Just like Brexit was something that sounded good at political rallies but in the end was not thought through and the reality is a lot less favorable, the same will happen with this. This Texas rep. who is a hardware store owner, thinks this sounds great to a constituency but it should be a requirement that he present a full plan, not just throw it out and see if it sticks.
For example, what is the plan to secure the border with Mexico? How will Texas maintain the new border with US? What about all the military bases in Texas? What about American companies that are headquartered in Texas but have offices in other states? Or the other way around?
There is no way that any of this has been thought out because if it had, it would be clear this is a really dumb idea. No, this is just more divisive political rhetoric intended to do nothing more than rile up a base. This is not good for the country and not good for Texas.
Let's see if rank and file elected republicans sign on to this. 127 of them agreed that the Supreme court should overturn an election so nothing would surprise me.
To my point, this is the risk of having referendums and other "let the people decide" mechanisms determine policy, particularly for things that require a lot of thought and have a lot of ramifications beyond sloganeering. It's one thing to have a party, and party principles, and to have people vote for the general direction that they want a country or state to go. It's another thing to "leave it up to them" to decide things that are really important. Elected officials are elected for a reason, to make decisions on behalf of the people.
What happened with Brexit was that David Cameron, the Conservative British PM, had been constantly dealing with attacks from other Tories on his right flank on leaving the EU. Other parties, such as Nigel Farage's UKIP (UK Independence Party) formed to push the Brexit issue. Cameron decided to put it to a referendum where he promised to respect the result, to try to put the issue to bed. It did - but not in the matter he hoped, because the Leave vote won by 51.8% by 48.1% - which showed that the country was divided down the line on it. But it had to be done, because he had promised and he (or the Tory party) didn't want to break their promise and "defy the will of the people". The day after Google queries for "what is Brexit" spiked in the UK. I would wager that many of those folks that voted probably had no idea what they were voting for.
Now ultimately Brexit may end up being the right decision, time will tell. But the way it was done, with possibly no trade deal or any deal in place, was probably not the way anyone (other than hard core anti-EU believers) would have wanted. Leaving things "to the will of the people" can be dangerous, because the people don't always put in the level of thought into things that they should, and they don't think about ramifications. That's why we elect people who are supposed to do that for us.
Politicians love slogans - Brexit, Texit, Calexit, Build the Wall, Defund the Police, etc...particularly in our social media age where it can be turned into a hashtag. Implementing what is behind those slogans is much, much harder. Don't ask people to just decide on a slogan.