Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has faced allegations of misconduct as Texas’ top lawyer since the beginning of his tenure. The Texas Senate has finally responded to these allegations by voting to acquit him. 

The Texas House impeached Paxton in May of this year on 20 articles over allegations of bribery and abuse of office. Most of the articles are connected with Paxton’s relationship with Donor Nate Paul, who is currently facing federal charges accusing him of lying on financial statements. In the articles, Paxton is accused of using his position to benefit Paul, including assigning an outside lawyer to use Attorney General (AG) resources to investigate Paul’s business rivals with the expectation that Paxton would be compensated by Paul. The Senate decided to hear 16 of those 20 articles, and a two-week trial was held with the decision to acquit handed down on Saturday, Sept. 16. 

While Paxton has faced accusations of abuse of power since 2015, Texas Republicans have not been willing to call him out prior to the impeachment vote, even in the face of active state and FBI investigations. However, a whistleblower scandal seemed to be the final straw for House Republicans, who finally decided to open an investigation. Former employees of the Officer of the Attorney General reported concerns that Paxton was using his office to benefit Paul to the FBI in September 2020, prompting an open investigation into Paxton’s actions while in office. But, the investigation wasn’t what prompted House Republicans to recommend impeachment; rather, it was a wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the whistleblowers after they were fired. The suit was nearly settled last year for $3.3 million and Paxton almost got off unscathed once again, until he requested that the Texas Legislature allocate taxpayer money to cover the settlement. This concerned House investigators and promoted an investigation into his actions while in office which resulted in the final recommendation of impeachment.

It is safe to say that the decision to impeach Paxton was a surprise as he has been able to skate past allegations and continue winning elections in a Republican-dominated state. But, the evidence appeared to be strong, with House impeachment managers submitting 3,760 pages of 150 exhibits providing details of their allegations. The exhibits included a personal account with Paxton’s former aid detailing conversations he overheard suggesting Nate Paul had paid to renovate Paxton’s house, emails suggesting Paul asked for his business rivals and law enforcement officials who investigated him to be investigated by the AG office, and the ways that Paxton tried to hide his relationship with Paul including using a burner phone and an uber account under a fake name. However, facing the tough challenge of convincing Republican senators to vote against their own political self-interest, a few hiccups from House lawyers throughout the case, and a hardly impartial judge in Dan Patrick, House lawyers were ultimately unable to convince the majority Republican Senate to choose integrity over politics. 

While the trial may be done and Ken Paxton has returned to office, his legal scrutiny is far from over. Paxton still faces an open state securities fraud case stemming from attempts to solicit investors in 2011 and FBI investigations into his whistleblowers’ complaints that will largely determine his legal fate going forward. His approval rating also dropped to 30% post-impeachment, the lowest they have been during his tenure. These factors are bound to play a role in the 2024 elections if he chooses to run again for AG or for another office. 

Despite the local nature of Paxton’s trial, it is important to examine the key trends in American politics overall that played into the case.

What are the key trends in American politics that played into Paxton’s trial?

Perhaps the most clear trend was the state of extreme partisanship that makes it very difficult to hold politicians accountable. This is especially prominent in one-party-dominated states, where there is more extreme partisanship playing out in primaries. The Paxton trial is a prime example of this. Before the trial began, Paxton and his supporters pressured Republican politicians, using his sway with far-right voters to consider their own political standings if they voted for removal. This played out in deliberations, with only two Republicans voting to convict on any of the 16 articles. Accounts of the deliberations state that discussions started impartial and with a focus on the evidence by GOP senators, but, as Senator Royce West put it, “Once it was clear that we weren’t going to get 21 votes, I believe that some Republicans that wanted to support impeachment decided to vote against it.” In the end, Republican senators decided not to risk their own political standing in elections that are won by winning support in the primaries from far-right voters.

Extreme partisanship is not limited to Texas or the Republican party. Rather, it is a representative case of it. The results of the trial and the blatant disregard for ethics can happen in any state as more and more states are dominated by one party, making it easier for party platforms to continue moving in extreme directions. In this type of climate, corruption flourishes and goes unaccounted for because party politics becomes the most important thing to winning elections. The Paxton case is the tip of the iceberg of a much deeper problem that will likely play out all over the country until our politicians can learn to govern bipartisanly to the benefit of the American people.  

The trial also took place in the background of a clear split in the Republican party that started when Trump took office and worsened with his defeat in the 2020 election and ongoing criminal investigations. Paxton, a MAGA politician, was quick to call out House Republicans after his impeachment and set the stage for a 2024 election cycle that pits MAGA Republicans against traditional Republicans, who they regard as not conservative enough and responsible for a political sham against Paxton. In particular, Paxton and his supporters have vowed to see House Speaker Dade Phelan held accountable for his actions in leading the impeachment vote. With Paxton supporters promising political retaliation against Republicans who supported Paxton’s removal from office, the primaries for the 2024 elections this spring are likely to see Republicans fighting to set the party’s agenda in Texas. This is reflective of a broader trend across the US as MAGA and non-MAGA Republicans get ready to fight it out for the image of the party in the 2024 elections. 

What are the critical implications of Paxton’s trial and acquittal on Texas and American politics?

Throughout the impeachment process, Paxton and his supporters framed the investigation as a political farce, with Paxton making a statement after his acquittal that he was a victim of a “sham impeachment coordinated by the Biden Administration with liberal House Speaker Dade Phelan and his Kangaroo court.” Calling the investigation politically motivated is a familiar tactic, as former President Trump has used it in response to his legal problems. And tying Paxton’s impeachment trial to Trump is exactly what Paxton and his allies were trying to do. This idea that MAGA politicians are being targeted through the legal system by their political opponents is a powerful them versus us rhetoric used to rally their base against opponents. They are framing this as a call to action for their supporters that American democracy is in trouble and that the deep state (anti-MAGA Republicans and Democrats) must be stopped from using political persecution against them. And they are right; political persecution certainly does not make for a healthy democracy. But that’s not what’s happening here. What is happening is their veiled attempt to avoid being held accountable for their actions while weakening their supporters’ belief in the legal system. And that certainly doesn’t make for a healthy democracy– we, as a country, need to be able to hold corrupt politicians accountable, and we need to have faith in our institutions to do the right thing legally and ethically. Framing corruption charges as political persecution is a dangerous game because it can destabilize our nation if citizens’ trust in institutional integrity declines. Not to mention, Paxton’s use of this frame is highly ironic considering that part of the investigation against him centered on his use of the Attorney General’s office to investigate Nate Paul’s business rivals, which does indeed represent an inappropriate use of the legal system. 

Finally, this trial sent a strong message to whistleblowers, especially in one-party-dominated states like Texas. A healthy democracy depends on whistleblowers who are willing to come forward and report actions that they believe are unethical and violate the law. But if they cannot depend on a fair investigation that will hold politicians accountable while protecting them when they come forward, then what is the incentive to do so? While there are viable options available through civil court when whistleblowers face retaliation, and Paxton’s whistleblowers show no sign of backing down, it is impossible not to acknowledge that the monitoring of politicians’ actions faced a huge setback as a result of the trial. Now, this is mainly applicable to impeachment trials, as it is a lot harder to stack the deck in legal trials. Still, since the traditional approach to holding politicians accountable is through impeachment, whistleblowers might think twice about putting their jobs and reputations on the line if partisan politics continue to protect corruption.

The impact of Ken Paxton’s acquittal will continue to play out over the 2024 election cycle and in the courtroom as he prepares to face legal challenges. We will see as voters get ready to hit the polls and as Paxton faces the court if he will finally be held accountable for his actions. But what is clear now is that Paxton’s acquittal is representative of broader problems in American politics and sets a dangerous path toward an unhealthy democracy that is unable to weed out corrupt politicians. This threatens the ability of politicians to adequately represent the interests of American citizens and sets a path toward a corrupt and mismanaged government, something that should be a concern far beyond Texas.