Aicha Davis (D - incumbent) compared with Will Campbell (R - candidate)
Comparing Aicha Davis to Will Campbell on the Issues
Review each topic, watch the short comparison video, and open the supporting details. All topics discussed have in-line citations and annotated bibliographies with links that should open in a new tab. If any source links are broken, please contact us so we can update accordingly.
SB 12 placed a parental-rights protection directly in the Texas Education Code and required school districts and state entities to meet a high legal standard before infringing a parent’s protected decision-making authority.
The comparison
Who should make the key decisions about a child’s upbringing, education, and care?
Rep. Aicha Davis voted Nay when the Texas House gave SB 12 final passage on May 25, 2025. That single final-passage vote covered the bill as a whole, including its parental-rights provisions in new Education Code §1.009 and amended §§26.001 and 26.0025. The official House Journal records Davis among the 47 members voting Nay; it does not, by itself, establish her personal reason for voting against the bill. (Texas House of Representatives, 2025).
I support preserving SB 12’s parental-rights foundation: parents—not school officials—should direct their own child’s moral and religious upbringing, education, and medical, psychiatric,and psychological care.
I have also written the Parental Rights and Child Protection Enforcement Act, which gives you as parents and citizens the standing required to hold ISDs and local governments accountable should they fail to implement the policies set by state law.
Not only will I defend your rights in the state house, but I will pass law giving you power over government to enforce the lawful protections of your rights.
Open the record, context, sources, and annotated references
What the record shows
SB 12 added Education Code §1.009. The new statute identifies parents’ rights to direct a child’s moral and religious training, make decisions concerning the child’s education, and consent to the child’s medical, psychiatric, and psychological treatment. It states that a public elementary or secondary school or state governmental entity may not infringe those rights unless the infringement is necessary to further a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025a, § 1).
The bill also amended Education Code §26.001 to describe parents as partners with educators, administrators, and school boards in their children’s education. Except where another law provides otherwise, the statute directs boards, administrators, educators, and other persons to comply with §1.009 and not limit parental rights or withhold information from a parent regarding that parent’s child. The same section recognizes that a district’s actions taken in accordance with other law—including the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act—do not constitute withholding information under that provision. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025a, § 11).
Section 11 also requires districts to give parents information about statutory rights and options at a child’s first enrollment and at the beginning of each school year. That required information includes rights and options concerning course study, instructional and library materials, health education, instruction regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, school options, immunizations, data collection practices, health-care services, grievances, and special education, bilingual education, and special-language programs. The Texas Education Agency was directed to develop a form for this purpose, and districts must post the form prominently on their websites. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025a, § 11).
SB 12 further added Education Code §26.0025, which states: “A parent is entitled to choose the educational setting for the parent’s child, including public school, private school, or home school.” (Texas Legislature Online, 2025a, § 12). The enrolled act applies beginning with the 2025–2026 school year. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025a, § 30).
The Texas House passed SB 12 with amendments on third reading on May 25, 2025, by 88 Yeas, 47 Nays, and three present, not voting, in Record Vote 3506. Rep. Davis is listed in the Nays. Because this was one vote on the full bill, the official vote record establishes her opposition to final passage but does not independently prove agreement or disagreement with every individual provision or establish her personal rationale. (Texas House of Representatives, 2025).
My position is that these protections should be treated as a starting point, not the final word. A statutory right is strongest when families have a clear, practical way to enforce it. I support legislation that gives affected parents, citizens, and public-school personnel standing to seek compliance when a district or library does not follow child-protection and parental-rights requirements. That proposed enforcement mechanism is separate from SB 12 itself and should be evaluated on the final text of the proposed legislation once published.
Annotated references
References are alphabetized by author or organization. Each annotation identifies the precise record the source establishes and its relevant limitation.
Texas House of Representatives. (2025, May 25). House journal: Eighty-ninth Legislature, regular session, seventy-third day.
Annotation: This official House Journal records third-reading final passage of SB 12 in Record Vote 3506: 88 Yeas, 47 Nays, and three present, not voting. It lists Rep. Aicha Davis among the Nays and is the primary source for the vote claim in this module. The Journal establishes the roll call and legislative action; it does not state Davis’s individual reason for voting Nay.
Texas Legislature Online. (2025a). Senate Bill 12, 89th Legislature, regular session: Enrolled bill text. Texas Legislative Council.
Annotation: This is the final enrolled statutory text for SB 12. Sections 1, 11, and 12 establish the parental-rights protection in Education Code §1.009, amend parental-rights and annual-notice requirements in §26.001, and add the educational-setting right in §26.0025. Section 30 supplies the 2025–2026 school-year applicability date. The bill text establishes the law’s language but does not establish how an individual House member voted.
SB 12 prohibits Texas public schools from granting employment preferences based on race or sex and requires color-blind and sex-neutral hiring processes consistent with applicable antidiscrimination law.
The comparison
Should public-school employment decisions depend on race—or equal standards?
Rep. Aicha Davis voted Nay when the Texas House gave SB 12 final passage on May 25, 2025. That vote was against the complete bill, which included Education Code §11.005’s prohibition on race- and sex-based employment preferences. The official roll call establishes Davis’s vote but does not identify which individual provisions determined it. (Texas House of Representatives, 2025)
I support equal treatment for every student, applicant, teacher, and school employee. Public schools should neither favor nor penalize anyone because of race or sex, require ideological DEI statements, or make employment opportunities depend on racial identity. I also support an enforceable remedy when a district refuses to comply with these protections. (Campbell, 2026a) (Campbell, 2026b)
Open the law, Democratic opposition, judicial context, and annotated references
What §11.005 actually prohibits
SB 12 added Education Code §11.005. The section defines prohibited diversity, equity, and inclusion duties to include influencing employment practices based on race, sex, color, or ethnicity, other than through “color-blind and sex-neutral hiring processes” conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal antidiscrimination laws. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §11.005(a)(1))
The section also identifies as prohibited DEI duties the promotion of “differential treatment” or “special benefits” based on race, color, or ethnicity. It prohibits school districts, charter schools, and shared-services arrangements from giving employment or participation preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §11.005(a)(2), (b)(4))
Section 11.005 further prohibits compelling or soliciting a DEI statement, giving preferential consideration because a person supplied such a statement, and requiring DEI training as a condition of enrollment or participation in a school function. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §11.005(a)(4), (b)(3), (b)(5))
The law preserves measures adopted for the sole purpose of complying with applicable state or federal law or a court order. It therefore does not authorize districts to disregard binding civil-rights requirements or judicial remedies. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §11.005(a)(3))
What Davis’s vote establishes
On May 25, 2025, the Texas House approved SB 12 on third reading by 88 Yeas, 47 Nays, and three members present but not voting. Record Vote 3506 lists Rep. Aicha Davis among the Nays. (Texas House of Representatives, 2025)
The roll call proves that Davis opposed final passage of the complete bill. Because legislators cast one vote on the whole measure, it does not independently prove that Davis opposed §11.005 specifically, favored race-based employment preferences, or shared every argument made by another Democratic legislator or outside organization.
How Democratic legislators opposed the DEI prohibition
Democratic Rep. John Bryant directly challenged SB 12’s restriction on DEI employment practices during the May 31, 2025, conference-report debate. Bryant drew the House’s attention to “section 11 of the bill,” paraphrased its definition of DEI duties involving hiring and employment practices, and argued that predominantly Black and Hispanic campuses should have teachers who look like the students they serve. (Texas Impact, 2025, 00:40–02:04)
Bryant then asked how a district could “assign Black teachers to a Black school” to provide Black leadership or “assign brown teachers to a Hispanic school” so students would see teachers who looked like them. He also asked how a district could assign white teachers to a school where officials wanted students to have greater exposure to white teachers. Bryant answered that districts could not do so “because this bill makes it against the law.” (Texas Impact, 2025, 02:04–02:45)
Bryant’s remarks identify a direct policy disagreement over §11.005. He believed districts should retain authority to consider teachers’ race when assigning them to particular campuses to produce racial representation among school employees. Section 11.005 instead prohibits influencing employment practices or granting employment preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. (Texas Impact, 2025, 01:04–02:45) (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §11.005)
Bryant’s statement should not be stretched beyond what he said. His remarks support the conclusion that he favored allowing race-conscious teacher assignments for purposes of campus representation. They do not establish that he supported hiring unqualified teachers, dismissing employees because of race, or imposing a fixed racial quota.
Democratic Rep. Ron Reynolds separately described SB 12’s restrictions as an attack on DEI. In a May 13, 2025, social-media statement, Reynolds said that SB 12 “attacks DEI initiatives in public schools,” negatively affects LGBTQ+ students, and constituted “anti-student protection legislation.” (Reynolds, 2025)
Reynolds’s statement establishes that he expressly identified the bill’s restrictions on DEI initiatives as a reason for his opposition. It does not identify which prohibited DEI practices he believed districts should retain, defend race-based hiring or assignment decisions specifically, or establish Davis’s personal rationale for voting against SB 12.
Campbell’s analysis
In my view, the rhetoric describing §11.005 as an attack on students turns this particular provision upside down. Section 11.005 does not direct schools to discriminate against any racial group. It expressly prohibits differential treatment, special benefits, and employment preferences based on race while preserving actions necessary to comply with antidiscrimination laws and court orders. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §11.005)
Rep. Bryant’s argument makes the underlying policy choice especially clear. He argued that school officials should retain the authority to consider teachers’ race when assigning them to campuses to produce a desired form of racial representation. (Texas Impact, 2025, 02:04–02:45)
I reject that approach. Teachers should not be sorted among campuses according to skin color. A school district should not tell a Black, Hispanic, or white teacher that the teacher’s racial identity determines where that person belongs. Teachers should be hired, assigned, promoted, and evaluated as individuals according to lawful, professionally relevant standards.
Students benefit from excellent educators of every background. Districts may recruit broadly, remove unlawful barriers, and enforce civil-rights protections without assigning individual employees according to race. Section 11.005 applies the same protection to every applicant and employee: government should neither favor nor penalize a person because of race or sex.
Whatever objections a legislator may have had to other parts of SB 12, opposition to the complete measure also meant voting against enactment of this equal-treatment provision. Voters may fairly consider that consequence while recognizing that Davis’s roll-call vote alone does not establish her personal motive or prove that she adopted Bryant’s or Reynolds’s reasoning.
Bipartisan judicial principles
The equal-treatment principle underlying §11.005 did not originate with SB 12. In McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that Title VII protects white employees “upon the same standards” applicable to nonwhite employees and requires legitimate employment criteria to be applied alike across racial groups. (McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 1976, pp. 278–280)
Marshall’s opinion strongly supports equal application of employment-discrimination law. The Court expressly declined, however, to decide the legality of every affirmative-action program. The case supports §11.005’s equal-treatment rationale but should not be portrayed as deciding the constitutionality of every DEI-related policy. (McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 1976, pp. 280–281)
In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, Justice Byron White concluded that a public-school employer could not lay off nonminority teachers solely because of race while retaining other teachers solely because they were Black. White concluded that imposing the employment burden in that manner violated the Equal Protection Clause. (Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 1986, pp. 294–295)
Wygant is an especially relevant comparison because it involved race-based employment consequences imposed by a public-school employer. It concerned layoffs, however, which the Court treated as more burdensome than prospective outreach or hiring goals. (Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 1986)
Ginsburg and Sotomayor
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized an important color-blind principle even while defending some remedial uses of race. In her Gratz v. Bollinger dissent, she wrote: “A classification that denies a benefit, causes harm, or imposes a burden must not be based on race.” (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003, p. 301)
Ginsburg immediately qualified that statement by arguing that carefully designed race-conscious measures could sometimes be used to prevent or remedy discrimination. She therefore should not be portrayed as supporting a categorical prohibition on every consideration of race. Her opinion nevertheless confirms that a remedial label does not place race-based benefits, burdens, or preferences beyond constitutional review. (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003, pp. 301–304)
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has likewise defended limited, individualized consideration of race and therefore cannot accurately be described as supporting a universal prohibition on race-conscious selection. Her Students for Fair Admissions dissent nevertheless recognized limits against racial quotas, mechanical racial bonuses, and systems in which race becomes decisive for virtually every minimally qualified applicant in a preferred category. (Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 2023, Sotomayor, J., dissenting)
The fair takeaway
The Supreme Court decisions do not make every component of §11.005 constitutionally mandatory. They do show that equal protection across racial groups, individualized consideration, protection from race-based employment burdens, and opposition to quotas or mechanical racial selection rules have appeared in opinions written or joined by justices appointed by Democratic presidents.
Rep. Bryant’s floor statement also demonstrates that the dispute was not entirely abstract. At least one Democratic legislator directly objected that §11.005 would prevent school districts from considering teachers’ race when assigning them to campuses for purposes of racial representation. (Texas Impact, 2025, 02:04–02:45)
The defensible conclusion is not that Davis’s vote “violated Supreme Court precedent,” that every Democrat shared Bryant’s position, or that Davis personally endorsed race-based teacher assignments. It is that Davis voted against a bill containing an equal-treatment rule substantially aligned with principles recognized across the Supreme Court’s ideological history—and that another Democratic legislator expressly opposed the rule because it restricted race-conscious teacher assignments.
Annotated references
References are alphabetized by author, organization, or case name. Each annotation identifies what the source establishes and any important limitation.
Campbell policy sources
Campbell, W. (2026a). Aicha Davis and the Dems voted against the rights of parents. Will Campbell for Texas.
Annotation: This campaign explainer states Campbell’s interpretation of SB 12 and his support for its parental-rights and equal-treatment provisions. It documents Campbell’s position; the official bill text and House Journal separately establish the law and Davis’s vote.
Campbell, W. (2026b). Enforcing your rights: The Local Accountability and Compliance Act. Will Campbell for Texas.
Annotation: This explainer describes Campbell’s proposed enforcement legislation for holding school districts accountable when they fail to comply with applicable statutory requirements. The proposal is separate from SB 12 and should be evaluated according to its own final text.
Democratic opposition
Reynolds, R. (2025, May 13). This morning, I joined advocates from across the state to express my opposition to SB 12 [Instagram post]. Instagram.
Annotation: In this public statement, Rep. Ron Reynolds says SB 12 “attacks DEI initiatives in public schools,” negatively affects LGBTQ+ students, and constitutes “anti-student protection legislation.” The statement directly documents Reynolds’s opposition to the bill’s DEI restrictions, but it does not identify which prohibited DEI practices he believed districts should retain, specifically defend race-conscious employment decisions, or establish Davis’s personal rationale.
Texas Impact. (2025, June 1). Rep. John Bryant speaks in opposition to SB 12 [Video]. YouTube.
Annotation: This video records Rep. John Bryant’s May 31, 2025, Texas House speech opposing the SB 12 conference report. Bryant expressly identifies the provision restricting DEI employment duties and argues that districts should remain able to consider teachers’ race when assigning them to campuses to produce racial representation. His remarks concern race-conscious teacher assignments; they do not establish support for hiring unqualified applicants, race-based dismissals, or fixed racial quotas. The video also documents Bryant’s position alone and does not establish Davis’s personal rationale.
Official legislative records
Texas House of Representatives. (2025, May 25). House journal: Eighty-ninth Legislature, regular session, seventy-third day.
Annotation: Record Vote 3506 records third-reading final passage of SB 12 by 88 Yeas, 47 Nays, and three members present but not voting. It lists Rep. Aicha Davis among the Nays. The Journal proves her final-passage vote but does not state her reason or establish her position on every individual provision.
Texas Legislature Online. (2025). Senate Bill 12, 89th Legislature, regular session: Enrolled bill text. Texas Legislative Council.
Annotation: This is the official enrolled text of SB 12. Education Code §11.005 establishes the color-blind and sex-neutral hiring rule, prohibitions on differential treatment and employment preferences, restrictions on DEI statements and mandatory training, and the exception for policies required by law or court order. The bill text does not by itself establish how a House member voted.
Supreme Court decisions
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003). Official United States Reports opinion.
Annotation: Justice Ginsburg’s dissent states that a racial classification generally may not deny a benefit, cause harm, or impose a burden, while also defending some carefully designed remedial uses of race. Both parts are necessary to present her position accurately.
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976). Official United States Reports opinion.
Annotation: Justice Marshall’s opinion holds that Title VII protects white and nonwhite employees according to the same standards. The Court expressly did not decide the validity of every affirmative-action program.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Annotation: Justice Sotomayor’s dissent defends limited, individualized consideration of race while recognizing restrictions against quotas, mechanical racial advantages, and making race decisive for virtually every minimally qualified applicant. The case concerns university admissions rather than public-school employment.
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986). Official United States Reports opinion.
Annotation: Justice White’s concurrence concludes that a public-school employer could not lay off and retain teachers solely according to race. The case directly concerns public-school employment but addresses layoffs rather than every form of outreach, recruitment, or prospective hiring.
SB 12 combines parental-notification and consent protections with restrictions on school-facilitated social transitioning, school-directed LGBTQ programming, and school-sponsored identity-based clubs.
The comparison
Should schools independently shape a child’s gender identity—or should parents and qualified professionals guide the child’s care?
Rep. Aicha Davis voted Nay when the Texas House passed SB 12 on third reading on May 25, 2025. On May 31, she was absent when the House adopted the conference report containing the final negotiated text, but she filed a statement saying she was in the House, away from her desk, and “would have voted no.” Those positions opposed passage of the complete measure, including its interconnected protections involving social transitioning, parental health and well-being information, school-directed LGBTQ programming, and student clubs. (Texas House of Representatives, 2025a) (Texas House of Representatives, 2025b)
Children struggling with identity deserve compassion and meaningful help—not secrecy, neglect, or unilateral intervention by school personnel. Parents should be informed and involved, and qualified professionals should work with the child and family when care is needed. Schools should protect students and respond to genuine emergencies, but school employees should not independently socially transition a child, encourage concealment from parents, or replace parental care with school-directed identity programming. (Campbell, 2026)
Open the law, Democratic opposition, Houston case, legal status, and annotated references
How the four protections work together
SB 12’s LGBTQ-related provisions perform different legal functions, but they operate together as a parental-involvement framework. Education Code §§11.401–11.402 regulate employee assistance with social transitioning; §26.0083 governs parental knowledge and involvement in health and well-being decisions; §28.0043 restricts school-directed instruction and programming concerning sexual orientation or gender identity; and §33.0815 governs school-authorized or school-sponsored student clubs. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §§7, 15, 24, 27)
Collectively, these provisions draw a boundary between caring for a student and having the school independently direct consequential decisions about the student’s identity. They do not require schools to abandon children who are struggling. The law preserves ordinary inquiries about a student’s daily well-being, authorized physical and mental-health services, emergency responses, mandatory child-abuse reporting, and constitutionally protected student speech. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §§26.0083, 28.0043)
No employee-assisted social transition
Education Code §11.401 defines “social transitioning” as a transition from biological sex at birth to the opposite sex through adoption of a different name, different pronouns, or other expressions of gender that deny or encourage denial of biological sex. It requires each school district to prohibit employees from assisting an enrolled student with that process, including by providing information or guidelines intended to assist with social transitioning. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §11.401(a)–(b))
A parent or district employee may report a suspected violation to the school board. The board must investigate, determine whether a violation occurred, and report a confirmed employee violation to the commissioner. A parent may also seek relief through the district grievance procedure. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §§11.401(c), 11.402)
The enacted prohibition is broader than a ban limited only to secret conduct. Section 11.401 does not contain a parental-consent exception and does not apply only to students under 13. The provision regulates district employees and applies to enrolled students generally. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §11.401)
Parental knowledge and involvement
Education Code §26.0083 requires a district to notify a parent about a change in services or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being. District personnel must encourage or facilitate discussion between the student and parent regarding information related to the student’s well-being. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §26.0083(b)–(c))
The section prohibits district procedures that prevent employees from notifying parents, encourage students to withhold well-being information from parents, or prevent parents from accessing relevant records. It also prohibits employees from discouraging parental knowledge of or participation in critical decisions affecting a student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §26.0083(d), (f))
This should not be described as an automatic command to report every statement a student makes about sexuality or gender. The law ties notification to health and well-being information, changes in services or monitoring, and critical decisions. It also provides that disclosure is not required when a reasonably prudent person would believe disclosure would likely result in abuse or neglect, and it preserves mandatory reporting and other child-protection responsibilities. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §26.0083(d), (i))
School-directed programming
Education Code §28.0043 prohibits a school district, charter school, or employee from providing or allowing a third party to provide instruction, guidance, activities, or programming regarding sexual orientation or gender identity to students in prekindergarten through grade 12. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §28.0043(a)–(b))
The same section expressly preserves constitutionally protected student speech and expression. It also preserves authorized physical and mental-health services that comply with applicable parental-consent requirements. The provision therefore regulates school-directed instruction, guidance, activities, and programming; it is not a blanket prohibition on a student expressing a personal identity or seeking legally authorized care. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §28.0043(c))
School-sponsored clubs
Education Code §33.0815 prohibits a school district or open-enrollment charter school from authorizing or sponsoring a student club based on sexual orientation or gender identity. For every other club the school authorizes or sponsors, the school must obtain written parental consent before the student may participate. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §33.0815)
This provision does not eliminate every form of peer influence, private friendship, or constitutionally protected student expression. Its direct effect is to prevent the school itself from authorizing or sponsoring clubs organized around sexual orientation or gender identity and to require parental permission for participation in other school-authorized or school-sponsored clubs. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §§28.0043(c), 33.0815)
What Davis’s legislative record establishes
On May 25, 2025, the Texas House passed SB 12 on third reading by 88 Yeas, 47 Nays, and three members present but not voting. Record Vote 3506 lists Rep. Aicha Davis among the Nays. (Texas House of Representatives, 2025a)
After the House and Senate resolved their differences through a conference committee, the House adopted the conference report on May 31 by 77 Yeas, 40 Nays, and two members present but not voting. Davis is listed as absent from Record Vote 4119, but immediately filed a statement saying she was in the House, was away from her desk, and “would have voted no.” (Texas House of Representatives, 2025b)
These records establish Davis’s opposition to the complete measure at third reading and her stated intent to oppose the conference report that contained the final negotiated text. They do not independently establish which provision was most important to her, prove that she favored secret social transitioning, or show that she personally adopted every argument made by another Democratic legislator or advocacy organization.
How Democratic opponents framed the four LGBTQ-related provisions
Democratic opponents generally discussed SB 12’s social-transition, parental-involvement, school-programming, and student-club provisions collectively rather than offering a separate legal analysis of each provision. Their principal arguments were that the legislation would silence LGBTQ students, restrict support from trusted adults, eliminate supportive student communities, increase isolation, and damage family relationships. González, 2025 Sorochinskaia, 2025
Jessica González: silencing students and restricting support
Democratic Rep. Jessica González rejected SB 12’s parental-rights
justification and described the LGBTQ-related provisions broadly:
SB12 isn't about protecting children or parental rights. It's about
silencing them. It's about erasing families, banning truth, and turning
our classrooms into closets.
González, 2025, 00:18–00:31
González further argued that the legislation told an LGBTQ student that
their identity is a threat
and that the student’s story did not
belong in the classroom. Addressing the provisions affecting assistance
from school personnel, she said adults in children’s lives would be
legally prohibited from supporting them in the way they needed and
deserved.
González, 2025, 00:59–01:14, 02:45–02:53
González’s remarks are the broadest direct Democratic statement connecting the four provisions. They addressed employee support, school programming, classroom expression, and student organizations collectively. They did not, however, separately interpret Education Code §§ 11.401, 26.0083, 28.0043, and 33.0815 or establish Aicha Davis’s personal reason for opposing SB 12.
Gene Wu: teachers, books, and student support
Democratic Rep. Gene Wu argued that the students, teachers, and educational
materials affected by the legislation were being unfairly demonized:
The real monsters are not kids trying to figure out who they are.
He added:
The monsters are not the teachers who love them and encourage them and
support them.
Wu concluded:
The real monsters are here.
Sorochinskaia, 2025
Wu’s argument addressed the legislation’s restrictions on the institutional role of teachers, books, and school-based support. His statement was a broad criticism of the LGBTQ-related provisions and did not provide a section-by-section interpretation of the parental-information requirements or the statutory exceptions preserving protected student speech and authorized care.
Rafael Anchía: pride clubs as supportive communities
Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchía concentrated principally on the prohibition
against school-authorized or school-sponsored clubs based on sexual
orientation or gender identity. Referring to his daughter’s pride club, he
said such clubs
are no more about sex than 4-H or ROTC or the basketball team.
Sorochinskaia, 2025
Anchía continued:
It wasn't a sex club.
He described students watching movies, coloring, and attending musicals,
adding:
It was about a kid who felt weird who found her people and everything
about it was good.
Sorochinskaia, 2025
Anchía’s remarks directly explain his objection to the student-club provision in § 33.0815: he viewed the clubs as supportive peer communities rather than organizations centered on sexual activity. His remarks did not separately address § 11.401’s employee-assistance prohibition or § 26.0083’s parental-information requirements.
Jolanda Jones: isolation and mental health
Democratic Rep. Jolanda Jones argued that eliminating LGBTQ-focused clubs
would worsen isolation and mental-health risks:
But this bill makes kids sicker, sadder, more alone. This bill doesn't
protect children. It endangers them. It doesn't give parents more rights.
It strips children of their dignity.
Sorochinskaia, 2025
Jones’s remarks present the clearest version of the argument that removing school-sponsored LGBTQ clubs could harm vulnerable students. Her statement did not address the complete statutory framework, including protected student expression, authorized health and mental-health services, emergency responses, mandatory abuse reporting, or the abuse-or-neglect exception to parental disclosure.
Erin Zwiener: silence and family relationships
Democratic Rep. Erin Zwiener argued that restricting LGBTQ activities in
schools would not change a child’s identity:
Getting silence in schools from the LGBTQ community, which is what this
bill is designed to do, will not stop your kids from being gay.
Sorochinskaia, 2025
Zwiener said the restrictions would instead make children
afraid to come out
and
afraid to tell you when they figure out that they're LGBTQ.
She warned that this
might damage your relationship with them forever.
Sorochinskaia, 2025
Zwiener’s argument connected restrictions on school-based LGBTQ activity with the possibility that students would become less willing to speak with their families. That argument is relevant to the four provisions collectively, although her immediate floor discussion concentrated principally on school-sponsored clubs and LGBTQ expression.
Nicole Collier: identity and unequal treatment
Democratic Rep. Nicole Collier argued that permitting religious
organizations while prohibiting LGBTQ-focused student clubs created
a double standard that flies in the face of the principles you say you
support.
Sorochinskaia, 2025
Collier added:
An LGBTQ person can't change who they are any more than the fact that I
can't change that I'm Black.
She characterized the bill’s message to students as:
You will be accepted as long as you are who we say you should be.
Sorochinskaia, 2025
Collier’s comments directly concerned the student-club prohibition and her contention that LGBTQ students were being treated differently from students participating in other school organizations. They did not separately analyze the employee-assistance, parental-information, or school-programming provisions.
What these statements establish
These statements document the principal reasons Democratic speakers gave for opposing SB 12’s LGBTQ-related provisions: they believed the provisions would silence students, restrict supportive relationships with teachers, eliminate supportive school-sponsored clubs, increase isolation, and make students less willing to communicate with their families. González, 2025 Sorochinskaia, 2025
The statements should not be stretched beyond what the speakers said. Most of the detailed examples concerned § 33.0815’s student-club prohibition. González and Wu addressed the legislation’s broader restrictions on employee support and school programming, but none of these speakers offered a separate, line-by-line interpretation of all four provisions.
These quotations also establish the positions of the identified Democratic speakers—not Aicha Davis’s personal rationale. Davis’s recorded vote and statement of intended vote establish that she opposed passage of the complete measure, but they do not prove that she adopted every argument quoted above.
The Houston parental-rights example
In a 2025 federal lawsuit, the parents of a Bellaire High School student alleged that Houston ISD personnel used a masculine name and male pronouns for their daughter without initially informing them and later continued contrary to their instructions. The allegations were made by the parents and their attorneys and should not be presented as adjudicated findings. (Alliance Defending Freedom, 2025)
Houston ISD later settled the dispute. The agreement required district employees to use the student’s given name, an approved nickname derived from it, and female pronouns while the student remained a minor and enrolled in the district. The district denied the parents’ allegations, and the settlement did not constitute a judicial finding that every allegation was true or an admission of liability. (Saavedra, 2025)
The case nevertheless illustrates the parental-rights concern: when a school adopts a different identity for a child without coordinating with the parents—or continues contrary to parental instructions—the family loses the opportunity to understand the child’s circumstances and arrange coordinated professional care. The case documents a serious conflict between a family and its school; it does not establish through a judicial or clinical finding that the district caused a particular medical injury.
This is about getting the child help
My position is not that children experiencing identity-related distress should be ignored or denied help. It is that they should receive appropriate help from parents who know and love them and, when needed, qualified professionals who can work with the child and family together. School personnel should not secretly become the decision-makers directing the child through a social transition. (Campbell, 2026)
School employees must still respond to emergencies, report suspected abuse or neglect, and perform other legally required child-protection duties. They may ask about a student’s general well-being, and authorized professionals may provide physical or mental-health services subject to applicable consent requirements. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §§26.0083, 28.0043)
The policy distinction is between listening to and protecting a student and independently directing that child’s identity development. When the concern is serious, the proper response is parental communication, evaluation of the child’s complete circumstances, and access to qualified care—not secrecy or an informal identity intervention carried out by school employees. (Campbell, 2026)
Clinical uncertainty and younger children
The Cass Review found that the research concerning childhood social transition was weak and uncertain. It reported no clear evidence of positive or negative mental-health effects in children, only weak evidence in adolescents, and recommended particular caution and early professional involvement when families are considering social transition for prepubertal children. (Cass Review, 2024, ch. 12)
That evidence does not establish that every social transition harms a child, that every gender-questioning child has been manipulated, or that every child will follow the same path. It supports a cautious approach in which significant decisions are not treated as automatically neutral and parents and appropriately qualified professionals remain involved.
These concerns can be especially significant for elementary and middle-school children, including many students under 13. SB 12’s provisions, however, are not confined to children under 13. The social-transition prohibition applies to enrolled students, while the instruction and programming restriction generally applies across prekindergarten through grade 12. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §§11.401, 28.0043)
Pending constitutional challenge
Plaintiffs challenging SB 12 argue that its social-transition, school-programming, and student-club provisions censor protected speech, discriminate against LGBTQ students, violate the federal Equal Access Act, and use an insufficiently defined concept of “assisting” with social transition. These are the plaintiffs’ legal arguments; they should not be reported as final judicial findings. (Transgender Law Center, 2026)
On February 20, 2026, a federal district court preliminarily enjoined Houston, Katy, and Plano ISDs from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions while the lawsuit proceeds. The order was entered against the three defendant districts, is preliminary rather than a final merits judgment, and does not invalidate the provisions statewide. (GSA Network v. Houston Independent School District, 2026)
The court noted that the defendant districts did not oppose the preliminary-injunction motion. The parental health and well-being information requirements in §26.0083 were not among the provisions identified in that preliminary injunction. (GSA Network v. Houston Independent School District, 2026)
The four-part framework
1. Employee conduct:
School employees may not assist an enrolled student with
social transitioning.
2. Parental information:
Districts may not adopt concealment procedures or discourage
parental knowledge of critical health and well-being decisions.
3. School programming:
Schools may not provide LGBTQ-directed instruction, guidance,
activities, or programming, while protected student expression
and authorized care remain recognized.
4. Student clubs:
Schools may not authorize or sponsor clubs based on sexual
orientation or gender identity, and written parental permission
is required for participation in other authorized or sponsored
clubs.
(Texas Legislature Online, 2025)
What remains protected
SB 12 preserves constitutionally protected student speech and expression, authorized physical and mental-health services, ordinary inquiries into daily well-being, emergency responses, mandatory abuse-and-neglect reporting, and an exception when disclosure would likely expose the student to abuse or neglect. (Texas Legislature Online, 2025, §§26.0083, 28.0043)
The policy disagreement
Democratic opponents argued that the provisions would silence LGBTQ students, remove supportive school spaces, isolate vulnerable children, and damage family relationships. (González, 2025) (Sorochinskaia, 2025)
Campbell’s response is that support for a struggling child should not mean giving school institutions independent authority to shape the child’s identity, conceal consequential concerns, or replace parental and professional care with official programming or school-sponsored identity groups. (Campbell, 2026)
Important limits
Davis’s votes and statement of intended vote do not prove her personal motive or establish that she supports schools secretly transitioning children.
The Bellaire allegations were resolved by settlement rather than a judicial finding of liability.
Section 26.0083 does not command disclosure of every identity-related comment a student makes.
Section 11.401 is not limited to conduct undertaken secretly or without parental consent.
SB 12 does not prohibit all student discussion, all counseling, or all mental-health care.
No law can eliminate every form of peer influence. These provisions regulate the school’s institutional role, official programming, employee conduct, and sponsored clubs.
Campbell’s bottom line
This is not about denying help to children. It is about making sure they receive the right help—from parents who know and love them and from qualified professionals who work with the child and family.
Schools should protect children, respond to emergencies, and report abuse. They should not independently socially transition children, hide consequential well-being concerns from parents, or substitute school-directed programming and peer environments for parental care. (Campbell, 2026)
Annotated references
References are alphabetized by author, organization, or case name. Each annotation identifies what the source establishes and any important limitation.
Texas parental-rights example
Alliance Defending Freedom. (2025, June 24). Houston parents sue school district for refusing to stop treating daughter as boy [Press release].
Annotation: This release describes the allegations made by the Bellaire High School student’s parents and links the dispute to school use of a different name and pronouns. It presents the plaintiffs’ position and does not constitute an independent finding that every allegation was true.
Clinical evidence
Cass Review. (2024). Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people: Final report, chapter 12—Social transition.
Annotation: Chapter 12 discusses the limited quality of evidence concerning social transition and recommends particular caution and professional involvement for prepubertal children. The review concerns clinical services in the United Kingdom; it does not independently determine what Texas school law should require.
Campbell policy source
Campbell, W. (2026). Aicha Davis and the Dems voted against the rights of parents. Will Campbell for Texas.
Annotation: This campaign explainer documents Campbell’s support for SB 12’s parental-rights provisions and his interpretation of their purpose. It establishes Campbell’s policy position; the official bill text and House Journals separately establish the law and Davis’s legislative record.
Democratic opposition
González, J. (2025, May 31). Rep. Jessica González speaks in opposition to SB 12 [Video]. YouTube.
Annotation: This video records González’s conference-report speech. At approximately 00:18–00:31, she rejects the bill’s parental-rights framing and describes it as silencing children and erasing families. It documents González’s position, not Davis’s personal rationale.
Sorochinskaia, S. (2025, May 31). Democrats lash out as Legislature bans school clubs that support gay teens. The Texas Tribune.
Annotation: This contemporaneous report documents Democratic arguments made during the final House debate, including statements by Rafael Anchía, Erin Zwiener, Jolanda Jones, Gene Wu, and Nicole Collier. Their arguments concentrated principally on the student-club prohibition and feared isolation or silencing of LGBTQ students. The article does not establish Davis’s individual reason for voting against SB 12.
Federal litigation
GSA Network v. Houston Independent School District, No. 4:25-cv-04090 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2026). Opinion and order granting preliminary injunction in part.
Annotation: The court preliminarily enjoined Houston, Katy, and Plano ISDs from implementing or enforcing the challenged SB 12 provisions while litigation proceeds. The order notes that the districts did not oppose preliminary relief. It is not a final merits judgment and does not invalidate the provisions statewide.
Transgender Law Center. (2026, March 26). GSA Network v. Morath.
Annotation: This page explains the challengers’ constitutional and Equal Access Act claims concerning the social-transition, programming, and club provisions. It is an advocacy and litigation source presenting the plaintiffs’ position, not a neutral judicial determination of those claims.
Houston settlement reporting
Saavedra, N. (2025, December 9). HISD settles federal lawsuit with Bellaire HS parents who sued over student’s preferred pronoun use. KPRC 2 Houston.
Annotation: This local report describes the settlement and the agreed terms governing how district employees would address the student. It also reports Houston ISD’s denial of wrongdoing. A settlement resolves a dispute but does not establish every allegation or constitute an admission of liability.
Official legislative records
Texas House of Representatives. (2025a, May 25). House journal: Eighty-ninth Legislature, regular session, seventy-third day.
Annotation: Record Vote 3506 records third-reading passage of SB 12 by 88 Yeas, 47 Nays, and three members present but not voting. It lists Rep. Aicha Davis among the Nays. The Journal proves her vote on that stage but does not state her reason or establish her position on every individual provision.
Texas House of Representatives. (2025b, May 31). House journal: Eighty-ninth Legislature, regular session, seventy-ninth day.
Annotation: Record Vote 4119 records House adoption of the SB 12 conference report by 77 Yeas, 40 Nays, and two members present but not voting. Davis is listed as absent from the roll call, followed by her statement that she was in the House, away from her desk, and would have voted no. Her statement documents her intended vote but is not the same as a vote recorded in the roll-call totals.
Texas Legislature Online. (2025). Senate Bill 12, Eighty-ninth Legislature, regular session: Enrolled bill text. Texas Legislative Council.
Annotation: This is the official enrolled text of SB 12. Sections 7, 15, 24, and 27 contain the provisions discussed in this module concerning employee assistance with social transitioning, parental health and well-being information, school-directed sexual-orientation and gender-identity programming, and school-authorized student clubs. The bill text establishes the enacted language but does not establish how an individual legislator voted or why.