID emergencies.

Organizations like the Election Integrity Network and grassroots groups have documented these issues through audits, lawsuits, and reform proposals, all driven by patriotism, not paychecks.

To smear these efforts as the work of “paid influencers” is not only insulting but dangerously divisive, echoing the elitist disdain that has alienated voters from the GOP establishment for years.

This isn’t Thune’s first rodeo in undermining conservative priorities. As the No. 2 Republican under Mitch McConnell, he previously downplayed candidates focused on 2020 election concerns, blaming them for midterm setbacks rather than addressing the underlying voter frustrations.

Now, as Majority Leader, he wields immense power over the legislative agenda, yet he’s dragging his feet on border security, spending reforms, and yes, election safeguards—issues that define the MAGA movement and the party’s platform. His reluctance to “bust the filibuster” or rally votes for the SAVE Act, despite a Republican majority, reeks of cowardice or worse: complicity in preserving a system that benefits the uniparty elite. Even Elon Musk has publicly questioned if Thune is “owned by someone,” a sentiment echoed across conservative networks.

The backlash has been swift and justified. Activists, commentators like Tomi Lahren, and everyday Americans on platforms like X have torched Thune for his arrogance, with calls to “vacate the chair” gaining traction. From podcasters decrying him as a “RINO on steroids” to voters labeling him a “damn liar,” the outrage underscores a deeper fracture: Senate Republicans are failing their base, and Thune is the poster child for this dysfunction.

Thune Must Go—Step Down or Be Vacated

John Thune’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader is a disgrace, a glaring example of how Washington insiders prioritize self-preservation over the will of the people. By belittling the fight for election integrity as a fabricated “ecosystem” of influencers, he has spit in the face of the 77 million-plus Trump voters and the broader conservative coalition that demands action, not excuses.

This isn’t leadership; it’s sabotage. In a constitutional republic, where the legitimacy of government rests on the consent of the governed, dismissing voter concerns as paid propaganda erodes the very foundation of our democracy. Thune isn’t just wrong—he’s unfit.

It’s time for Thune to face the music: Step down immediately and let a true conservative warrior take the reins. If he refuses, Senate Republicans must summon the spine to vacate the chair, just as House conservatives did to oust Kevin McCarthy when he failed to deliver.

Anything less is a capitulation to the swamp, allowing Democrats to block vital reforms while illegals potentially sway elections and fraud festers unchecked.

The American people aren’t “paid influencers”—we’re the bosses. And we’re done with traitorous enablers like Thune. Remove him now, or risk losing the Senate and the republic along with it. The clock is ticking, Republicans: Act, or be replaced.

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has lifted a lower court injunction and allowed Texas’ Senate Bill 12 to take effect, clearing the way for enforcement of new restrictions on certain drag performances in venues where minors are present. The ruling reverses a federal district court’s earlier order that had blocked the law, concluding that Texas may regulate performances deemed “sexually oriented” when accessible to children.

The appellate decision represents a significant legal victory for state officials, including Attorney General Ken Paxton, who defended the statute as a child-protection measure. Opponents, including performers and civil liberties groups, argue the law infringes on constitutionally protected expression and disproportionately targets drag performers.

At the center of the legal fight is not merely drag as an art form, but how Texas defines “sexually oriented conduct” — a term embedded in existing state penal law and incorporated into SB 12.

What SB 12 Does

Senate Bill 12 amends Texas law to prohibit certain performances on public property or in the presence of minors if the performances include “sexual conduct,” as defined by state statute. The law does not use the word “drag” in its operative prohibitions. Instead, it applies to performances that appeal to the prurient interest in sex and involve specific forms of sexualized conduct.

Under the statute, a person commits an offense if they engage in a sexually oriented performance on public property or in the presence of an individual younger than 18 years of age. The law classifies violations as a Class A misdemeanor, with enhanced penalties for repeat offenders.

Supporters argue the statute mirrors longstanding restrictions on sexually explicit performances involving minors. Critics contend it was drafted in response to drag events and creates uncertainty for performers who do not engage in explicit conduct.

The Legal Definition of “Sexually Oriented”

Texas does not rely on a vague or novel definition. Instead, SB 12 draws from the Texas Penal Code’s existing terminology.

Under Texas law, “sexual conduct” includes:

• Sexual intercourse;
• Deviate sexual intercourse;
• Sexual contact; and
• The exhibition of the genitals, anus, or female breast below the top of the areola.

“Sexual contact” is further defined as any touching of the anus, breast, or genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire.

Additionally, “deviate sexual intercourse” includes contact between the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another, or penetration of the genitals or anus with an object.

The statute’s application hinges not on costume or identity, but on whether a performance includes conduct that meets these statutory definitions and is intended to appeal to prurient interests.

In court filings, state attorneys emphasized that the law regulates sexually explicit conduct — not viewpoint or identity — and parallels restrictions already applied to strip clubs and adult cabarets.

The Fifth Circuit’s Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit panel concluded that the district court erred in issuing a sweeping injunction blocking the law before it could take effect. The appellate judges found that Texas demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its argument that the statute regulates conduct, not protected speech.

The court emphasized the state’s “compelling interest” in shielding minors from exposure to sexualized performances, particularly on public property.

While the panel did not issue a final ruling on every constitutional question raised, it determined that the lower court’s injunction was too broad at this preliminary stage.

The earlier district court ruling had found portions of the law unconstitutionally vague, suggesting performers might self-censor out of fear that ordinary drag performances could be prosecuted. The appellate panel, however, concluded that the statutory definitions were sufficiently grounded in established penal law.

The Plaintiffs’ Arguments

The lawsuit challenging SB 12 was filed by performers and advocacy organizations, including the ACLU of Texas. Plaintiffs argued the statute violates the First Amendment by targeting expressive conduct based on content.

They contended that drag is a form of theatrical and political expression protected under the Constitution, and that the law chills speech by creating ambiguity around what constitutes a violation.

In earlier hearings, plaintiffs asserted that drag brunches, Pride events, and theatrical performances could be swept into the law’s scope even if they contained no explicit sexual activity.

The Fifth Circuit did not definitively resolve those broader First Amendment questions but concluded that the challengers had not met the threshold to justify blocking enforcement statewide.

Paxton’s Response

Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the ruling as validation of Texas’ authority.

In a statement following the decision, Paxton said the court affirmed Texas’ right to protect children from “sexually explicit performances.” His office argued throughout the litigation that the statute mirrors restrictions long upheld by courts when applied to adult entertainment establishments.

Paxton’s office has been active in defending a series of social policy measures in federal court, often before the Fifth Circuit, which has become a focal point for constitutional litigation involving Texas law.

What Happens Next

The law is now set to take effect in March 2026 unless further judicial intervention occurs. Plaintiffs may seek rehearing before the full Fifth Circuit or petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

In the meantime, venue owners and performers must evaluate their programming in light of the statutory language. Legal analysts note that enforcement will likely hinge on factual determinations about the content of specific performances.

For prosecutors, the burden will be to demonstrate that a performance involved conduct meeting the precise statutory definitions — not merely gender expression, theatrical exaggeration, or cross-dressing.