SD-9 Delegates Removed from the Texas GOP Convention for Upholding Party Platform Principles

Opposition to the Keller ISD split without a public vote put grassroots Republicans at odds with party leadership—and cost them their place as delegates.

---

About a year ago, residents of the Keller Independent School District were confronted with a proposal that stunned the community. Behind closed doors, members of the school board advanced a plan to fundamentally restructure the district—first by renaming it “Alliance ISD,” and then by splitting it into two separate districts, one of which would reclaim the name “Keller ISD.” This was not a minor administrative adjustment, but a sweeping structural transformation affecting governance, taxation, school zoning, and the identity of the community itself.

And it was attempted without a vote of the people.

From the beginning, that fact alone set off alarm bells across the community. This was not a routine administrative decision. It was a proposal that would permanently alter the structure of a public institution, redistribute resources, redraw boundaries, and reshape the educational landscape for thousands of families. Yet the people most affected—the parents, taxpayers, and voters—were not given a direct say in whether it should happen.

The plan ultimately collapsed under intense public pressure. But what followed made clear that this was not merely a local controversy. It exposed a deeper dividing line within the Republican Party itself: between those willing to move forward without consent, and those insisting that our stated principles actually mean what they say.

The 2024 Republican Party of Texas Platform is not vague on this point. It explicitly affirms that “government properly exists by the consent of the governed” (Plank 11) . That is not rhetorical flourish. It is the foundation of republican government itself. And yet, in Keller ISD, a small group of officials attempted to carry out a transformational restructuring without ever seeking that consent. There was no referendum, no binding vote, no mechanism by which the governed could actually govern.

That is not self-government. That is authority substituting itself for consent.

The platform reinforces this principle in multiple ways. It calls for limiting government power to its proper bounds (Principles §4) , yet a school board’s authority to administer a district does not extend to redefining the district itself without the people. It affirms that parental rights are foundational (Plank 17) , yet a decision directly affecting where children attend school and how resources are allocated was advanced without giving parents the deciding voice. And it emphasizes accountability in the exercise of authority (Plank 10) , yet this proposal emerged from closed-door discussions, only becoming public after it had already taken shape.

By the time the public became aware of the proposal, it had already moved beyond casual discussion. Reporting indicates that Tim Davis represented Keller ISD during the split effort and was alleged to have been instrumental in developing the legal strategy behind it. If accurate, that suggests the effort had progressed into structured planning and execution before the public was ever brought into the conversation. That alone raises serious questions—not just about the proposal itself, but about the process used to develop it.

Then came a sequence of events that is difficult to ignore.

On March 10, 2025, State Representative David Lowe filed House Bill 4156, legislation addressing the creation of new school districts by detachment and ensuring that such actions would require a structured process, including voter approval. Just four days later, on March 14, the Keller ISD split was abruptly abandoned.

The stated reasons were financial and administrative. The district faced approximately $700 million in existing bond debt, and a split would require tens of millions in additional funding to allocate that debt fairly. At the same time, the Texas Education Agency had begun reviewing complaints regarding the district’s governance, including concerns about transparency. The superintendent had already resigned in opposition to the plan.

Each of these factors is significant. Together, they raise a simple and unavoidable question: why did a plan that had advanced so far collapse so quickly?

This article does not speculate. But the timeline speaks for itself.

What followed is just as important.

House Bill 4156 was not an isolated effort. It was reinforced at the state level. On May 15, 2025, State Representative Charlie Geren filed House Bill 5089, an identical measure. State Representative Nate Schatzline publicly emphasized the importance of community voice, transparency, and accountability, explicitly framing the outcome in Keller ISD as an example of the will of the people being heard.

This matters.

Because it demonstrates that the demand for a referendum was not a fringe reaction or a temporary political position. It was a position shared and advanced by conservative Republican legislators—and it was entirely consistent with the principles laid out in the Republican Party platform.

In other words, the dividing line is clear.

Those who sought to split the district without a vote were acting contrary to our stated principles.

Those who insisted on a referendum were acting in alignment with them.

I write this not as an outside observer, but as someone directly involved at the time. I was serving as District Director for State Representative David Lowe, and in that capacity I addressed the Keller ISD School Board twice on his behalf—first to state clearly that a decision of this magnitude should not be conducted without a general referendum, and then to announce that he would be filing legislation to require such a vote. I was also personally engaged in the issue, speaking out publicly as these events unfolded, and I was proud to do so—upholding the conservative principles of our Party Platform.

What I saw firsthand were not citizens resisting solutions, but citizens insisting on process—parents and taxpayers who understood something fundamental: that how a decision is made matters just as much as the decision itself.

Because process is not secondary.

Process is the safeguard of principle.

That is why what happened next is so troubling.

According to reporting by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, several Republicans who opposed the Keller ISD split were later removed from the delegate list for the Texas GOP Convention.

We voted in the Republican primary.
We attended our precinct convention.
We followed the rules.

And yet we were excluded.

My wife and I were ultimately excluded from serving as delegates after I publicly opposed the Keller ISD split and advocated for a referendum—raising serious questions about whether adherence to the Republican Party Platform is being treated as a disqualifying position.

I have spent more than four decades working within the Republican Party in Texas—as a grassroots volunteer, precinct chair, campaign worker, strategist, and legislative staffer. My involvement dates back to the early 1980s, including work on campaigns such as Charlie Evans for State Representative and the Pat Robertson campaign in 1988. I later served as a Precinct Chair in Tarrant County, a member of the County Executive Committee’s Resolutions Committee, and a consultant helping recruit and support Republican candidates at the grassroots level.

My work has also included serving as a strategist, advisor, and campaign manager for State Representative David Lowe, working in the political department of the Don Huffines campaign, and serving as District Director in the Texas House. I have also contributed to policy development as a Bill Analyst for Texas Policy Research, focusing on legislation grounded in limited government, individual liberty, and free enterprise.

My wife and I have consistently supported Republican candidates and causes throughout that time.

Neither of us has ever supported a Democrat—openly or otherwise.

Taken together, these events raise a serious question—not just about a school district, but about the integrity of process itself.

What happens when the public is excluded from a decision of this magnitude?

What happens when that decision is developed without transparency?

And what happens when those who object—on principled, platform-based grounds—are later excluded from participation?

The people of Keller ISD answered part of that question.

They stopped the split.

They insisted on being heard.

And in doing so, they upheld the very principle the platform proclaims: consent of the governed.

The legislators who called for a vote upheld it as well.

The lesson is simple, but it is not optional.

If we are serious about our platform, then we must be consistent.

We cannot claim to believe in consent of the governed, limited government, parental rights, and accountability—and then set those principles aside when they become inconvenient.

Because if those principles do not apply here—

then where do they apply?