From a public policy perspective, requiring background checks, competency tests, etc. before carrying in public makes a certain amount of sense. Think about a driver's license--it's nice to know that (in theory, at least) the 'other guy' on the road has demonstrated a basic understanding of the laws involved and some minimal level of competency in operating a moving vehicle. It's never perfect of course, but it (again, in theory) achieves some level of reducing harm to the public.
Licensed open carry, then, should be presented as simply an alternative to concealed carry, kind of like a motorcycle driver's license instead of a class C. We're not expanding or adding anything, merely providing an alternative method to the existing privilege.
I could see the law allowing open carry with either a CHL or a new OHL. This new license would have the same legal qualifications, same course of fire requirements, but a shorter class requirement and a lower cost. We will also need a new OHL instructor license to go with it if the instructor is not already qualified to teach the CHL class.
So the selling points are:
-no material expansion of rights/privileges
-criminals and the mentally unfit are excluded
-additional revenue stream to the state for education, law enforcement, etc.
-more jobs for Texans--DPS will have to hire additional license processors and firearms instructors will have additional students
What's a left leaning elected official not going to like?
Anyway, just my 2 cents.