Nacogdoches GOP Watch

06/17/2026

Brian Fitzgerald’s very first meeting as Party Chair was a perfect illustration of why so many Republicans had concerns from the beginning.

At the meeting, Judge Jack Sinz was present to administer the oaths of office to newly elected party officers. There was just one problem: Brian forgot to bring the oath forms.

As a result, Judge Sinz had to leave the meeting and make a trip back to his office at the courthouse to retrieve the paperwork that should have already been prepared and waiting.

This wasn’t a complicated task. It was one of the most basic responsibilities associated with organizing the meeting. Yet on his very first day in office, Brian Fitzgerald managed to begin the proceedings unprepared.

Brian Fitzgerald joked about the party “turning the page.”
If forgetting the oath forms on his very first meeting as Chairman is what turning the page looks like, I don’t particularly like where this story is going.

06/16/2026

Brian Fitzgerald has been in office since yesterday and has reportedly violated rules, but should this come as a surprise?

04/28/2026

Please join us for our party meeting tonight at 5:30pm. Kevin Ellis from the State Board of Education will give us a wrap up on the current State of Texas education. We will meet at the County Courthouse Annex, 203 W. Main Street.

04/28/2026

Brian said ‘He’ll Do It Right’ but He Doesn’t Even Know the Difference between School Board and Runoff Elections.

The most basic duty of the County Chair is running Elections.

Accuracy matters, especially from someone coming into leadership.

The school board election and the runoff are not the same. They’re run separately, follow different timelines, and are not interchangeable. School board elections are nonpartisan and not controlled by a party, while the runoff is a party-controlled election.

What’s more concerning is that the chair-elect doesn’t seem to understand this basic distinction. If you’re stepping into a leadership role, knowing how elections actually work isn’t optional.

This isn’t about Facebook semantics. It’s about competence and credibility. Voters deserve leaders who understand the process, not ones who confuse entirely separate elections.

04/25/2026

04/23/2026

The Primary Runoff Election is coming up on May 26, 2026.

Here’s what you need to know:

📌 Deadlines:
• Register to vote or update your address by April 27
• Apply for mail-in ballot by May 15
(Application must be received by this date, not postmarked)

📍 Early Voting Location:
Nacogdoches County Courthouse Annex
203 W. Main St.
Nacogdoches, TX 75961

🗳 Early Voting: May 18–22 (7 AM – 7 PM daily)

Make a plan now to participate.

Important Deadlines for Election: https://loom.ly/X3b8Zj0
Early Voting Schedule: https://loom.ly/ve-XfMk
Sample Ballot: https://loom.ly/qwp6uPw

04/18/2026

🚨 FOLLOW THE HYPOCRISY: RULE 32, ACCESS, AND POLITICAL GAMES 🚨
Let’s lay this out clearly, because the contradictions are getting harder to ignore.

On one hand, you have Brian Fitzgerald (Chair-Elect) demanding access to convention materials before he’s even taken office, citing Rule 32 as justification.
His reasoning? He “doesn’t trust” the current chair to submit things correctly.

At the exact same time…
State Party Candidates across the state are being told they cannot access delegate lists again, because of Rule 32.

So what happens next?
An emergency meeting is called to FIX the problem to address Rule 32 and allow greater access.
Seems straightforward, right?
Wrong.

D’Rinda Randall (candidate for State Party Chair)who has publicly complained about not having access to those same delegate lists votes NO on even holding the meeting to fix it.
Let that sink in.
She wants access…
But votes against the process to create access.

It doesn’t stop there.
Brian Fitzgerald who is actively pushing for early access to records is also supporting Randall for State Chair.

Even more concerning:
There is evidence of Brian instructing individuals that they need to become delegates in order to vote for Randall.

So let’s connect the dots:
• Rule 32 is being used to deny access to candidates
• The same rule is being used to justify early access demands by a chair-elect
• A candidate who complains about lack of access votes against fixing it
• And the same local leadership pushing for access is actively organizing votes for that candidate

This isn’t about transparency.
This is about who gets access and when depending on who benefits.

If Rule 32 is a problem, fix it.
If access matters, apply it equally.
But don’t weaponize the rules when it’s convenient…
…and then block solutions when it’s not.

Voters and delegates deserve consistency, not political maneuvering behind the scenes. The question is no longer what is happening.
It’s why.

04/16/2026

LOW INFORMATION OR A MANDATE?

Brian claims that he won “almost two to one.” One can only assume that he sees this margin as a mandate. His wife says “this kind of thing is why he chose to run and won.” This assumes that the voters knew his intentions and voted for his vision of the Party.

This is difficult to reconcile because the dominant public-facing message was not a detailed roadmap for the county party.

Voters chose candidates on top of the ballot that contrasted Brian’s messaging. In the same election, voters overwhelmingly supported Trent Ashby, a clear contrast in messaging and outcome. Governor Greg Abbott won with an overwhelming margin over Doc Pete Chambers.

While Brian publicly supported Rhonda Ward in her race against Trent Ashby, and Doc Chambers in his race against Greg Abbott, both were defeated by large margins.

The County Chair race was a low-information, down-ballot election where most voters were not engaging with the actual function of the office or even aware that it is an elected position tied to the structure of the local Republican Party.

Through conversations with voters, a consistent pattern emerged: many did not know there was a county party at all, and many did not understand what a County Chair does.

For a large portion of the electorate, the race was not about policy details or organizational direction—because those details were not part of their understanding going into the ballot.

So what did drive the decision?

That’s where the contrast becomes important.

Did voters support Brian because they believed the local Republican Party had failed to “give them a voice”?

Did they vote for him because of his veteran identity?

Did they vote for him because of ballot position and name exposure at the top of a low-information section of the ballot?

Or did many simply not know what they were voting for at all?

That raises a straightforward question: was Brian an anomaly produced by a low-information, high-visibility down-ballot race, rather than a mandate based on a clearly understood vision for the county party?

His campaign page had limited local engagement, and his visibility came primarily through widespread signage and branding rather than detailed public education about the role itself.

It was branding. “Conservative Veteran” repeated across hundreds of signs, while the actual structure, duties, and function of the County Chair role remained largely unknown to most voters.

Let me be clear, we appreciate military service, but being a veteran doesn’t mean you are the better choice.

When a candidate wins a position that many voters didn’t realize was an elected party leadership role in the first place, it forces a difficult but necessary conversation about awareness, messaging, and what voters were actually responding to in that election.

This isn’t about questioning voters. It’s about recognizing how easily a low-information race can be shaped by branding and visibility instead of understanding and what that means for the future of local party leadership.

04/14/2026

🎬 CLASSICS REWIND 🎬
Let’s roll the tape back.
During his campaign, Brian said:
“I will always conduct Republican Party business according to the rules and laws… There will never be a question of process or chain of custody.”

This didn’t age well.

To summarize the recent events and the rule-breaking behavior:

📌 Pushing for access to records through a barrage of emails outside proper procedure

📌 Citing Rule 32 to demand convention records before taking office

📌 Ignoring timing and process while claiming to defend them by presenting himself as the County Chair before he takes office

📌 Acting under authority that legally doesn’t begin until the official start date (incoming chair has no authority)

📌Failing to appoint a Secretary during the Resolutions Committee meeting

📌 Changing the Resolutions Committee Report after it was approved

📌 Creating confusion around chain of custody instead of protecting it throughout the convention process

These aren’t small technicalities. These are the very rules he promised to follow.

And here’s the bigger issue:
These were campaign promises about integrity, process, and transparency… and they’re already being broken before he’s even in office.

You don’t get to campaign on rules, then bend them the moment it’s convenient.

Accountability starts on day one. Not when it’s convenient.

04/13/2026

At this point, the pattern is obvious.

A small group keeps screaming “lies” but can’t produce a single piece of evidence to back it up. Not one fact. Just noise.

That’s not disagreement or proving that the facts on this page are false. That’s deflection.

And let’s be clear. Attacking the current Chair doesn’t refute a single fact about Brian. It’s a distraction, not a defense. If she does something wrong as the Chair, it will be called out.

If anything posted here is false, prove it. It should be easy… unless you can’t.

Instead, we get personal attacks, negative reviews, and side conversations, because addressing the actual facts clearly isn’t an option.

You don’t get to rewrite reality just because the truth is inconvenient.

Bring evidence that the facts about Brian are false or bring nothing. The constant trolling only makes one thing clear: the facts hit a nerve.