Dallas, TX – Fresh off her now-infamous CNN appearance where Rep. Jasmine Crockett sneered about “white tears” without so much as a raised eyebrow from the anchor, the freshman firebrand has bigger problems than cable-news backlash. The new congressional map — PLANC2333, has surgically removed Crockett from Texas District 30. Yes, her own district. The one she’s held for less than two years.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t a minor tweak. This is a full-on redistricting gut punch.

Under the old lines, TX-30 was a comfortably Democratic, majority-minority seat that stretched from downtown Dallas south almost to Red Oak—an anchor of Black political power in North Texas. 42% Black, 35% Hispanic, 16% White. Median income $71k. Poverty rate is pushing 16%. A district drawn, let’s be honest, to elect someone exactly like Jasmine Crockett, who would become the embodied spirit of the once race-baiting Shelia Jackson Lee (deceased).

The new TX-30 snakes along I-30 through downtown, clips the eastern edge at I-175, and hugs the Dallas County line to the south. The areas carved out (shown in red on Pipkins Reports map) were the heart of Crockett’s old base—south Dallas neighborhoods that reliably turned out for her. In their place (blue on the map) come whiter, more affluent precincts to the west. The demographic shift is brutal: Black voting-age population down, Hispanic share down, White share up. Translation? TX-30 just became a swing district masquerading as a D+20 stronghold.

And then there’s the real kicker: District 33, currently held by Marc Veasey, now swoops in like an upside-down U, wrapping around the new TX-30 and swallowing huge chunks of downtown Dallas. That new TX-33? It’s a demographic kaleidoscope—White, Black, and Hispanic populations are almost perfectly balanced. Turnout will decide everything. Good luck predicting who wins that one.

If Crocket chooses to continue on in TX-30, she is likely to face a tough road. This is what happens when you spend your first term auditioning for MSNBC panels instead of building goodwill back home. You rant about “white tears” on national television, you mock colleagues across the aisle, you forget that even safe seats can be made unsafe with a few strokes of a GIS pen. The Texas Legislature has sent a message, and it’s written in precinct-level data: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The Texas Secretary of State confirms the candidate filing window for the 2026 primaries opened Saturday, November 8, and closes at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2025—Crockett, Veasey, and every other incumbent now playing musical districts have less than a month to decide where (or if) they’re running.

Constitutional conservatives have been warning for years that the era of bulletproof, identity-carved districts was coming to an end. The courts demanded “compactness” and “communities of interest.” The GOP in Austin finally delivered. And the first casualty? A loudmouth progressive who thought performative rage was a substitute for legislating.

Marc Veasey’s seat is scrambled too, by the way. In fact, half of Dallas just woke up in a different congressional universe.

In a wave of school-district elections across North Texas and beyond this week, voters approved a number of Voter-Approval Tax-Ratification Elections (VATREs) — allowing independent school districts to raise their maintenance-and-operations (M&O) tax rates above the state-determined caps.

While the results reflect a clear willingness by taxpayers to fund local schools, they also expose a troubling pattern: the very officials who champion themselves as conservative guardians of the public trust now appear to be embracing tax increases and new spending. Pipkins Reports has been taking notes and when those elections come to pass, we will be reminding voters which politicians had their hands deep into taxpayers pockets.

Below is a summary of the key VATRE outcomes, followed by a discussion of the political implications and which public officials are already showing up in voters’ crosshairs.

VATREs That Passed – What Voters Approved

Here are the key districts where VATREs passed, with what was on the line and what the approval means.

• Rockwall Independent School District (Rockwall ISD)
  Voters approved the district’s VATRE: 10,864 voted “For” (54.08 %) and 9,226 voted “Against” (45.92 %), in a total of 20,090 votes. Difference ≈ 1,638 (≈ 8 %).
• Garland Independent School District (Garland ISD)
  Voters approved the district proposal (Proposition A) to raise the tax rate to $1.1709 per $100 valuation. That represents a 12-cent increase over the previous rate of $1.0509.
• Carroll Independent School District (Carroll ISD)
  Voters approved the VATRE with 4,941 votes in favor and 3,625 opposed. The new tax rate change is expected to generate up to $4 million in additional revenue.
• Hurst‑Euless‑Bedford Independent School District (HEB ISD)
  Voters approved a 3-cent rate increase (via the VATRE), generating about $12 million in new operational funding.
• Denton Independent School District (Denton ISD)
  Voters approved the VATRE, which will generate approximately $26 million annually in additional revenue for the district.
• Peaster Independent School District (Peaster ISD)
  Voters approved the VATRE, authorizing three “Golden Pennies,” providing about $280,000 in new local tax revenue.
• Taylor Independent School District (Taylor ISD)
  Voters approved the VATRE (Prop B) alongside a bond (Prop A). Both passed. The VATRE will be used to generate operational revenue for student programs and corporate partnerships.
• Liberty Hill Independent School District (Liberty Hill ISD)
  Voters approved the VATRE designed to provide $10.7 million for student programs ($7.2 m), safety & security ($1.3 m), and teacher/staff retention ($2.2 m).

VATREs That Did Not Pass – Rejections

• Manor Independent School District (Manor ISD)
  The district placed three propositions (Prop A: $359.5 m for renovs & security; Prop B: $8.5 m tech; Prop C: $16.5 m performing arts), but the VATRE was rejected by voters.
• Coupland Independent School District (Coupland ISD)
  VATRE (Prop A) would have generated approx. $240,939 for M&O, staff payments, supplies — rejected by voters.
• Hays Consolidated Independent School District (Hays CISD)
  VATRE (Prop A) to increase M&O tax rate by 12 cents (~$26 m additional revenue) was rejected by voters.
• Blanco Independent School District (Blanco ISD)
  Two-cent M&O rate increase rejected by voters.

What This Means — And What We Are Watching

From a constitutional conservative vantage point, several observations emerge:

1. The Positive Side: Voters in many districts clearly were willing to approve higher taxes to fund education operations rather than just bond debt. That responsiveness suggests local communities see a need and are willing to step up.
2. Inflation Predicted: These tax increases are ongoing revenue commitments. They are not one-time bonds, but continuous operational funding. Once the tax rate is increased, there is no mechanism to ever lower it back down. It is essentially eternal.
3. Political Accountability: Many board members, superintendents, and district trustees who positioned themselves as fiscally prudent or conservative were seen as leading the charge for higher taxes. That reveals a mismatch between rhetoric and reality. The same goes for councilmen and mayors who chose to side with an increase in taxes. Excuses of, “It’s for the children” or “It’s for the teachers” will fall on deaf ears in future elections.
4. The Power Players to Note:
   • In Garland ISD, the Board of Trustees and district leadership backed the 12-cent rate hike that will bring in ~$56 m annually. Voters and watchdogs (including us) will remember who voted for that.
   • Rockwall ISD’s trustees, various Rockwall County Mayors, nudged voters into approving a rate increase while trying to pretend they were ‘neutral’ . But we see them for who they are, and we will remind voters in future elections.
   • In Denton, HEB, Carroll, Peaster and Liberty Hill, local boards quietly advanced VATREs — again with minimal fanfare but major tax implications. We were watching. Changes will be made.
5. The Contrast With Other Districts: Some districts rejected VATREs. Others such as Fair Independent School District, recently adopted lower tax rates for 2025-26 — a rarity worth highlighting.
6. The Election Implications: For the upcoming school-board races and local council elections (many of which overlap with these districts), voters will evaluate not only candidates’ rhetorical conservatism but their tax-and-spending votes. At Pipkins Reports, we’ll publish scorecards of who supported VATREs and how their financing stacks up. We WILL do our part to inform the community and help remove the frauds in our local governments.

Conclusion: Clarity.

Texans are willing to support public education funding…for now. The approval of several VATREs around the state sends a signal: yes, we the taxpayers will step up — but what is going to happen in the next 2-3 years when taxpayers are hit with a huge dose of reality that the promised “insignificant” raise to fund teachers and students turns into a gigantic financial burden, on the order of thousands of dollars a year?

The real-world effects of all the VATRE’s cannot be hidden. The platitudes given during this campaign will soon sink to the bottom of the reality jar. The betrayal citizens will feel when election time comes back around will be immense … and we will be here to remind them of whom it was that put them in that position.

See you at the next election in May … thank you for your cooperation.

Rockwall County, TX – Rockwall County voters are being asked—once again—to approve a property tax increase for the Rockwall Independent School District (RISD). The proposal, known as Proposition A, appears on the November 2025 ballot as part of a Voter-Approved Tax Rate Election (VATRE). District officials are promoting the measure as a modest, four-cent bump to the local Maintenance & Operations (M&O) tax rate, claiming it’s necessary to raise teacher pay and keep up with growth.

But a closer examination of the district’s own efficiency audit reveals a very different story. According to the audit conducted by Weaver and Tidwell, LLP and released July 31, 2025, the actual increase is nearly triple what the district is telling voters. The proposed M&O rate of $0.7869 per $100 valuation, up from $0.6692 in fiscal year 2024, represents an increase of $0.1177, or roughly 17.6%.

The Four-Cent Illusion

So how can the district claim this is only a “four-cent” increase when the audit clearly shows an 11.77-cent jump? The answer lies in the complicated world of tax compression—a system originally meant to lower school tax rates as state funding grew.

Under Texas law, as local property values rise, the state automatically “compresses” a district’s M&O rate downward to offset the windfall from higher valuations. For 2025, Rockwall ISD’s rate was scheduled to automatically drop by around seven to eight cents due to this compression formula.

Instead of allowing that reduction to occur, RISD is asking voters to override the compression, effectively freezing the rate at a higher level. By comparing the proposed rate not to last year’s rate, but to the lower compressed rate that would have automatically taken effect, the district is able to advertise the hike as a “four-cent increase.”

In plain terms: if voters say yes to Prop A, they’re not merely forgoing a reduction—they’re authorizing a permanent 11.77-cent increase per $100 valuation over what they actually paid last year. It’s an accounting sleight of hand that makes a substantial hike sound like spare change.

The Real Numbers

Rockwall ISD’s total proposed ad valorem tax rate for 2025–2026 is $1.0669 per $100 valuation. The district insists that taxes are “still going down” because homestead exemptions have risen and the overall rate is lower than in prior years. But that claim blurs the distinction between the debt service rate—which pays for bonds—and the M&O rate, which funds salaries, operations, and daily expenses.

According to the audit, the tax increase would generate an additional $16.5 million in local revenue—an 8.3% increase in operating funds—even before accounting for future property appreciation. The average Rockwall County home, now valued at $394,000, would see a $4,268 annual tax bill, up roughly $160 per year. But if property values continue their steady climb—over 40% growth in the past five years—this “small” increase compounds quickly. Within five years, that same homeowner could pay hundreds more annually even without another rate hike.

A District in Strong Financial Health

RISD’s own financial data doesn’t suggest a district in crisis. The audit shows that for fiscal year 2024, Rockwall ISD spent $10,483 per student, well below both its peer district average ($11,641) and the state average ($12,944). On the revenue side, the district collected $10,067 per student, again below both peer and state averages, but with healthy margins and a substantial surplus.

The audit also confirmed that RISD earned a “Superior” rating in the School Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST), the state’s highest financial management score. The district holds an unassigned fund balance of $56.4 million, plus another $20 million in assigned funds—well above the state’s recommended three-month operating reserve. In fact, the district’s unassigned fund balance exceeds that benchmark by 27.3%, meaning it already has ample reserves to handle short-term needs or moderate cost increases without new taxes.

Teacher Pay and Staffing

RISD’s leadership justifies Prop A as essential to “retain and recruit quality teachers,” citing pay gaps between Rockwall and its peers. The audit, however, paints a more nuanced picture. The average teacher salary in Rockwall ISD is $63,142—slightly below the peer district average ($64,033) but above the statewide average ($62,463). The average administrative salary sits at $95,892, below peer levels but still above the state’s $94,609 average.

The district’s payroll accounts for 79.3% of all spending, slightly higher than both the peer average (78.9%) and state average (77.8%). Importantly, teacher turnover in Rockwall ISD is lower than its peers—19.3% compared to 20.3%—suggesting that retention may not be primarily a salary issue.

The district already employs a merit and performance-based pay system, and has made market adjustments within the last two years. These policies demonstrate an ongoing effort to stay competitive without necessarily increasing the tax rate.

Academic and Operational Efficiency

Academically, the district performs well. It earned a “B” rating (88/100) in the latest TEA accountability report, with 11 campuses rated “A” and eight rated “B.” Attendance rates exceed both the state and peer averages, while the district’s student-to-teacher ratio of 16.1 to 1 is slightly higher than the state’s 14.7 to 1, indicating efficient use of personnel.

Even in athletics and extracurriculars—areas that often draw criticism for overspending—RISD allocates a lower percentage of its budget to non-academic programs than many comparable districts.

Why Ask for More?

If Rockwall ISD spends less per student, holds strong reserves, and already pays competitive salaries, what’s driving the push for higher taxes? According to district officials, the answer lies in growth. Rockwall’s student population has increased by roughly 2.5% annually over the past five years, and new campuses are on the horizon. The district argues that additional funds are needed to hire teachers, expand facilities, and meet state-mandated safety requirements.

But skeptics point out that those costs could be absorbed through existing fund balances or internal reallocations, especially given the district’s consistent operating surpluses. Voters may reasonably wonder why a district with one of the healthiest balance sheets in the region needs to raise taxes now—particularly when the requested increase is being marketed with misleading math.

Long-Term Implications

The real burden of Prop A lies not in the immediate increase, but in its compounding effect. If property valuations continue to rise by a conservative 5% annually, a home valued at $394,000 today could reach roughly $503,000 by 2030. At the proposed rate of $0.7869, that homeowner’s M&O taxes alone would rise from $3,095 to nearly $3,960—an increase of 28% without another election or additional rate change.

When debt service (I&S) is factored in, total school taxes could easily surpass $5,000 per year within five years.

A Matter of Trust

Rockwall ISD has, by nearly every measure, managed its finances responsibly. It ranks high in fiscal integrity, demonstrates prudent budgeting, and maintains solid academic outcomes. Yet Proposition A’s framing raises serious questions about transparency.

By advertising a 4-cent increase when the audit clearly documents a nearly 12-cent rise, the district risks eroding the very public trust it depends on. For voters, the decision is no longer just about education funding—it’s about honesty in government and whether officials are willing to present the true cost of their proposals.

In the end, Proposition A is less about whether Rockwall values its teachers—clearly, it does—and more about whether taxpayers can trust the numbers being placed before them. As voters head to the polls, they’d do well to remember that in public finance, as in politics, what’s left unsaid often costs the most.