Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Abbott names former SOS John Scott as temporary AG

I honestly wasn’t sure he was going to bother with this.

A crook any way you look

Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday appointed Fort Worth lawyer and former Secretary of State John Scott as interim Texas attorney general, temporarily replacing Ken Paxton, who was suspended as attorney general pending the outcome of an impeachment trial in the state Senate.

Scott previously served as deputy attorney general for civil litigation when Abbott led that office. He has more than 34 years of legal experience and has argued more than 100 cases in state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. After leaving the attorney general’s office, he was appointed chief operating officer of the state Health and Human Services Commission, overseeing 56,000 employees and a budget of $50 billion.

“John Scott has the background and experience needed to step in as a short-term interim Attorney General during the time the Attorney General has been suspended from duty,” Abbott said in a statement. “He served under me in the Texas Attorney General’s Office and knows how the Office of the Attorney General operates.”

Abbott tapped Scott to serve as secretary of state in October 2021. Before leaving the job in December 2022, Scott oversaw elections and struggled to simultaneously assure the public that Texas elections were secure while mollifying those, including supporters of former President Donald Trump, who alleged widespread fraud.

Many feared Scott would be amenable to Trump’s argument that the 2020 election was riddled with fraud because Scott briefly represented the former president in a lawsuit challenging the election results in Pennsylvania.

But a 2020 audit of results in four of the largest Texas counties that Scott managed found no widespread fraud or voting irregularities. Local elections administrators, many in populous Democratic counties, praised him for defending their work at a time when they had increasingly come under partisan attack.

I’ve said a few things about John Scott in the past, and I stand by them. But having said them, it is important to remember that we are now comparing him not to the AG we want and deserve, but to the AG we had and the guy who was filling in for him before now. By that measure, he mostly merits a shrug and a “meh, could have been worse”. He’ll be on the job for maybe four months max, so he’s more substitute teacher than anything else. I suppose Abbott could appoint him as the replacement if Paxton gets convicted by the Senate, but I don’t see him as the top choice there. On a side note, I wonder if previous-temporary-AG Brent Webster was caught by surprise by this. A little drama in these matters is never unwelcome. Anyway, this is fine, as far as “fine” goes these days. TPM and Reform Austin have more.

How bad is the “Death Star” bill going to be?

We’ll soon be finding out.

That’s no moon…

House Bill 2127 has been approved by the state House and Senate, and Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to sign it any day.

Crafted by state Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock), the bill aims to create a statewide, uniform set of regulations for businesses, which Burrows says have been hurt by a patchwork of local rules.

Broadly speaking, the bill would achieve that goal by wiping out local governments’ ability to set rules beyond what the state already specifies on issues related to agriculture, business and commerce, finance, insurance, labor, occupations, property, local government and natural resources.

Thursday’s [San Antonio City Council] committee meeting offered a first glimpse at how HB 2127 might play out for cities that could soon be responsible for its implementation.

Required breaks and other heat-related mandates some council members want to create in San Antonio for construction workers are exactly the kind of regulations HB 2127 was intended to stop, after city-led efforts like paid sick leave ordinances became popular in recent years. Labor groups have labeled the pending legislation the “Death Star Bill” because they consider it so wide-ranging and powerful.

The bill’s supporters cite other progressive-led city initiatives HB 2127 would have also thwarted, such as bans on plastic bags, which other municipalities have sought to implement. The legal concept under which such laws are applied is known as preemption.

The legislation marks the latest incursion in a years-long effort by the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature to chip away at the ability of Democratic-led big cities to govern themselves.

Unlike narrower past efforts, however, city officials are not yet sure how far-ranging the effects of HB 2127 will be and how much of their past work will be undone.

“If the bill [becomes law] … [does] that mean that everything we’ve done [on this committee], including, for instance, proactive apartment inspection … would be out the door?” Rocha Garcia asked Assistant City Attorney Jameene Williams, who said she could not yet provide an answer.

[…]

Since HB 2127’s initial committee hearing, which featured testimonies from San Antonio, Houston and Dallas officials, begging lawmakers to use caution on such a dramatic change, proponents of the bill say it’s been tweaked to mitigate cities’ confusion and angst.

One amendment added during the Senate floor vote added language saying cities can recoup their legal fees if they’re sued for maintaining an ordinance in conflict with the law and the lawsuit is deemed frivolous. Another removed language saying city officials could be held liable for violations of the law, in addition to the municipalities.

Other amendments proposed by Senate Democrats aimed at labor protections failed.

The number of state codes that would be preempted by the bill has also changed, from six in the initial draft to a total of nine.

“As [with] most bills that are so controversial when they first get started, there was a little bit tweaking here and there,” said Rod Bordelon, a regulatory attorney and scholar for the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, which supports HB 2127. “But substantively, I think the bill as passed … is pretty closely related to what was filed originally.”

State law gives cities explicit authority over many issues within the codes the bill seeks to preempt — authority that cities would maintain even if the bill becomes law. For example, the local government code gives cities permission to regulate fireworks, zoning and law enforcement.

That means cities would still be able to regulate many issues within the nine codes the legislation preempts, but city attorneys would need to examine all new and existing ordinances on a case-by-case basis to ensure they wouldn’t violate the new law.

“It’s the subject matter within that code that we’d have to look at,” Williams told the council committee Thursday. “So it’s not an automatic preemption of all of our ordinances that fall under that particular code. We’d have to look at the substance of the ordinances.”

While city leaders say that’s an overwhelming burden on their resources, proponents of the bill say they’re simply shifting the burden of compliance to the city instead of businesses.

“If the City of San Antonio issues an ordinance and that seems to be in conflict with state law or other ordinances around the state, then [private businesses] are having to sit down with their lawyers and compliance specialists and figure out what do they need to do in each one of these jurisdictions,” said Bordelon.

See here for some background. The short answer to all this is that it will be sorted out, over the course of years, by the courts. There may be revisions made to this law, if certain aspects of it are found to be unworkable or not what the authors intended, in a future legislative session. Maybe someday, in a Democratic Texas, it will be repealed, or at least largely rolled back. Until then, every city is going to have to ask these questions and get their lawyers to do this research before they take action on a whole host of things. And that, I assure you, was the point.

“Near normal” hurricane season this year

Good news, bad news.

Texas and the rest of the Gulf and East coasts are most likely to see a “near-normal” hurricane season this year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Federal forecasters are predicting between 12 and 17 named storms will form this season, the agency announced Thursday. One to four of those storms could be hurricanes rated Category 3 or higher, meaning they will have wind speeds of at least 111 miles per hour.

NOAA defines an average Atlantic hurricane season as one with 14 named storms, of which three are those stronger hurricanes.

[…]

Hurricanes are more likely to be stronger and rains more likely to be heavier because of climate change. It’s also possible that more hurricanes will continue to get stronger over a short time close to landfall.

“The risks of these storms are different than the risks that [communities] faced 10 years ago,” Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Deanne Criswell said at the news conference.

Texas is of course vulnerable to the impacts of storms, made worse by rising sea levels. A $31 billion plan that includes blocking off the mouth of the Houston Ship Channel with giant gates ahead of storms is far from fruition, if it happens at all.

I mean, could be worse, and indeed has been in recent years. But don’t get complacent.

“Remember it only takes one storm to devastate a community,” says Rick Spinrad, who leads NOAA. “It’s time to prepare.”

[…]

There is also extra uncertainty about what this year will hold because of the strange confluence of conditions in the Atlantic.

On one hand, the climate pattern El Niño will almost certainly take hold in the coming months, and persist through peak hurricane season in the late summer and early fall. That will create wind conditions that disrupt hurricanes.

But the ocean water in the area where hurricanes form is abnormally warm right now, and is expected to stay that way throughout hurricane season, which runs through November. That’s part of a global trend of rising ocean temperatures due to climate change, although scientists are still trying to understand what is driving this year’s record-breaking ocean heat.

What is clear is that warmer water helps hurricanes form.

So, will the 2023 conditions be bad for hurricanes overall, or good? Forecasters say it’s a little unclear.

“It’s definitely kind of a rare setup for this year,” says Matthew Rosencrans, lead hurricane season forecaster with NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. He says his team of forecasters are extremely experienced when it comes to predicting what will happen during hurricane season, but that there is almost no historical precedent for this year. “When we looked at it we were definitely, like, ‘Wow, there’s a lot of uncertainty this year.'”

Prepare for the coast to get hit, and hope for the best. That advice will continue to be operative for the long term.

What will Angela do?

This is a good and balanced article about one of the people who will sit in judgment of Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate: his wife, Angela Paxton.

Sen. Angela Paxton

When it came time for the high school teacher and guidance counselor to launch her own political career, a $2 million loan from her husband propelled Angela Paxton to a narrow victory for a state Senate seat in the booming Dallas suburbs. Once elected, she filed bills to expand his office’s powers, and approved budgets over his state agency and salary.

Now, Sen. Paxton is a key figure in the next phase of Ken Paxton’s historic impeachment: as a “juror” in a Senate trial that could put her husband back in office or banish him permanently.

It’s a role that raises an ethical cloud over the Senate proceeding. State law compels all senators to attend, but is silent on whether she must participate.

“If it were a trial in the justice system, she would be completely required to (step aside),” said Kenneth Williams, professor of criminal procedure at the South Texas College of Law in Houston. “It’s a clear conflict of interest.”

The trial is to start no later than Aug. 28, and it promises to be quite personal for Angela Paxton.

The 20 articles of impeachment brought against Ken Paxton include sweeping charges of abuse of office and unethical behavior. They include a bribery charge related to an extramarital affair with an aide to a state senator. Another suggested Angela Paxton was involved in the installation of $20,000 countertops at their home, paid for by a political donor.

Angela Paxton hasn’t said if she’ll recuse herself from the trial. She declined comment when approached by The Associated Press outside the Senate chamber on Monday.

State Rep. Andrew Murr, who led the impeachment investigation in the state House, declined to say if he thinks Angela Paxton should step aside. The Senate gets to set the rules, he said.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick tightly controls the Senate and its 19-12 Republican majority. He suggested to a Dallas television state before last week’s House impeachment vote that Angela Paxton will participate in the trial.

“I will be presiding over that case and the senators — all 31 senators — will have a vote,” Patrick told WFAA-TV. “We’ll set the rules for that trial as we go forward and we’ll see how that develops.”

The state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the chamber to convict. But there is little historic precedent in drafting impeachment trial rules, and nothing with a similar spousal conflict, Williams said.

In nearly 200 years of Texas history, Ken Paxton is just the third official to be impeached and the first statewide official impeached since Gov. James “Pa” Ferguson in 1917.

There’s no legal mechanism to force Angela Paxton out of the trial like there would be a criminal trial, Williams said.

“It’s up to her ethical standards and compass, basically,” Williams said.

[…]

Mark Phariss, the Democrat who lost to Angela Paxton by 2 percentage points in 2018, noted her sharp political instincts. He predicted she won’t step aside from a trial.

“My assumption is she will not recuse herself. Because she does not seem to distance herself from her husband, either when she ran for office in 2018 initially or at any time subsequently,” Phariss said.

We’ve discussed Sen. Paxton before, and my opinion matches Mark Phariss’. Maybe – a very big maybe – Dan Patrick could gently persuade her to recuse, for the optics of it if nothing else. But first you’d have to believe that Dan Patrick would do that, and then you’d have to believe she’d listen to anyone else. I think this comment by Ted Wood, that she will ultimately not recuse but go “present, not voting”, which still leave the “convict” threshold at 21, is highly plausible. The bottom line is that there’s just no evidence to suggest that she has any inclination to do the right thing.

Which, as noted, is fine by me. Perhaps the rules team will box her out, but that remains on par with Dan Patrick trying to talk sense into her. I’ll believe it when I see it.

To be fair, she’s not the only potentially conflicted Senate juror.

The House impeachment articles accuse Paxton of using state Sen. Bryan Hughes as a “straw requestor” for a legal opinion that protected a political donor from property foreclosure.

Hughes has not addressed whether he expects to be called as a witness or if he will recuse himself. He did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

I think Sen. Hughes – who, it must be noted, is also a terrible person – has a fairly easy out here. If he’s called as a witness, he absolutely must recuse, for all the obvious reasons. It’s so obvious that I think the rules people will cover it in their work. But if not, I don’t think he’s required to step down, at least not based on what we know now. It’s credible to me that he did Paxton a favor without knowing the motive behind it. If there’s anything to suggest otherwise, then absolutely he must go, too. But until then, I think Hughes can defer the decision until his status as a potential witness is resolved.

Ogg draws a primary challenger

Game on.

Sean Teare

A former Harris County prosecutor, Sean Teare, who left the district attorney’s office in February is running to unseat his longtime boss, District Attorney Kim Ogg in the Democratic primary, depicting her tenure as one riddled with mistakes.

Teare, who for years led Ogg’s vehicular crimes division and resigned, rebuking her office, and filed election paperwork this month. He plans to outline details of his candidacy Wednesday at a formal kickoff.

Ogg’s campaign representative is expected to comment soon about her new Democratic challenger.

During a wide-ranging interview Monday, Teare challenged an array of Ogg’s prosecutorial decisions, saying the DA proceeds on too many cases without taking a precautionary look at the evidence. One example he cited: the misdemeanor charge Ogg pursued against a Houston doctor accused of stealing COVID-19 vaccines, whom a grand jury later declined to indict.

“That man was doing everything he could in order to provide lifesaving care in an unprecedented pandemic,” Teare said. “Instead of stepping back and getting the full set of facts before charging in, (Ogg) ruined this man’s career for doing exactly what we asked him to do.”

A discrimination complaint against Harris County brought by the doctor, Hasan Gokal, is pending in a civil court.

Teare also critiqued the internal workings of Ogg’s office, describing a number of unfilled jobs and a high level of turnover as prosecutors have left the office for better opportunities. Teare says training and mentoring of early-career prosecutors could help lawyers reduce the backlog of cases to pre-Hurricane Harvey levels, he said. He said he’d aim to improve dismissal rates and reduce the number of acquittals in serious offenses.

Teare was explicit in his concerns about Ogg’s leadership.

“She cannot keep anyone working there long enough to get them trained and competent,” Teare said. “We have hemorrhaged prosecutors, many of them to lower paying district attorney’s offices. They’re taking less money to still do the job. They just don’t want to do it for her.”

Wednesday is today, and there’s a Facebook event for the kickoff. You can see a video here and a press release here. Ogg survived a trio of challengers in 2020, and I think it’s fair to say that she has not gotten more popular among the Democratic base. I’m going to reserve my thoughts for now, but it’s interesting to see the primary season get this early a start. We’ll see if anyone else jumps in.

State moves to buy Fairfield State Park

This would be a fitting end to this saga.

Texas isn’t giving up on saving Fairfield Lake State Park, a 1,820-acre park that operated on leased land for decades until the owner sold it earlier this year. On Thursday, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department commissioners gave the agency’s executive director the power to take “all necessary steps” to acquire the property that includes the park.

In late February, visitors said their goodbyes by collecting seashells, skipping rocks and casting their fishing lines from a boat on what they believed was the last day the park, about 100 miles south of Dallas, would be open to the public.

The park had announced it was closing after Vistra Corp., the energy company that had leased the land at no cost to the state, reached an agreement to sell the land to a developer. The state later struck a deal with the new owner to let the park remain open temporarily while the state explored its options.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission Chair Arch H. “Beaver” Aplin III said during Thursday’s meeting the agency has “sufficient funds” to purchase the park and has made an offer to buy the 5,000 acres of land that includes the park.

“We need more parkland in Texas, not less. And this is a critical moment for Texas during our centennial celebration year,” Aplin said. “I’m committed, and these commissioners are committed, to keeping the park, and we’re determined to protect it for the present and future generations to that end.”

Vistra didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Shawn Todd, founder and CEO of Dallas-based Todd Interests, said Thursday that his company’s contract to buy the property that includes the park isn’t final but will go through “in a matter of days.” Todd said he received an offer from TPWD, “refreshingly saying that they were respecting private property rights and made us an offer to purchase our contract.”

“We responded timely, and in good faith to that offer with a proposal that we felt would have been an incredible win for the Texas parks and for the state of Texas,” Todd said. “And candidly a significant sacrifice to our family and firm.”

He said the agency has not yet responded to the company’s proposal.

See here for the previous entry. I have no idea what kind of counter-offer Todd Interests has made. It would be reasonable to be a bit skeptical of their claims of how good it would be for parks, but I’m willing to hear them out. If the end result is that Fairfield State Park remains open to the public more or less as it was before all this went down, I’d consider that a win. I hope we find out soon.

Two thoughts on the whole impeachment thing

A crook any way you look

Let’s start with the obvious, which is the “Why now?” question. A lot of people seem to be mystified. Why, after nearly a decade of Ken Paxton’s criming, did the House General Investigations Committee decide to go all scorched earth on him now? I’ve seen some theories about it having to do with the federal investigation into Paxton and Nate Paul being taken up by the Justice Department instead of the local US Attorney, with a Twitter thread that I forgot to bookmark speculating that the House signing off on the $3.3 million settlement would somehow make House members complicit in a coverup of Paxton’s activities, since now nothing would or could come out in court. I don’t buy that – it’s not clear to me that the change of venue for the investigation means anything about its ultimate resolution, and I cannot see how any House member could be criminally liable for voting to approve that settlement and payout. If anything, it would be the whistleblowers, who are still pushing for that settlement to be ratified, who would be in danger of obstructing the feds. None of that makes any sense to me.

My best guess, as an amateur Democratic pundit who has spent zero time at the Capitol talking to people, is that it comes down to two things. I was struck by the comment made by Rep. Brian Harrison – who by the way voted against impeaching Paxton – in which he opined that “there are a large number of my colleagues who do not hold the current attorney general in very high regard”. That’s just a background condition, but it sets the stage for everything else. Once the settlement was announced and it was clear that Paxton expected the Lege to pick up the tab for his criming, I think that allowed for the investigation to begin. There was some resistance up front, but it wasn’t too much. Honestly, given the more-than-occasionally petty nature of the Legislature, I think it was when Paxton didn’t bother to address the budget committee himself about the payment that got enough people into a foul mood about the whole thing for the ball to really start rolling.

What I’m saying is this: A lot of Republicans didn’t like Ken Paxton all that much to begin with. I’m sure there are many reasons for that, but let’s accept that as fact and go from there. Those same Republicans probably don’t much care for the big-money interests that support Paxton and tend to be a threat to your typical Republican legislators, who have to deal with the possibility or actuality of those fat cats bankrolling a primary challenger to them and riling up the rubes to harass them and their staff. Taking a shot at Paxton also means sticking it to those people, and I don’t doubt for a minute that was a catalyst. Throw in that request for the $3.3 million, a penny-ante but still annoying and arrogant shit sandwich that they’re being told they need to eat, and now you have a reason for the committee to decide to take a closer look at the Nate Paul situation. Finish it off with a committee made up of people who clearly took the assignment seriously, and here we are. (*)

Am I certain of this explanation? Of course not. I have no way of knowing. But this makes sense to me, and is consistent with what we know. I am open to alternate ideas, and of course any insider information from people who do have real insight. Send me an email with whatever off-the-record dirt you want to share, I’ll be delighted to read it.

The second point I want to discuss is “What is the best possible outcome for the Democrats?” The best possible outcome for society at large is for Paxton to be convicted by the Senate, then arrested by the feds, and eventually convicted in both state and federal court before spending some number of years in jail. You know, being held accountable for his actions and all that. I’m rooting for that, but I’m also rooting for Democrats to maximize their chances of winning elections next year, because the best way to deal with the bigger picture of why the likes of Ken Paxton was able to flourish for so long begins with Democrats winning a lot more political power in this state. What needs to happen to give them that chance next year?

The short answer to that question is for Republicans to be maximally divided amongst themselves, and focusing their anger and rage and money and resources on each other. You may recall that Donald Trump, as well as the slimy insect who chairs the state GOP, are firmly on Team Paxton and have been attacking every Republican who isn’t also in that camp. Trump is attacking Greg Abbott for his silence. This is what we want.

I don’t know if a near future date for a Senate trial or one that is farther out is better for this, but I do prefer there to be a definite time frame, so everyone can get more mad as the date draws near. I can make a case for either a conviction or an acquittal in terms of the political fallout, but either way I want the vote in the Senate to be as close as possible, either 21-10 (or 20-10, if Angela Paxton is recused) for conviction, or a 20-11 failure to convict with Angela Paxton casting the saving vote. Oh, and I want the question of whether or not Angela Paxton casts a vote to be divisive as well, with Dan Patrick trying to get her to recuse and she defiantly rejects him. (Remember, Angela Paxton will be on the ballot in 2024, too.)

If we get that knife’s edge conviction – really, 20-10 with Angela Paxton seething on the sidelines is best – then we not only have Trump and the state GOP and a bunch of its big moneymen mad, with a defenestrated Ken Paxton free to vent his rage at his partymates from the cheap seats, we also have a Greg Abbott-selected AG on the ballot nest year, too. It won’t matter if he selects someone who would be objectively formidable under other circumstances, because now a significant portion of the Republican base hates that person and can focus their sense of aggrievement and betrayal on them. There would surely be a nasty primary, and who knows, maybe an effort to put an independent wingnut on the ballot as well.

Add all this up, and remember that Ted Cruz is also all in on Team Paxton, and maybe that share of Republican voters who don’t want to vote for certain specific Republicans gets a little bigger, while a portion of the hardcore dead-end Trump contingent decides they’ve been stabbed in the back one time too many and they stay home. It wouldn’t take that big a shift to put Joe Biden, Colin Allred/Roland Gutierrez, whoever runs for AG, and perhaps some number of Congressional and Legislative candidates in a winning position next year. It’s a perfect storm.

Now again, am I certain of this? Of course not. Am I maybe wishcasting just a little too hard here? For sure. But is any of this implausible? I don’t think so. A few rolls of the dice have to go well, and of course we need the overall national conditions to be reasonable and for no other earthquakes to strike. It’s also well more than a year away, and as we know that may as well be a million years in political time. I’m just saying, much of this could happen, and if it does I think it works in Democrats’ favor. Just something to think about. Let me know what you think.

(*) Yes, I know, these same legislators are responsible for these conditions that they don’t like, from the moneyed interests to the frothing-at-the-mouth primary voters who are the only ones that count to them. That doesn’t mean that they can’t find a way forward when those conditions work against them for a change.

UPDATE: We have dates now. So that’s good.

Meet your Paxton prosecutors

It’s officially handed over to the Senate now.

A crook any way you look

The Texas House on Monday named 12 of its members to prosecute its case against impeached Attorney General Ken Paxton in the state Senate.

The House announced a Republican-majority board of managers to handle the prosecution, made up of seven Republicans and five Democrats. The group immediately left the House chamber to deliver the 20 articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The House’s announcement came two days after it voted overwhelmingly to impeach Paxton, alleging a yearslong pattern of misconduct and wrongdoing. Paxton has blasted the impeachment as a “politically motivated sham” and expressed hope the Senate will swiftly clear his name.

The trial in the state Senate has not been scheduled yet.

The board of managers will be chaired by Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, and vice-chaired by Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston. They are also the chair and vice chair of the House General Investigating Committee, which investigated Paxton and recommended his impeachment.

The other 10 managers are Reps. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth; Joe Moody, D-El Paso; Terry Canales, D-Edinburg; Jeff Leach, R-Plano; Oscar Longoria, D-Mission; Morgan Meyer, R-University Park; Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park; Cody Vasut, R-Angleton; David Spiller, R-Jacksboro; and Erin Gámez, D-Brownsville.

The managers were named after the House adopted a resolution creating the board by a vote of 136-4.

In introducing the resolution, Murr said it was “similar” to the one used in 1975 after the impeachment of a state district judge, O.P. Carrillo. The resolution, Murr said, “authorizes the employment of a board of managers so they can proceed with the presentation of the trial in the Senate.”

See here for the previous entry. The Chron has an explainer of what to expect next. The big question has been when will this all start, and now we know.

Texas Senate to convene June 20th to consider rules for Paxton trial and that trial is to start no later than August 28.

Patrick appoints committee to consider rules for the trial: Birdwell, Hinojosa, Creighton, Flores, Huffman, King, West.

I’m sure there will be more on this soon, that news broke literally as I was drafting this. Here’s a Twitter thread with a bit more info. In the meantime, expect a special session to be called more or less right away to deal with a couple of things the Lege didn’t get to. None of that is good, but it is what it is.

UPDATE: Yeah, it’s special session time, the first of more than one planned/threatened special sessions.

TikTok sues Montana over its ban

Worth keeping an eye on.

TikTok sued the state of Montana Monday in an effort to overturn a first-of-its-kind law banning downloads of the app in the state. The lawsuit, which comes on the heels of other suits filed by Montanan TikTok creators, alleges the state’s law violates users’ freedom of speech and illegally singles TikTok out. If the law is allowed to take effect in January, the suit argues, it could deal a devastating blow to businesses and creators who rely on the app for their income.

“We are challenging Montana’s unconstitutional TikTok ban to protect our business and the hundreds of thousands of TikTok users in Montana,” TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter said in an email. “We believe our legal challenge will prevail based on an exceedingly strong set of precedents and facts.”

The company claims the bill, which would fine app stores up to $10,000 per day for allowing downloads of the app in Montana, would shut down a major forum of speech and infringe on its users’ First Amendment speech protections. Montana lawmakers in favor of the bill say it’s necessary to protect Montanas’ from alleged but unproven surveillance by China, since TikTok is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance. TikTok’s lawyers, by contrast, say Montana has no business crafting legislation that attempts to influence US foreign policy or address national security concerns. Those types of actions, the lawyers say, should be left to the federal government. Crucially, the suit says Montana has failed to provide any evidence of supposed collusion between TikTok and the Chinese government, which serves as a main rationale for the law.

“These allegations are entirely false,” the suit reads. “[TikTok] has made clear, through its actions and statements, that it shares no U.S. user data with the Chinese government and will not do so in the future.”

TikTok also slammed Montana for writing the legislation in a way that specifically calls out the company by name, rather than attempting to address data concerns with social media more broadly. The company said this amounts to an illegal bill of attainder. Put simply, bills of attainder refer to laws that criminalize a specific person or individual and punish them without a trial. Those types of unjustified criminalization efforts are explicitly prohibited under the US Constitution.

“This unprecedented and extreme step of banning a major platform for First Amendment speech, based on unfounded speculation about potential foreign government access to user data and the content of the speech, is flatly inconsistent with the constitution,” the lawsuit reads.

The general consensus seems to be that Montana’s law is ridiculous and will be blocked by the courts, though these days you never know. This is wholly different than banning TikTok on state-owned devices and on collegiate WiFi networks. We can debate the wisdom of those things, but they’re clearly legal.

Montana’s law may be clearly unconstitutional, but other states and possibly the federal government may get in on the act, probably in less-illegal ways. There was at least one bill filed to ban TikTok in Texas, which took the approach of banning apps owned by companies headquartered in a number of countries, including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. It got voted out of committee but went no further than that, so your classic copy of Tetris is presumably safe for now. It will not surprise me at all if we revisit this matter in 2025, though perhaps the courts will have put up some boundaries on what can be done by then.

Texas blog roundup for the week of May 29

The Texas Progressive Alliance honors and remembers those who lost their lives serving in the military as it brings you this week’s roundup.

(more…)

Post-impeachment pre-trial roundup

Some more links of interest relating to the Paxton impeachment-a-thon. I suspect that as more reporters and columnists read the House General Investigations Committee’s report we will see more stories that zoom in on the particulars of his offenses. For instance, from TPM:

A crook any way you look

At the center of the allegations are Paxton’s relationship with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate investor and contributor to Paxton’s political campaigns who fell on hard financial times.

“The most senior members of the OAG believed in good faith that Paxton was breaking the law and abusing his office to benefit himself as well as his close friend and campaign donor, Austin businessman Nate Paul, and likely the woman with whom, according to media reports, Paxton has carried on a lengthy extramarital affair,” the whistleblowers’ lawsuit, filed in November 2020, reads.

FBI agents executed search warrants on Paul’s home and office in August 2019, the lawsuit says.

From there, Paul started calling in favors with Paxton. They included him asking Paxton to execute search warrants on nearly everyone involved in the chain of events that led to Paul’s own search, including:

  • The federal magistrate who issued the warrants
  • FBI agents who executed the searches
  • The federal prosecutors who obtained the warrants
  • A federal bankruptcy judge overseeing matters involving Paul’s properties
  • An Austin charity involved in litigation with Paul

Per the lawsuit, Paul and Paxton enjoyed a cozy personal relationship as Paul made his demands. Paul allegedly hired Paxton’s mistress, which she then hid on her Linkedin profile. He gave Paxton a “major remodeling” of Paxton’s home in 2020 as well.

In exchange, Paxton used his office to undertake a series of action so egregious, the lawsuit says, “that they could only have been prompted by illicit motives such as a desire to repay debts, pay hush money, or reciprocate favors extended by Paul.”

In one instance, Paxton allegedly intervened to approve an open records request from Paul’s attorneys for records related to the FBI searches. When the records were released, Paxton allegedly “personally took the file, including all the responsive documents, which included documents sealed by a federal court, and did not return it for approximately seven to ten days.”

[…]

But arguably the most stunning allegations — substantiated by the Committee’s investigation — show how far Paxton went in trying to block the FBI’s probe.

“The OAG has approximately 400 open criminal cases and 2,000 open criminal investigations each year,” the lawsuit reads. “Paxton rarely showed an interest in any pending criminal investigations, but he showed an extraordinary interest in investigations sought by Nate Paul.”

Paxton allegedly set up a meeting with the Travis County District Attorney in an effort to have a criminal investigation into the federal prosecutors and FBI agents examining Paul opened. Specifically, Paxton wanted the officials to investigate a claim by Paul that the feds had forged a search warrant after a real one had been signed off on by a federal magistrate, thereby unlawfully gaining access.

As Attorney General officials denied that claim, Paul leaked the fact of Paxton’s investigation into his obviously false claims to the media — a winning strategy if there ever was one, but an approach which pales in comparison to what may have been the denouement of Paxton’s attempt to use his office to help his buddy out.

In September 2020, Paxton hired an attorney named Brandon Cammack as outside counsel. With five years of experience under his belt, Cammack allegedly began to investigate those investigating Paul.

Paxton purportedly claimed that he was “tired of his people not doing what he had asked,” before allegedly directing Cammack to act as a “special prosecutor.”

Per the lawsuit, Paxton empowered Cammack to act as a “special prosecutor” even though he hadn’t yet signed a contract with the Office of the Attorney General. One of the alleged whistleblowers to-be refused to sign an employment contract for Cammack; Cammack then, allegedly, at Paxton’s direction, falsely claimed to be a special prosecutor “in order to obtain grand jury subpoenas under false pretenses to investigate, harass, and intimidate Nate Paul’s perceived adversaries.”

In that mostly fake role, Cammack allegedly obtained 39 grand jury subpoenas directed at “law enforcement agents and federal prosecutors” involved in the Nate Paul investigation — much of the list that Paul initially asked Paxton to investigate.

It’s a stunning allegation of abuse of power, and one that essentially reads like a crime spree undertaken from within and with the reins of a state law enforcement agency.

All of this has been covered before, and I’ve faithfully blogged about it as well. But all this happened over the course of years, and most normal people have either forgotten it or never saw it in the first place. Now we’re going to get a greatest hits collection, all dumped in the course of a week or two. That will have an effect.

The Trib gets a lot of mileage from a conversation with committee vice chair Rep. Ann Johnson.

“No one person should be above the law — least not the top law enforcement officer of the state of Texas,” state Rep. David Spiller, R-Jacksboro, a member of the House Committee on General Investigating, told his House colleagues on Saturday.

“We should not ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen,” he said. “Texas is better than that.”

The impeachment charges centered on Paxton’s entanglement with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate investor whose relationship with Paxton as a friend and political donor had caused several of his staff members to report him to federal authorities and prompted an FBI investigation — which Paxton allegedly refused to help law enforcement with. Paul was fined more than $180,000 and ordered to serve jail time by a state judge after he was found in contempt of court earlier this year.

“All roads lead to Nate Paul,” state Rep. Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat and vice chair of the investigating committee, told the chamber before outlining Paxton’s yearslong relationship with his friend.

Members of the House committee that investigated Paxton said they believed he broke the law by using the agency to serve the interests of Paul, from whom he allegedly took bribes — including when the real estate developer was sued for fraud.

Eight top deputies from Paxton’s office reported him to federal authorities almost three years ago, alleging he had misused his authority to help Paul with a fraud lawsuit from the Austin nonprofit Roy F. & Joann Cole Mitte Foundation.

Spiller said Saturday that Paxton demonstrated an intense desire to help his friend with the lawsuit against the advice of his deputy attorney general. In return, Paxton allegedly received bribes and favors from Paul — from home remodeling to hiring a woman with whom Paxton had an affair.

In one now-infamous story, Paxton allegedly accepted $20,000 worth of countertop materials from Paul through contractors renovating his home in Austin.

Johnson said they learned of the story after talking to a “young man” who worked at the AG’s office. The employee, Johnson said, once observed Paxton and a contractor discussing a remodel. During the exchange, Johnson said, the contractor said he needed to “talk to Nate” before proceeding with a change to the kitchen countertops.

“This young man is disturbed” by the interaction, Johnson said as she retold the story. “In fact, he is crushed by it. He believes Ken Paxton is one of his heroes.”

The employee eventually turned down a promotion and then quit the office. But he allegedly continued to receive money from Paxton’s campaign for a few months after, Johnson said, implying that the monthly $250 checks were Paxton’s attempt to keep the young man quiet. She said the former staffer called the campaign to tell them to stop sending the money and sent it back.

Earlier in the week, a Paxton aide tried to cast doubt on the investigation by disputing the materials of the countertops involved in the home remodel. Paxton and his supporters also attempted to undermine the report by claiming that the allegations were largely made by “political” appointees — an assertion that House committee members swiftly shot down Saturday.

Committee members also claimed that Paul helped Paxton maintain his affair with a San Antonio woman by giving her a job at Paul’s company in Austin. It made her “more convenient” to Paxton, Johnson said.

Johnson claimed that a distraught Paxton once bemoaned his continued love for the woman he was having an affair with to his staff, who were gravely concerned that it was improper and could open the attorney general’s office up to blackmail. Exposure of the affair, Johnson said, would have risked Paxton’s reputation as a “Christian man” who cherishes “family values” with his political base.

“He has an interest in attempting to keep this affair quiet,” Johnson said. “He also has an interest in continuing it.”

[…]

And then there was the divinely-inspired donation at a local Dairy Queen.

While Paxton was serving in the Texas Legislature as a state representative a decade ago, he became affiliated with the CEO of Servergy, a McKinney-based software company that courted him as a partner. William Mapp, the firm’s founder and former CEO, had donated to Paxton’s campaign and the two decided to go into business together.

At a Dairy Queen, the CEO reportedly said that “God had directed him” to give Paxton 100,000 shares of company stock, which Paxton argued shows the stock was a gift.

“However, documents … indicate that the stock was, again, for services,” the House Committee’s report said.

The Servergy relationship became the subject of a felony securities fraud indictment in 2015 that accused Paxton of recruiting investors without disclosing his own investment in the company or attempting to confirm the company’s claims about its technology.

According to the SEC, he persuaded five people to invest $840,000 into the company. The case is still ongoing.

The House committee’s members said they began probing Paxton’s behavior after the attorney general requested $3.3 million from the state to settle a lawsuit with the whistleblowers fired from his office after they accused Paxton of accepting bribes and other misconduct.

“There was no investigation prior to this time,” [Rep. Charlie] Geren, one of the committee’s five members, said on the House floor Saturday.

The settlement served Paxton by avoiding a trial that may have exposed to the public even more details of the attorney general’s wrongdoing, Geren said.

“Most disturbingly, the settlement agreement was made without prior approval of funds and obligates the Texas taxpayers — not [Attorney] General Paxton — to pay $3.3 million for his actions,” Geren told his House colleagues.

Yep, that’s from the 2015 state charges against Paxton that are still awaiting some form of resolution. Everyone knows that Paxton has been under indictment for nearly a decade. I’ll bet most people by now have forgotten what he’s under indictment for. Well, they’re going to be hearing about that again, too.

They’ll also be hearing a lot more about Nate Paul and his relationship with Paxton.

[Nate Paul] has been fighting multiple bankruptcies and legal battles with creditors for years. He was recently ordered to pay over $180,000 in fines and spend 10 days in jail for contempt of court in Travis County, and is appealing that ruling.

[…]

His company, World Class Holdings, reportedly owned the 156-acre former 3M campus in northwest Austin, as well as prime downtown parcels. Together with a portfolio of storage facilities located in several states, the company’s worth at one time was said to have approached $1 billion.

Personally, Paul owns a 9,000-square-foot mansion west of downtown Austin appraised at $7.1 million, according to Travis Central Appraisal District records.

Leading up to the pandemic, Paul’s business empire began to falter. Between 2019 and 2020, 18 of Paul’s companies declared bankruptcy, according to the Austin Business Journal, which has covered Paul’s comings and goings extensively since 2014, when his name suddenly became the most searched phrase on the newspaper’s website.

World Class also has been embroiled in several lawsuits involving investors and partners. And in August 2019, his business and home reportedly were raided by federal and state agents.

[…]

Paul said he was quickly able to acquire properties because of real estate prices suppressed by the 2009 recession. In 2015, he made a splash by bidding $800 million for a portfolio of properties including New York City’s legendary Plaza Hotel.

He also began raising his personal profile. In 2015, he was photographed with then-candidate Donald Trump, a meeting set up by a business associate who once worked for Trump.

He reportedly has hobnobbed with celebrities, including Los Angeles Lakers guard Avery Bradley, whom he met at UT; and actor Leonardo DiCaprio.

In 2018, he donated just under $50,000 to a variety of Republican politicians, including $25,000 to Paxton.

And what about the Senator-wife, who is now on the jury panel for his trial? I don’t care about Angela Paxton’s biography or any of that soft-focus stuff. She’s as terrible a person as he is. I want to know how that mess might play out.

On Saturday, just two days before the Legislature was set to adjourn, the House voted to impeach Ken Paxton. The case now goes to the Senate for a full trial to decide whether he will be removed from office permanently.

Ken Paxton has said he thinks he will get a “quick resolution” in the Senate, “where I have full confidence the process will be fair and just.” The Senate is not only more conservative than the House, but the small, tight-knit chamber is ruled with an iron fist by [Dan] Patrick, a key ally of both Paxtons.

But Patrick has not yet stepped up to defend Ken Paxton, instead saying he intends to call a trial.

“We will all be responsible as any juror would be, if that turns out to be, and I think the members will do their duty,” Patrick told WFAA-TV. “I will be presiding over that case and the senators — all 31 senators — will have a vote. We’ll set the rules for that trial as we go forward and we’ll see how that develops.”

Because Texas has not impeached anyone in almost 50 years, Patrick has a lot of power to design the process to suit his goals. One of the central, unanswered questions is Angela Paxton’s role in this procedural drama.

Public Citizen, a progressive government watchdog, has called for her to recuse herself. She has not yet said how she plans to handle her role.

“My guess is she will have to step aside in the course of this,” [UH poli-sci professor Brandon] Rottinghaus said. “There’s no ethical way she can be a juror in this case.”

But even if she recuses, it’s difficult to eliminate her influence from the proceedings, as a colleague of the jurors, an ally of Patrick’s and a surrogate for her husband. On Saturday, while the House considered the impeachment articles, she was on the floor of the Senate, socializing with her colleagues.

“In the Senate, particularly, loyalties matter,” Rottinghaus said. “Many of the senators have loyalties to their fellow senators, to the lieutenant governor, but also a lot of these members have [loyalty] to the network of conservative Republicans who put a lot of these members in office.”

I really don’t know what happens here. I think the only way Angela Paxton recuses herself is if Dan Patrick makes her, and I’m not even sure he can make her. I think if she does recuse herself it will be because the outcome is clear one way or the other and her vote won’t matter. If it’s at all in doubt, I just don’t believe she’ll step aside.

In the meantime, there’s that big question everyone keep asking: Why did this all happen now?

Well, there are a few possible answers to that.

The material facts of the case changed in the past few months. The whistleblowers had a slam-dunk case for illegal termination. Some of them sued. Partly in order to shut down the lawsuit quickly—and to prevent the plaintiffs from liberating AG documents via the discovery process—Paxton settled in February 2023, offering them $3.3 million in taxpayer money. He asked lawmakers to fund the settlement. Even though the dollar amount was trivial, this didn’t sit well with many in the Legislature. Paxton was asking them to eat a turd sandwich so he could protect himself from his own stupidity. It made them look bad. It made the party look bad.

In March, the House Committee on General Investigating opened an investigation into the settlement. The committee is most famous this session for laying the groundwork for the unanimous expulsion of Bryan Slaton, the Republican former representative from Royse City who had sex with a nineteen-year-old staffer after giving her alcohol. The Slaton case was known within the committee as “Matter B.” The Paxton inquiry was known as “Matter A.” The committee has been working on it for months, hiring five investigators. Though their work was clearly diligent and thorough, it couldn’t have been all that difficult: most of the material behind the twenty impeachment charges the committee gave to the House is publicly available. Some of it has been known for the better part of a decade.

And look, these guys all knew what Paxton was. There’s a famous story about Paxton and Governor Greg Abbott that has circulated in Lege circles for years but has never been addressed by either man. When Paxton was a lowly lawmaker and Abbott was the attorney general, the story goes, they ended up in a box together at a football game. Supposedly, Abbott unleashed on Paxton about his unethical and potentially illegal behavior, making his contempt clear. Within just a few years, Paxton was attorney general and Abbott was celebrating him on the campaign trail. Lawmakers and state leaders hadn’t learned to love Paxton, presumably. But taking him on would have eaten up political capital and alienated Paxton’s powerful right-wing backers. So they just . . . didn’t.

The reality is, there was no clear way for the Lege to get rid of Paxton other than by beating him in an election or impeaching him. The first has proven very difficult. Impeachment, which is so alien a process to the modern Legislature that it might as well have come from Mars, needed a hook. Nothing Paxton did before he became attorney general would work. It’s arguably not until this session that the Lege has had a clear case: Paxton asked for taxpayer money to pay off whistleblowers he had illegally fired to cover up other illegal activity. On Friday, the House committee conducting the investigation released a statement in which it underlined the connection. “We cannot over-emphasize the fact that, but for Paxton’s own request for a taxpayer-funded settlement . . . Paxton would not be facing impeachment.”

But this is still an extraordinary, earthshaking thing for the Lege to do. After it became public what the House was up to, Paxton was asked by a conservative radio host what he thought about the news. Paxton affected an air of wounded surprise. “I have no idea why they’ve chosen to do this,” he said. The House had violated the omertà that state officials in Texas generally follow, in other words—they don’t hold each other accountable. In a properly functional system, of course, they’d be doing that all the time.

I have some thoughts about this as well. I’ll address them in a post tomorrow.

Finally, it’s probably best to maintain a little cynicism as we watch this play out.

Various media outlets, and a few of Paxton’s defenders, have made much of the lightning speed of this past week. But while it may have been mere days between the Republican-led House General Investigating Committee’s announcement of their investigation and their unanimous vote to introduce 20 articles of impeachment to the full House for Saturday’s hearing and impeachment vote, Paxton has been under felony indictment for securities fraud since he became attorney general in 2015. The FBI had been investigating Paxton on allegations that he used his office to benefit a wealthy donor, Nate Paul, since late 2020. Only in February of this year did the Department of Justice take over that probe, breathing new life into it.

Paxton’s overreach the next month, in March of this year, appears to have been the second-to-last straw. According to the committee’s own memo, released the day before the full House hearing: “But for Paxton’s own request for a taxpayer-funded settlement over his wrongful conduct, Paxton would not be facing impeachment.” Not, please note, the wrongful conduct—that is, Paxton’s firing of four whistleblowing members of his own senior staff after they accused him of using his office to help out Paul. Nor Paxton’s decision this past spring to pay $3.3 million to settle out of court. Or even the $600,000 the House spent defending Paxton. But Paxton’s request that taxpayers pay that $3.3 million—and that his fellow GOP colleagues go on record approving that request.

The final straw? Paxton, likely knowing that Phelan was going to try to gloss this most recent disgusting legislative term by ending it on a high note, called on him to resign last week over alleged drunkenness—via a tweet. Making it look super-extra-duper political when the House General Investigating Committee revealed that afternoon that it had been investigating Paxton in secret since March. The committee then heard a three-hour presentation from its investigators detailing allegations of corruption against the attorney general and voted to forward 20 articles of impeachment to the full House.

Believe me when I say that I, like many people who have been burned by the Texas GOP’s seemingly endless appetite for cruelty, ignorance, and hypocrisy, felt a certain satisfaction as I watched yesterday’s coverage of it setting itself on fire. Top moment? When the first group to appear outside the Capitol in Austin in response to Paxton’s call for supporters to turn out was around 100 people preparing for the “Trot for Trans Lives,” a 5K run held in support of transgender Americans affected by the waves of anti-trans rights legislation passed in recent years, including by Texas lawmakers.

Small pleasures aside, none of this is as satisfying as it sounds, nor do I think it will end well. First of all, because of all the bureaucracy that lies ahead. Governor Greg Abbott, who has remained curiously silent this past week while he sticks his finger into the political wind, has 10 days to tell the Senate to start a trial. A trial that would be presided over by Paxton buddy arch-conservative Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and that’s likely to be kicked down the road infinitely and/or end with an acquittal.

Yeah, the timing of what happens next remains unclear to me. If nothing else, we’re getting a partial special session at some point.

Like I said, I’ll have some thoughts on the “why” and “why now” of this tomorrow. Until then, if all this hasn’t been enough for you, Mother Jones, the Associated Press, and the Rivard Report have more.

Yet another Dallas ransomware update

We’re three weeks out, how are things going?

Three weeks after Dallas was hit with a ransomware attack, city officials still haven’t publicly explained the full scope of the breach or the city’s progress toward restoration.

The ransomware attack hit May 3 and though some functions, like filing a complaint to 311 through the city’s app or residents paying their water bill online, have returned, other functions are still impacted.

The city libraries are still not able to process returned books, the police department isn’t able to access some data, and the municipal court is unable to hold hearings or process payments for citations.

“Progress is continuing with focus on public safety and public-facing services, and as departments’ service is restored it will be shared via city channels,” city spokeswoman Jenna Carpenter told The Dallas Morning Newson Wednesday.

The impacts have also included City Council meetings where the government body has been unable to use the electronic voting system when deciding on agenda items. The City Council met in closed session Wednesday for at least the fourth time since the May 3 cyberattack with information technology officials to discuss the city’s network security and other issues related to the incident.

The city in mid May said it could take several more weeks or months to fully restore the system from the ransomware attack, which includes reviewing and cleaning servers and devices to make sure they are safe to use. Ransomware is often used to extort money from organizations by threatening to block access to files or release confidential information unless money is paid.

City officials have declined to say if the city has been issued any ransom or to release specific details related to the attack, citing an ongoing criminal investigation involving the FBI.

The city said several servers were compromised with ransomware early May 3 and that it intentionally took others offline to prevent the bad software from spreading. During a May 8 city council committee meeting, Chief Information Officer Bill Zielinski said the city put in preventative measures that helped limit the effect of the ransomware attack, but city officials haven’t elaborated on what those were.

Royal, the hacker group suspected of being responsible for the Dallas breach, threatened last week to release personal information stored by the city. City officials have maintained since the attack occurred that they’ve found no evidence of information kept on employees and residents have been leaked.

The threat has led the Dallas Police Association and Dallas Fire Fighters Association to send a letter to City Manager T.C. Broadnax demanding the city provide free identity theft monitoring for all of its members for five years.

“We feel that this is necessary and the least the city can do to insure our personal financial information is not compromised” said the May 22 letter.

The city has not disclosed how much the attack has cost taxpayers so far and whether insurance will cover any of the financial hit.

See here for the previous update. Ginger noted this story in Friday’s Dispatches. The big question is whether Royal will follow through on their threat to release data they have exfiltrated. It still looks to me like the city of Dallas is not paying, which can mean any number of things, like feeling confident that nothing of value was taken or deciding that the risk of the data being leaked isn’t worth the payment that would be required. D Magazine takes a deeper dive.

The city has remained tight-lipped about the scope of the attack, citing an ongoing investigation. Statements insist that no personal information was obtained in the attack. Royal, the group claiming responsibility for the attack, says the opposite.

“So, we are going to indicate that the data will be leaked soon,” the group said on its website on May 19. “We will share here in our blog tons of personal information of employees (phones, addresses, credit cards, SSNs, passports), detailed court cases, prisoners, medical information, clients’ information and thousands and thousands of governmental documents.”

The city, in turn, said it was “aware” of the claim. “We continue to monitor the situation and maintain there is no evidence or indication that the data has been compromised.”

The city won’t say how it’s so certain, which servers were impacted, and whether it will pay any ransom.

Let me note that the above is cybersecurity-speak for “we have not found any evidence of data being compromised in the logfile data that we have analyzed so far“. If they have a comprehensive set of logfile data, including data from enterprise detect and respond tools like FireEye or CrowdStrike, and it has all been reviewed by them or a security consulting firm, then they’re probably fine. If not, well, they’re not out of the woods yet. From this perspective, all we can do is wait and see if they change their tune or some data starts to show up.

Royal’s warning that it would begin releasing data, [security expert Brett] Callow said, is designed to strike fear. Money is the main objective, but mayhem? Mayhem brings the payday.

“Mayhem increases the likelihood of getting paid,” Callow said. “The more abjectly miserable they can make life for their victims, the greater they—and the next victim—will pay up.”

Callow said that by scaring one city or school district into paying, ransomware gangs can build on that fear, causing a domino effect as each entity they threaten pays up. This is fueled by the earlier victim becoming concerned enough to hand over money.

Ransomware gangs have made plenty of concerning threats in their quest for Lamborghinis and tigers. Some are vague—like the threat against Dallas to release “documents”—but in 2021, a Russian-based gang threatened to release the names of confidential informants when negotiations broke down with the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police.

“That could be deadly,” Callow said.

[…]

Callow says ransomware gangs have also been known to exaggerate what they were able to obtain.

“It’s important to make clear—we don’t know what, if any, data Royal actually obtained,” he said. “They could be exaggerating, it’s not particularly unusual.”

But the length of time can also lead to the decision to pay the ransom. It takes significant time and resources for cities to stop the malware from spreading, secure the servers, determine where the infection is, bring everything back online, and conduct a forensic investigation into what data was obtained.

“The hackers attempt to use that period of uncertainty to their advantage by exaggerating the information they obtained, either in terms of its quantity or sensitivity,” Callow said. “But quite often, they don’t actually need to exaggerate because they actually did obtain extremely sensitive information.”

That sensitive information isn’t just police files—the contents of employee files could also cause concern.

“Just as an employer, cities have very sensitive information, and some of those types of things have ended up going online after other attacks,” Callow said.

Those items go beyond social security numbers and things that could be used to carry out identity theft. They also include disciplinary actions, drug testing results, appeals against terminations, performance evaluations, and even medical reports. All these things have ended up online in the past.

“Your financial information leaks, you can usually fix that eventually,” Callow said. “If highly sensitive information like that ends up online, it’s always going to be there. You can’t undo that.”

[…]

Callow says there is always the chance that Royal is bluffing. The organization has, however, made enough concerning threats that most victims opt not to gamble. (The city of Dallas will not say if it’s negotiating with the hackers or if it might pay the ransom.)

But that doesn’t mean Callow thinks organizations should pay the ransom. One recent analysis found that 80 percent of organizations surveyed paid a ransom demand this year.

“What you need to remember is the information is already out there,” he said. “Whatever information Royal obtained in the attack, they have it, and it can’t be undone, whether you pay them or not. What you have is a pinky promise from the criminals that they will delete the files. But numerous organizations have been extorted for a second time after they paid to have the files deleted.”

Callow acknowledges that ransomware victims don’t have many good options. But until public institutions can convince taxpayers the investment is worthwhile, they “will continue to have a security problem.”

He also says it’s a solvable security problem, too.

“When was the last time you couldn’t get money from your bank because the branch had been ransomed?” he said. “Probably never. It happens, but not very often, and that’s because branches don’t have to design their own security—its done for them by HQ. Yet public bodies all need to create their own. If bank branches needed to do that, it’d be safer to keep your money under your pillow.”

He also says the government could do more to tamp down on ransom paying. “The government should consider severely limiting the circumstances in which ransomes can be paid,” he said. “Should a victim be permitted to pay when the only reason for doing so is to obtain a pinky promise that the criminals will delete the stolen data? Or when a victim believes that paying for a decryption key will make the recovery 72 hours faster than using their backups? Bottom line, less profit would mean less ransomware.

“The alternative is for attacks to keep on happening at the same rate as now.”

Some good stuff there. Federal or state policies about ransomware, in particular a blanket ban on paying ransoms, could have that effect. It would be best if it were paired with a ton of money to improve the overall security posture in local and state governments, and enforce standards for how public data is kept and protected. Note the “ton of money” part of this, because none of this comes cheap. You need tools and you need people, and there’s a much greater need for the people than there is supply at this time. There’s a lot that could be outsourced, to get savings on scale and make it easier to meet standards. First we have to make this a priority. Think about what is happening in Dallas happening to your city, county, school district, hospital district, flood control district, and so on. How much is mitigating all that risk worth to you?

Cruise cars spotted in the wild

There I was at the WalMart on Yale this week, with my parents, and what did I see but this:

CruiseCarAtWalMart1

Yes, it’s a Cruise car, charging up in the parking lot. We knew that at least initially they will have backup safety drivers, who I presume are responsible for plugging in the recharge cables. You will note that this car is named “Cheese Blintz”. I for one did not know these cars would have names, but thanks to that bit of trivia I can give you a count of how many of these vehicles I encountered, because this is what we saw on the way back:

CruiseCarsAtWalMart2

Yep, two more cars, one of which is named “Brioche”. I saw the name of the third car at the time I took this picture, but I forgot what it was and you can’t tell because of the obstruction. I’m going to guess it’s another food-based name, because as we drove out of the lot I saw a fourth Cruise-mobile, this one called “Habanero”. You know what to look for now when you see one of these things out on the streets. These two had their backup drivers sitting inside as the cars were charging. That has to be a weird gig.

Anyway. That’s it, that’s the post. Have you seen one of these cars out and about? Are you registered to use the service? If so, what do you think?

One more thought: As noted before, Cruise is charging slightly less for a ride than Uber is. That may be because they don’t have to give a driver a cut (or at least eventually won’t have to), but note that unlike Uber, Cruise will have to own, maintain, insure, fuel up, and store its own fleet. It’s not at all clear to me which is the cheaper operational model.

Weekend link dump for May 28

“According to a new study in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, composting food scraps results in 38 to 84 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than tossing them in landfills. Unlike trash in landfills, compost heaps are watered and turned, which aerates the decomposing waste and prevents bacteria from churning out as much methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.”

“New Ipsos poll suggests Trump and Christian nationalism have discredited religion in the eyes of many Americans”.

“Medical students say strict abortion laws are driving them away from pursuing careers as doctors in states where the procedure is banned.”

RIP, John Nova Lomax, folklorist, writer, documentarian, music appreciator, man about town, true son of Houston.

“The Russian government has permanently banned talk show hosts Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers from entering the country.”. That’ll frost ’em.

“The fascinating reason why yellow dominates TV graphics”.

RIP, Martin Amis, renowned British novelist.

“As what may become known as the “Banking Crisis of ’23” unfolds before our eyes, we need to advance a coherent vision of the values and measures needed for a just financial system.”

The lawsuits will continue until the defamation ends.

Josh Hawley is a weenie.

Just how bad can the 2023 Oakland A’s be?

“In other words, all of OpenAI’s current—and very profitable—work (ChatGPT and so forth) should be entirely unregulated. Only the stuff that’s 20 years away deserves any attention.”

RIP. Tina Turner, legendary rock/soul/pop singer, actor, and author.

“New reporting from the Daily Signal, a conservative publication associated with the Heritage Foundation, sought to spotlight the incongruence between Fox News’ coverage of transgender issues and its own internal policies. The condemnation from others in right-wing media has been as harsh as it has been swift.”

“Moving Pride displays to the back of the store in a spasm of historical absurdity and cutting product lines from your store will not stop extremists from organizing conservative outrage against your corporation. All it does is shift the goalposts even further back until their actual target is in sight.”

Yeah, that’s not Pedro Pascal in the Mandalorian suit.

“Netflix cleverly picked the absolute perfect day to start cracking down on sharing passwords”.

“Rhodes incorporated the Oath Keepers in 2009 (gee, who became president that year?), and you can’t divorce its creation from the then-emerging Tea Party movement.”

You can still share your Prime Video password.

House impeaches Paxton

For the third time in as many days, I say Wow.

A crook any way you look

In a history-making late-afternoon vote, a divided Texas House chose Saturday to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, temporarily removing him from office over allegations of misconduct that included bribery and abuse of office.

The vote to adopt the 20 articles of impeachment was 121-23.

Attention next shifts to the Texas Senate, which will conduct a trial with senators acting as jurors and designated House members presenting their case as impeachment managers.

Permanently removing Paxton from office and barring him from holding future elected office in Texas would require the support of two-thirds of senators.

The move to impeach came less than a week after the House General Investigating Committee revealed that it was investigating Paxton for what members described as a yearslong pattern of misconduct and questionable actions that include bribery, dereliction of duty and obstruction of justice. They presented the case against him Saturday, acknowledging the weight of their actions.

“Today is a very grim and difficult day for this House and for the state of Texas,” Rep. David Spiller, R-Jacksboro, a committee member, told House members.

“We have a duty and an obligation to protect the citizens of Texas from elected officials who abuse their office and their powers for personal gain,” Spiller said. “As a body, we should not be complicit in allowing that behavior.”

Paxton supporters criticized the impeachment proceedings as rushed, secretive and based on hearsay accounts of actions taken by Paxton, who was not given the opportunity to defend himself to the investigating committee.

“This process is indefensible,” said Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, who complained that the vote was taking place on a holiday weekend before members had time to conduct a thorough review of the accusations. “It concerns me a lot because today it could be General Paxton, tomorrow it could be you and the next day it could be me.”

[…]

The vote came as hardline conservatives supportive of Paxton’s aggressive strategy of suing the Biden administration were lining up in support of him. Former President Donald Trump — a close political ally to Paxton — blasted the impeachment proceedings as an attempt to unseat “the most hard working and effective” attorney general and thwart the “large number of American Patriots” who voted for Paxton.

Trump vowed to target any Republican who voted to impeach Paxton.

As lawmakers listened to the committee members make their case, Paxton took to social media to boost conservatives who had come to his defense, including Trump, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, and conservative radio host Grant Stinchfield, who tweeted, “Kangaroo Court in Texas.”

About 90 minutes into the debate, the official Twitter account of the Texas attorney general’s office began tweeting at members of the committee to challenge some of the claims being made.

“Please tell the truth,” the agency’s account said.

Because Paxton was impeached while the Legislature was in session, the Texas Constitution requires the Senate to remain in Austin after the regular session ends Monday or set a trial date for the future, with no deadline for a trial spelled out in the law.

See here and here for the background. The Trib did some liveblogging of the proceedings, and DMN reported Lauren McGaughy was livetweeting it. You can see how every member voted here. Of interest: Every member from Paxton’s home base of Collin County voted Aye. Everyone in Harris County voted Aye except Reps. Harless (HD126, Nay), Paul (HD129, Nay), Schofield (HD132, Nay), Swanson (HD150, Nay), and Harold Fucking Dutton (Present, Not Voting). Rep. Tom Oliverson was an Excused Absence, and Rep. Shawn Thierry was marked as absent.

As noted before, if Paxton is convicted Greg Abbott will appoint a replacement, who would then have to run in 2024. He can appoint an interim AG pending the Senate action, but has not yet said anything as of the drafting of this post. We do have this:

We wait to see when the Senate will act. I’ll have some further thoughts later. The Chron, WFAA, the Statesman, Texas Public Radio, the San Antonio Report, the Texas Signal, Reform Austin, Daily Kos, TPM, Mother Jones, and the Press have more.

A tale of two elections bills

The good news.

Texas lawmakers have voted to reverse an expensive state law requiring election officials to replace all their current vote-counting equipment with technology that doesn’t exist.

An unprecedented mandate the Legislature passed in 2021, without fully realizing its consequences, would have decertified equipment that counties currently use to count votes, to be replaced by machines on which data “once written, cannot be modified,” at an estimated cost of more than $100 million.

The bill amending the requirement is now headed to the governor’s desk. It will allow counties to use the equipment they already have.

The initial measure, aimed at preventing the tampering of vote data, passed in 2021 on a voice vote without debate, largely unnoticed, tucked into the sweeping voting law Senate Bill 1.

In February, Votebeat reported on the problems with the mandate and election officials’ growing concerns. This year’s legislative session was the best opportunity to amend the proposal before it took effect for the 2026 elections.

In March, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, a Republican, and other lawmakers filed legislation to amend the law, which, according to the secretary of state’s office, would have also required the purchase of new equipment for each election.

Hughes’ proposal to amend the provision — Senate Bill 1661 — was approved unanimously by both chambers. During a Senate committee hearing in March, Hughes said that there had been a “misunderstanding on the scope” of the provision, though he didn’t elaborate.

[…]

Election administrators who tried to sound the alarm on the problem without success in 2021 are relieved.

“It’s nice that, you know, the powers that be finally listened to what we’ve been saying all along on that issue,” said Chris Davis, who is the Williamson County elections administrator and a member of the Texas Association of Elections Administrators. The organization mobilized and reached out to lawmakers to make them aware of the provision’s implications. And, Davis said, Votebeat’s reporting also fueled the urgency that led to the corrective legislation.

When Sen. Bob Hall, supported by Hughes, first proposed the requirement in 2021, both legislators said it would prevent “cheating” and the “manipulation” of vote data stored in USB flash drives and taken from polling places to central counting stations — although there’s no evidence any such thing has ever happened.

The law prohibited counties from using reusable storage devices, such as the USB flash drives, which are certified by the secretary of state. The “once written, cannot be modified” requirement also prohibits the use of equipment such as ballot scanners and tabulating machines, all now used to count votes. The technology the law required, known as “write once, read many,” or WORM devices, generally refers to CD or DVD drives and the discs they burn data onto.

Votebeat reported that in order to fully comply, counties would have to buy entirely new voting systems for each election, since the whole point is that the equipment can’t be reused. The secretary of state’s office estimated that it would cost taxpayers more than $116 million to replace the eliminated equipment, plus an ongoing cost of more than $37 million every two years, since new equipment would have to be purchased for each election. And that’s only if counties could have found such equipment. Voting equipment that would match the requirements does not appear to have been invented by any election equipment company operating in the United States.

See here and here for the background. Not stepping on the rakes that you yourself have strewn in your path isn’t really a victory for truth and justice, but we take what we can get around here. As noted before, the real lesson here is that Bob Hall is as stupid as he is malevolent, and no one should ever listen to him.

With good news comes the bad news.

The Texas House of Representatives gave crucial approval on Tuesday to a Republican-backed effort rooted in conspiracy theories that would remove the state from a national coalition that helps prevent voter fraud.

Senate Bill 1070, authored by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, was approved by the House on a 85-61 vote. The bill would allow Texas to withdraw from the Electronic Registration Information Center, also known as ERIC, a multistate program used for checking duplicate voter registrations and cleaning voter rolls. The bill is now headed back to the Senate for approval of changes proposed by Rep. John Bucy, D-Austin, that would add requirements to comply with federal and state privacy guidelines if an alternative system is contracted by the state.

ERIC, considered by election administration experts across the country to be the best tool for preventing double voting across state lines, has been a target of viral conspiracy theories spread since early last year by a fringe conservative publication, The Gateway Pundit. The nonpartisan program compares voter registration rolls from all its member states, along with other data, to flag voters who have died, moved away, or registered elsewhere so that states can remove outdated registrations from their rolls.

Rep. Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie, spoke against the bill Tuesday and said it was concerning to see the Texas Legislature take such action based on a conspiracy theory.

“That’s why I don’t understand why we have this bill before us, particularly when we know the data shows that ERIC has helped Texas identify duplicate registrations, and that’s exactly what we should be trying to do,” Turner said.

[…]

Texas law requires the state to participate in a multistate data-sharing program to clean its voter rolls, and the state has been a member of ERIC since 2020. The Texas Legislature budgets about $1.5 million to participate in the program. About $115,000 of those funds pay for annual fees to use ERIC’s voter-matching data. The rest of the funds go to paying for postage, mailing, and printing costs to send notices to residents ERIC identifies as eligible voters who are not yet registered, an effort the program requires of its member states.

Members of the ERIC task force argued the state was spending too much money on the program and suggested Texas could instead use private-sector alternatives. Members of the ERIC task force also pushed for the state to stop spending funds on such mailers for eligible voters.

Hughes’ bill directs the secretary of state to build its own version of a multistate cross-check program or to find a “private sector provider” with a cost that won’t exceed $100,000.

In March, the secretary of state announced it was taking steps to build its own version of the program and researching viable options in the private sector. Votebeat reported those efforts could stall or take years.

The bill nonetheless requires such a system to identify voters whose addresses have changed, who have died, or who are ineligible to vote, including because they have been convicted of a felony. Lastly, the bill also requires that a contract with the private sector provider “may not require any additional duty of the state” that isn’t listed in the legislation — such as the mailers to unregistered but eligible voters that ERIC requires its member states to send.

Bucy proposed changes to the bill that election policy experts say are “guardrails” on systems that could potentially replace the program.

Bucy’s amendment strikes language in the bill that seeks to identify “voters who have been convicted of a felony; and who are not eligible to vote including a felony conviction” and changes it to “voters who are ineligible” under the state Election Code. The amendment also now requires any system the state uses to comply with federal and state laws relating to the protection of personal information.

The changes, which would have to be approved by the Senate before the bill goes to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk, also say the secretary of state may not contract with a private-sector system unless the contractor requires a background check for its employees. Such a system must also use data from the National Change of Address database to screen for voters who have moved.

“Adding that extra component of verification beyond whatever this mystery vendor might provide is probably a good change,” said Daniel Griffith, senior policy director at Secure Democracy USA, who added that the requirements could help with the state obtaining more accurate information. “But the question is now whether the Senate will accept those amendments.”

See here for some background. As of Saturday the revised SB1070 was still awaiting action in the Senate, so it’s possible this could die. Not the worst outcome if that happens. Kudos to Rep. Bucy for the amendments to make this less bad. Maybe if this does pass it will ultimately be a little harder to “clean up” the voter rolls, which is probably not what the lunatics who have pushed this would want. In any event, this is more indicative of the kind of session this has been.

Superintendent House’s last day

He’s out of there.

Houston ISD Superintendent Millard House II is marking his last day in the office as the head of Texas’ largest school system on Friday, according to Mayor Sylvester Turner, nearly a week before the Texas Education Agency is set to take over the public school district.

“This will be (HISD Superintendent) Millard House last day. In 20 months as superintendent he has improved the academic performance of the schools that needed attention,” Turner tweeted Friday morning.

“He shepherded the district in difficult times. I want to thank him and apologize to him for how the State treated him,” Turner said.

Reached by phone on Friday, House clarified that he will be using vacation time in the days leading up to the takeover, and that Friday is his last physical day in office. He is set to give his last public remarks as superintendent on Tuesday night when he delivers the keynote address at Carnegie Vanguard High School’s graduation.

House said he plans to use the vacation time for doctor’s appointments and other personal matters.

“I will still be connected to the district until May 31st,” House said.

[…]

House took over HISD in July 2021 after spending four years as superintendent of Tennessee’s Clarksville-Montgomery County School System. In his roughly two years leading Texas’s largest school district, House guided the district out of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and lifted 40 of 50 schools off the D and F list.

In announcing the state takeover of HISD in March, TEA Commissioner Mike Morath applauded House’s performance as superintendent but said he was obligated to appoint a new leader alongside a new board of managers.

“Ultimately, a board of managers allows Houston to completely reframe the governing team to focus on servant leadership to truly believe that the board exists to serve the staff and students, not the other way around,” Morath said in March. “So it’s important that we set the district leadership team up with a fresh start.”

That “fresh start” is slated for June 1, when the TEA is expected to announce a new superintendent and an appointed board of managers to replace the democratically elected board that currently oversees the district. With less than a week until the takeover, the TEA has refused to publicly narrow down the list of board candidates beyond the 227 people who completed a two-day training session last month.

Many of the superintendent’s senior cabinet members and other high-ranking staff in the district are departing the district as the school year ends.

The main impression I have of Superintendent House at this point is that I still feel like I don’t know a lot about him or his vision for HISD. He was not nearly as communicative as some other Superintendents, like Terry Grier. I can’t recall him sitting down for a comprehensive interview of his plans and strategies and whatever else. He gets credit for the progress HISD has made during his tenure, but the main piece of his agenda was not implemented after public pushback, which again suggests a gap in his communications. We’ll never know what he might have done if he’d had more time. I wish him well with his next gig.

Impeach-a-palooza

The impeachment debate in the House will happen today.

A crook any way you look

The Texas House intends to take up a resolution to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton at 1 p.m. Saturday, according to a memo from the House General Investigating Committee.

Citing Paxton’s “long-standing pattern of abuse of office and public trust,” the memo said it was imperative for the House to proceed with impeachment to prevent Paxton from using his office’s “significant powers” to further obstruct and delay justice.

The committee proposed allocating four hours of debate, evenly divided between supporters and opponents of impeachment, with 40 minutes for opening arguments by committee members and 20 minutes for closing statements. A simple majority is needed to send the matter to a trial before the Texas Senate. If the House votes to impeach Paxton, the memo said, the House would conduct the trial in the Senate through a group of House members called “managers.

The committee stressed that Paxton’s request earlier this year for the Legislature to pay $3.3 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit led to its investigation and ultimately the articles of impeachment. The memo also said impeachment is not a criminal process and its primary purpose is to “protect the state, not to punish the offender.”

See here for the background. You can read the articles of impeachment here. Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick are still playing this close to the vest, but the state GOP Chair and other assorted deplorables are firmly Team Paxton. And speaking of which

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is accused of impeachable offenses including bribery tied to helping a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair get a job through Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.

His wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, may soon decide whether he deserves to be removed from office for that and other alleged violations of law and the public trust, which were released Thursday night by a Texas House committee.

The senator’s chief of staff did not respond to a request for comment about whether she would recuse herself.

“The first option would be for her to recuse herself,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. “The second would be for the Senate to make that judgment on whether they believe going forward with a sitting senator being a spouse of a person on trial is a look you would like to have.”

It’s unclear how the more conservative Senate would vote, even if the impeachment case were to pass the House with a majority vote.

“We will all be responsible as any juror would be, if that turns out to be, and I think the members will do their duty,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a Thursday interview with WFAA.

On the one hand, we shouldn’t even be having this conversation. The fact that Angela Paxton could be the deciding vote on whether Ken Paxton gets removed from office or not makes this as clear a case of conflict of interest as one could imagine. Twenty votes to convict are enough to remove him if there are 30 votes total. If there are 31 votes total, and one of the No votes belongs to Angela Paxton, he stays. It doesn’t get any more obvious than that. On the other hand, there is no other hand. There’s also no mechanism other than personal integrity and/or a sense of shame to compel Angela Paxton to step aside for this. I’m sure you can guess what I think she’ll do.

Whatever does happen, that we have gotten to this point at all is a big and wholly unexpected deal.

​​For nearly a decade, Texas Republicans largely looked the other way as Attorney General Ken Paxton’s legal problems piled up.

That abruptly changed this week.

In revealing it had been secretly investigating Paxton since March — and then recommending his impeachment on Thursday — a Republican-led state House committee sought to hold Paxton accountable in a way the GOP has never come close to doing. It amounted to a political earthquake, and while it remains to be seen whether Paxton’s ouster will be the outcome, it represents a stunning act of self-policing.

“We’re used to seeing partisans protect their own, and in this case, the Republicans have turned on the attorney general,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. “It’s really surprising.”

[…]

As an impeachment vote nears on the House floor, Paxton is about to learn how many Republican friends he really has, both inside the Capitol and outside.

Paxton has closely aligned himself with Donald Trump over the years, but the former president has yet to come to the attorney general’s defense. And in an interview Thursday with WFAA, Patrick declined to stick up for Paxton, pointing out that he may have to preside over a Senate trial.

“We will all be responsible as any juror would be, if that turns out to be, and I think the members will do their duty,” Patrick said.

While Patrick ultimately endorsed Paxton in 2022, it came after The Texas Tribune reported that the lieutenant governor was meddling in the primary and working against Paxton.

A handful of Republicans in the Legislature have already sided against Paxton by supporting his primary challengers in 2022. Sen. Mayes Middleton of Galveston personally funded two of Paxton’s rivals to the tune of six figures. But for the rest, this will be the first time they have to publicly render judgment against the scandal-plagued attorney general.

[…]

On Friday morning, Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, called in to a Dallas radio show and said he was undecided on how he would vote. But he raised multiple questions about the process so far and said that while the allegations against Paxton are “very concerning,” he may be even more worried the House is fueling the perception that it is trying to “criminalize political opposition.”

Asked if there were enough House Republicans willing to join Democrats in impeaching Paxton, Harrison declined to make a prediction.

However, he said, “I think it’s fair to say that there are a large number of my colleagues who do not hold the current attorney general in very high regard.”

I remain skeptical that this will go all the way, though the general dislike of Paxton – maybe some of them are just tired of his shit – could be a big factor. Still requires a non-trivial number of Republicans to turn on him, though. This story says it will take a majority vote in the House to send the matter to the Senate for trial (so only a dozen or so Rs in the House), but previous reporting has said it takes a two-thirds vote in the House to send the matter to the Senate. Looking at the relevant laws, that appears to be the case:

Sec. 665.054. REMOVAL VOTE. (a) The governor shall remove from office a person on the address of two-thirds of each house of the legislature.

(b) The vote of each member shall be recorded in the journal of each house.

Seems clear to me, but views differ. I guess we’ll find out later today. I’ll get back to that in a minute. Note this as well:

SUBCHAPTER D. OTHER REMOVAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 665.081. NO REMOVAL FOR ACTS COMMITTED BEFORE ELECTION TO OFFICE. (a) An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer’s election to office.

(b) The prohibition against the removal from office for an act the officer commits before the officer’s election is covered by:

(1) Section 21.002, Local Government Code, for a mayor or alderman of a general law municipality; or

(2) Chapter 87, Local Government Code, for a county or precinct officer.

This is the argument that Paxton’s representative in the House Chris Hilton was making, that the activities that the committee was investigating all took place before the 2022 election and thus is invalid as grounds for impeachment. The statute doesn’t specify which election, however, and I as a noted non-lawyer will point out that this could reasonably be read to mean his initial election to the office in question, which was 2014. There’s a lot of law nerdery going on about this. I’m sure we’ll hear more of it today. If the House does send this to the Senate, it won’t surprise me if there’s an immediate writ of mandamus filed with SCOTx to weigh in before it proceeds any further. And you thought this was going to be a relatively peaceful holiday weekend.

One more thing, on the subject of what could happen in the House:

Another data point for simple majority in the House. Make of that what you will. But if that does happen, Greg Abbott would have the option of naming a temporary AG while this gets sorted out. If Paxton does get convicted, or somehow decides it’s better to resign first, Abbott would pick someone to fill his unexpired term. That person would then be on the ballot in 2024, as would be the case when Abbott appoints a judge, and I can only imagine how searingly hot that election, in a Presidential year with Ted Cruz also on the ballot, could be. Oh, and just imagine the bloody Republican primaries next March, too. Is your blood pumping yet? I’ll have more tomorrow.

UPDATE: Paxton is handling all this with all the grace and wisdom that you’d expect from him.

A trio of candidate announcements

From the inbox:

Molly Cook

Molly Cook, Emergency Room Nurse and Community Organizer, Announces Second Run for Texas Senate District 15

Molly Cook (she/her) is running again for Texas Senate District 15 in the 2024 Elections. Since the primaries in March 2022, Molly has worked as an ER bedside nurse, continued to be a leader in the fight for multi-modal transportation across Texas, launched and co-led the Fair for Houston campaign, spent time in Austin advocating at the Texas Legislature, and engaged with Democrats across Senate District 15 to help her neighbors understand and participate in the 88th Legislative Session. Molly’s campaign, like her organizing work, will focus on fighting for smart, compassionate policy to improve public health and public safety for all Texans. Molly believes in a bottom-up approach to policy, planning, and leadership that centers the voices of those most affected by our state’s policy decisions. Molly won over 40% of the votes cast in the 2022 Democratic Primaries for Texas Senate District 15.

Here’s a video of her announcement. Cook may or may not be running against incumbent Sen. John Whitmire, depending on the result of the Mayoral race this year, and may or may not have to also run in a special election, again depending on the Mayor’s race. She is also not the first person to announce a candidacy for SD15. Here’s Karthik Soora from mid-April:

Molly Cook’s website is here and Karthik Soora’s website is here. I’m going to be a busy man with the interviews this winter, and that’s even before we consider the possibility of a primary in CD18.

I’m also about to be super busy with city candidates for this November. As of a few days ago all of the interesting races were for Mayor, Controller, and Council, but now we have the first challenge to an incumbent in one of the other offices. Raj Salhotra, who ran for City Council At Large #1 in 2019 and lost in a runoff to CM Mike Knox, is running for HCC. From the inbox:

I am excited to announce that I’m running for Houston Community College (HCC) District V Trustee! Education is the key to escaping poverty and achieving the American Dream, and I have seen this firsthand.

My dad came to the US with $42, secured a world-class education, and started a small business. My mom came here when she was 12, earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees, and became a professor at the University of Houston-Downtown. Through education, my family and I have lived the American Dream.

With this privilege comes the responsibility to pay it forward and ensure everyone has the same opportunities. I have, therefore, dedicated my life to education – tutoring middle school students while I was in college, becoming a high school math teacher upon graduating, and creating Momentum Education, a non-profit focused on helping first-generation, low-income students get to and through college and into the workforce. Working with over 1,000 students has shown me the real potential for community college to change lives.

I am running for Houston Community College District V because I believe that HCC should: (1) provide pathways to career through effective workforce training and internships; (2) offer connections to universities via transfer advising and partnerships with four-year institutions; and (3) engage in good governance based in transparency and fiscal responsibility.

Here’s Raj’s website. He is running against incumbent Robert Glaser, whose lawsuit situation is still unresolved, to the best of my knowledge. Look for interviews in that race as well.

Speaking of the city races, there are of course approximately one billion people running for City of Houston offices right now. I’ve generally not followed campaign announcements outside of the Mayor’s race, but I have checked in on who’s running for what, with the January finance reports and a more recent post-SJL announcement check-in post. I’m happy to say now that the Erik Manning spreadsheet is back, baby! You want to keep track of this stuff, there’s your best source. I’ll ask him to add a column for interview links in the future. Thanks to this I now see that former Council member and previous Controller candidate MJ Khan is running for Mayor (!), bringing us to thirteen (!!) candidates for that position, and current HISD Trustee Kendall Baker, who is not up for election this fall, is now running for At Large #1, making him the eighth candidate in that crowd. You can see what I mean by “busy”.

Anyway, this has been your irregular update on Who Is Running For What and In Which Election. Let me know if you have any questions.

UPDATE: I received the following press release from Karthik Soora about the launch of his candidacy after this post was published.

Today, Karthik Soora, a renewable energy developer, Millennial non-profit leader, and award-winning former HISD public school teacher, announced his candidacy for Texas Senate District 15, challenging incumbent John Whitmire in the upcoming Democratic primary. Soora has raised over $100K in donations, drawing support from across Texas and 14 states before officially announcing his candidacy.

As a teacher, Soora witnessed the challenges faced by his students due to a lack of resources, including inadequate school funding, flooding, and lack of healthcare. He is now running to fix a corrupt system by passing real reforms that empower the rising majority of Texans to be heard in Austin.

“I am running for Texas State Senate because we can’t solve 21st-century problems with a 19th-century system. We need real reforms like banning current legislators from simultaneously serving as lobbyists, allowing citizen voices on issues like reproductive freedom and Medicaid expansion to be heard through referendums, and passing bold campaign finance reform to stop billionaires from buying our elections,” said Soora.

“Texas Democrats know the challenges we face – gun violence, attacks on our reproductive freedoms and democracy, underfunded schools, a lack of affordable health care and housing, and the climate crisis – and change starts with passing reforms to ensure that all Texans, not just the ultra rich and MAGA Republicans, are heard in the halls of power.”

The Soora campaign is committed to listening to people in every Super Neighborhood and municipality in District 15, meeting voters where they are, and fighting for them all. Soora plans to kick off a walking tour of the district in the coming weeks and months, drawing attention to gerrymandering and the need for political reform, as he listens and learns from residents of all backgrounds who have been ignored by career politicians in favor of powerful special interests and billionaire donors.

Soora’s historic campaign is backed by a powerhouse team, including media consultants for Sen. John Fetterman, Biden-Harris 2020, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, strategist Myles Bugbee of Persuasion and Pixels, polling firm Data for Progress.

He is one of the first Millennial or Generation Z Democrats, the first Indian-American and Hindu-American in the Legislature, the first in Clean Energy in the Texas State Legislature, the first AAPI in the Texas State Senate, and the first non-white individual to represent Texas State Senate District 15 since the founding of the Texas Republic.

I will as always keep my eyes open for other candidacies of interest.

No more vehicle inspections

I didn’t know about this one.

Texas legislators have approved a bill to eliminate annual vehicle safety inspections, meaning automobile registration renewals would never again be contingent on the state of a motorist’s windshield wipers or fuel cap.

The Texas Senate passed HB 3297, authored by state Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine, on Sunday. The bill just needs Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature to eliminate the safety inspection for non-commercial vehicles in Texas.

To offset any blow to state finances, the proposal replaces the $7.50 state inspection fee with a fee paid with the vehicle’s registration. Drivers would save the $7 cut that inspection stations pocketed.

The new law would take effect Sept. 1, ushering in the biggest change to vehicle registration since state officials linked registration and annual inspections to a single sticker placed on the windshields of Texas cars and trucks in 2015. The state has 22 million registered vehicles.

[…]

Nixing the safety check, however, does not end emission testing, which is required for all vehicles in 17 counties, including most of the Houston and Dallas metro areas, Austin and El Paso. Nearly 17 million people, more than half of the state’s population, live in those counties.

[…]

Mechanics and others opposed eliminating of the inspections, saying it would lead to potentially dangerous situations on Texas roadways when more cars do not receive a proper once-over and even more pollution from poorly maintained vehicles.

“If (the bill) passes, we will see an escalation of vehicles on our roadways that cannot pass a basic safety inspection,” Cpl. Mike Bradburn, of the Travis County Constable Precinct Three Clean Air Task Force, told lawmakers when HB 3297 received a public hearing on April 11. “If a vehicle cannot pass a basic safety inspection, it would be reasonable to believe it would not pass an emissions test leading to more pollutants in the air.”

Studies of states that have stopped safety checks on vehicles, however, show little impact on overall roadway safety. After federal rules allowed states to lift the inspections in the 1970s, most stopped doing in-person examinations, preferring that police to use their discretion to assess a vehicle during a traffic stop if they suspected a problem. Only 13 states still conduct annual inspections.

I blogged about the efficacy of vehicle safety inspections way back in 2009. If there’s really no demonstrable value in doing them then I’m okay with eliminating them. Emissions testing is a different matter, and while those would continue for most Texas vehicles, it’s not clear to me how that would be enforced. I doubt we do anything to track emissions data and how many vehicles that are (or would be if anyone caught them) in violation are out there on the road, but if we did it sure would be nice to see if that number creeps up over the next few years.

House General Investigations Committee votes to impeach Paxton

Once again, I say Wow.

A crook any way you look

In an unprecedented move, a Texas House committee voted Thursday to recommend that Attorney General Ken Paxton be impeached and removed from office, citing a yearslong pattern of alleged misconduct and lawbreaking that investigators detailed one day earlier.

During a specially called meeting Thursday afternoon, the House General Investigating Committee voted unanimously to refer articles of impeachment to the full chamber. The House will next decide whether to approve the articles against Paxton, which could lead to the attorney general’s removal from office pending the outcome of a trial to be conducted by the Senate.

No Legislature has impeached an attorney general, an extraordinary step that lawmakers have historically reserved for public officials who faced serious allegations that they had abused their powers.

The decision came minutes after a representative from Paxton’s office demanded Thursday to testify in front of the House committee probing Paxton’s alleged criminal acts and decried the committee’s actions as “illegal.”

Chris Hilton, chief of general litigation for the attorney general’s office, interrupted the five-member panel’s brief meeting to demand to testify on behalf of Paxton’s office. State Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, shook his head and moved forward with the meeting, which went into executive session almost immediately after gaveling in.

“The people deserve to hear from this office in the context of this investigation,” Hilton said. “The voters want Ken Paxton, and this committee — by investigating him, by not allowing us to be heard here today, by never reaching out to us at any time during this investigative process — is trying to thwart the will of the voters. We deserve to be heard here today.”

Once the committee returned from meeting in private, members voted to issue “preservation letters” directing the Department of Public Safety and the Texas Facilities Commission to protect pertinent information. The committee did not discuss what information it wanted preserved.

Then committee members voted to adopt the articles of impeachment with discussion.

In a statement later Thursday, Paxton sought to turn the tables on allegations that he acted in a corrupt manner while in office, blaming the move toward impeachment proceedings on “corrupted politicians in the Texas House.”

“It is a sad day in Texas as we witness the corrupt political establishment unite in an illegitimate attempt to overthrow the will of the people and disenfranchise the voters of our state,” he said.

[…]

Only the Texas House can bring impeachment proceedings against state officials, which would lead to a trial by the Senate. Under the Texas Constitution, Paxton would be suspended from office pending the outcome of the Senate trial. The constitution also allows the governor to appoint an provisional replacement.

Removal from office would require the support of two-thirds of senators. This has happened only twice in Texas history, to Gov. James Ferguson in 1917 and District Judge O.P. Carrillo in 1975.

After being rejected from testifying before the House investigating committee Thursday, Hilton told reporters the panel’s actions were illegal under a section of Texas law that says a “state officer may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer’s election to office.”

Hilton argued that the statute meant “any impeachment can only be about conduct since the most recent elections.”

On Twitter, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association said it’s unclear if Paxton could be impeached for conduct that occurred before his latest election. The so-called forgiveness doctrine prohibits “most” officials from being removed from office for conduct that predated their most recent election. But, the organization added, statutes outlining the doctrine have only been applied to local officials.

“Maybe we’ll get to see some new law made,” the organization added.

[…]

No Republican House members have yet called for Paxton’s impeachment. But Jeff Leach, R-Plano, urged the public to tune into Wednesday’s committee hearing, which he said would discuss “issues of vital importance.”

“Make no mistake,” Leach said on Twitter. “The Texas House will do our job and uphold our oaths of office.”

And Phelan, who in early May cited his role as the House’s presiding officer as the reason why he did not comment on sexual misconduct allegations against Slaton until after the chamber expelled him, has dropped that approach with Paxton. The speaker on Wednesday called the committee investigators’ report “extremely disturbing” and said Paxton “appears to have routinely abused his office for personal gain.”

Republicans for years have fended off questions about Paxton’s legal and ethical issues, variously deferring to courts to decide them and voters to determine if they were disqualifying. A key question is why the Republican-led House is acting against Paxton now.

Phelan said the House had an obligation to vet the whistleblowers’ claims because a proposed settlement between the four former employees and Paxton’s office would have cost $3.3 million — funds the Legislature would have to approve.

Murr expressed concern Wednesday that the settlement would help Paxton avoid a trial at which evidence of his alleged misdeeds would become public.

See here for the background. The Chron has a useful explanation of what happens next.

The Legislature can impeach any state officer, head of a state department or institution, and any member or trustee of a state institution, according to Texas law.

Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said the process is similar to the national impeachment process with which many Texans are probably already familiar and resembles a court proceeding.

The House would be first to conduct proceedings. If members were to vote and approve impeachment, the matter would move to the Senate, which would hold its own trial.

The House would need to approve the impeachment on a two-thirds vote in order for it to advance, and the Senate would need to approve removing Paxton on a two-thirds vote. As in a state district court trial, both the House and Senate would each have the ability to call witnesses, compel testimony and hold potential witnesses in contempt.

The Legislature does not have to be in session for an impeachment to move forward, according to state law.

The House could start impeachment proceedings now, before the biennial session ends Monday. But if it does not, the governor can call the members into session, the law states. The House speaker also can do so if 50 or more members ask for it. Or a majority of members can compel a session if they sign a written proclamation.

The Senate has similar authority under the law to continue its work when not in session.

I’m far from certain that the votes will be there to dethrone Paxton, but the early chatter on the House side suggests that they will do their part and hand this hot potato off to the Senate. Assuming all 12 Democrats vote to convict, at least eight Republicans would have to do so as well, and that’s whether or not Sen. Angela Paxton recuses herself. (The mind boggles, I know.) In the meantime, as of the writing of this post, neither Greg Abbott nor Dan Patrick has said anything. I cannot see them turning on their buddy, but this whole thing has been so utterly bizarre that I hesitate to make any guesses about what might come next.

I leave you with two tweets and then the rest of the links.

Indeed. WFAA, Texas Public Radio, TPM, the Associated Press, the Austin Chronicle, Mother Jones, the Current, and Reform Austin have more.

Harris County to sue over those two new election laws

I wish I felt more optimistic about this.

Harris County will file a lawsuit challenging two Republican-backed election bills headed to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk, County Attorney Christian Menefee announced Wednesday.

At issue are two measures that apply only to Harris County, including one that abolishes the elections administrators office.

Menefee said the lawsuit would be filed after the bills are signed into law by the governor.

“The Texas Constitution is clear: the Legislature can’t pass laws that target one specific city or one specific county,” Menefee said. “And that constitutional ban makes a whole lot of sense. We don’t want our lawmakers going to Austin, taking their personal vendettas with them and passing laws that target local governments instead of doing what’s in the best interest of Texans.”

Both bills originally were written to apply more broadly.

Senate Bill 1750, the measure eliminating Harris County’s elections administrator post, initially applied to counties with at least 1 million residents, before it was narrowed to include only Harris.

More than half of Texas’ 254 counties have appointed elections administrators, including several of the most populous, such as Bexar, Tarrant, Dallas and Collin.

The bill returns election responsibilities to the elected county clerk and tax assessor-collector, ending Harris County’s three-year run with an appointed elections administrator.

The second bill the county plans to challenge, Senate Bill 1933, increases state oversight and requires Harris County election officials — upon being placed under “administrative oversight” — to clear all election policies and procedures with the Secretary of State. The bill also gives the Secretary of State, currently former state senator Jane Nelson, authority to send employees from her office to observe any activities in a county’s election office.

A last-minute amendment to that bill narrowed the scope to only Harris County.

“I think we were all completely blindsided,” Menefee said.

While the first bill transfers election administration duties to two elected officials, the second bill creates an expedited process to remove those two officials, Menefee said.

“Under Senate Bill 1933, the Secretary of State is able to initiate lawsuits to remove only two elected officials from office in the entire state of Texas, and that’s the Harris County Clerk and the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector,” Menefee said.

[…]

Rice University political science Professor Bob Stein disputed Bettencourt’s “performance not politics” rationale for the bills.

“This was red meat,” Stein said. “They needed to do this the same way they did voter ID laws in many states, to convince the base that they were doing something about a problem that they claimed existed but did not exist.”

Stein said he thinks it unlikely the county’s legal challenges will succeed.

His fellow Rice political scientist Mark Jones agreed.

“Counties, under the Texas Constitution, really only have those powers that the state chooses to endow them with. And what the state giveth, the state can taketh away,” Jones said. “And so, on a legal perspective, Harris County doesn’t have a leg to stand on in terms of objecting to the elimination of the elections administrator position.”

The county, however, may be able to make the case that it needs more time to implement the transition, he said.

See here for the background, and here for the full statement from County Attorney Menefee. I hate to say this, but I think Mark Jones is right. Years ago when I was a young blogger and discovering the weird ways of Texas politics, I learned about the constitutional ban against targeting or specifying a city or county or other entity in a bill. The way around that was always to put in enough qualifiers to narrow the bill down to only one thing or place or whatever. Far as I know, that’s been The Way It Is And Has Always Been for forever. That doesn’t mean it’s kosher, legally speaking. It may mean that it’s never been challenged in court like this – cities and counties have often asked for specialized legislation in the past, after all – or it may mean that Menefee and others think that the animus aimed at Harris County pushes these bills over a legal line. I don’t know enough to say, but it’s something we’ll be able to tell when we see the actual complaint that gets filed.

Even if we accept everything that Menefee is saying, and there’s no prior case law to contradict his claims, I suspect that the courts may be reluctant to side with Harris County specifically because of the current laws that were written in similar fashion in the past. While there could be a narrow order in Harris County’s favor that just addresses these bills and the forthcoming complaint, the potential will be there for a very large can of worms being opened. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that can were then weaponized against Houston by the usual cadre of villains. I don’t want to speculate too much ahead of the facts – Christian Menefee is way smarter than I am about all this, and I trust his judgment. But these are the things I am worried about.

Again, the problem here is the very political targeting of Harris County by a Republican Party that values its own power over everything else. In an equitable world, in a world where voting rights were cherished and protected, these laws wouldn’t stand a chance. We don’t live in that world, and until we get better state leaders and a real Voting Rights Act again, we won’t live in that world. The route we have to deal with this problem right now is littered with obstacles and probably won’t lead to anything good. But it’s all we have. The Press has more.

Dispatches from Dallas, May 26 edition

This is a weekly feature produced by my friend Ginger. Let us know what you think.

This week, in DFW-area news, another smorgasbord, including the ongoing effects of the ransomware attacks, runoff elections, the aftermath of the Allen mall shooting, local fallout from Lege decisions, Wyatt HS in FWISD has a racism problem, Frisco ISD has civil rights problems, Harlan Crow keeps talking, an I-345 update, some great museum exhibits in the area this summer, and Tina Turner’s (RIP) connection to Dallas.

House General Investigations Committee goes hard after Paxton

Wow.

A crook any way you look

A Texas House committee heard stunning testimony Wednesday from investigators over allegations of a yearslong pattern of misconduct and questionable actions by Attorney General Ken Paxton, the result of a probe the committee had secretly authorized in March.

In painstaking and methodical detail in a rare public forum, four investigators for the House General Investigating Committee testified that they believe Paxton broke numerous state laws, misspent office funds and misused his power to benefit a friend and political donor.

Their inquiry focused first on a proposed $3.3 million agreement to settle a whistleblower lawsuit filed by four high-ranking deputies who were fired after accusing Paxton of accepting bribes and other misconduct.

Committee Chair Andrew Murr said the payout, which the Legislature would have to authorize, would also prevent a trial where evidence of Paxton’s alleged misdeeds would be presented publicly. Committee members questioned, in essence, if lawmakers were being asked to participate in a cover-up.

“It is alarming and very serious having this discussion when millions of taxpayer dollars have been asked to remedy what is alleged to be some wrongs,” Murr said. “That’s something we have to grapple with. It’s challenging.”

Many of the allegations detailed Wednesday were already known, but the public airing of them revealed the wide scope of the committee’s investigation into the state’s top lawyer and a member of the ruling Republican Party. The investigative committee has broad power to investigate state officials for wrongdoing, and three weeks ago the House expelled Bryan Slaton, R-Royse City, on its recommendation.

In this case, it could recommend the House censure or impeach Paxton — a new threat to an attorney general who has for years survived scandals and been reelected twice despite securities fraud charges in 2015 and news of a federal investigation into the whistleblowers’ claims in 2020.

Erin Epley, lead counsel for the investigating committee, said the inquiry also delved into the whistleblowers’ allegations by conducting multiple interviews with employees of Paxton’s agency — many of whom expressed fears of retaliation by Paxton if their testimony were to be revealed — as well as the whistleblowers and others with pertinent information.

According to state law, Epley told the committee in a hearing at the Capitol, a government official cannot fire or retaliate against “a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law … to an appropriate law enforcement authority.”

The four whistleblowers, however, were fired months after telling federal and state investigators about their concerns over Paxton’s actions on behalf of Nate Paul, an Austin real estate investor and a friend and political donor to Paxton.

“Each of these four men is a conservative Republican civil servant,” Epley said. “Interviews show that they wanted to be loyal to General Paxton and they tried to advise him well, often and strongly, and when that failed each was fired after reporting General Paxton to law enforcement.”

Epley and the other investigators then walked the committee through the whistleblowers’ allegations, including help Paxton gave Paul that went beyond the normal scope of his duties.

“I ask that you look at the pattern and the deviations from the norm, questions not just of criminal activity but of ethical impropriety and for lacking in transparency,” investigator Erin Epley told the committee. “I ask you to consider the benefits [for Paxton].”

[…]

The investigators interviewed 15 employees for the attorney general’s office, including Joshua Godby, who worked for the open records division when Paxton pressured the division’s staff to get involved in a records fight to benefit Paul in a lawsuit.

Out of the 15 people, investigators said, all except one expressed concern about retaliation from Paxton for speaking on the matter. The investigators also interviewed a special prosecutor, Brian Wice, in a separate securities fraud case that has been ongoing for eight years, as well as representatives for the Mitte Foundation, an Austin nonprofit involved in a legal dispute with Paul.

The investigators outlined the alleged favors Paxton did for Paul. In exchange, Paul helped with a “floor to ceiling renovation” of Paxton’s Austin home and employed a woman with whom Paxton was allegedly in a relationship. Paxton is married to state Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, who learned of the affair in 2019, leading to a brief hiatus in the relationship before it resumed in 2020, Epley told the committee.

See here for where we started. I assume that “brief hiatus” is in the affair, which means that, um, he’s still canoodling with whoever his not-Angela inamorata is. I dunno, maybe someone should look into that a bit more? Like, maybe there’s some more potential lawbreaking or rules-violating there? Just a thought.

Wow.

Addressing the House Committee on General Investigating, the team outlined several potential criminal offenses they alleged Paxton committed including abuse of official capacity, misuse of official information, misapplication of fiduciary property and accepting an improper gift.

They said Paxton improperly used his office’s resources to help real estate developer and campaign donor Nate Paul on multiple occasions throughout 2020, raising alarm bells among his senior-most aides who viewed Paxton’s personal interventions as highly unusual and unethical. Some of the alleged crimes are felonies, the team noted.

“So is it fair to say the OAG’s office was effectively hijacked for an investigation by Nate Paul through the Attorney General Ken Paxton?” Committee Vice Chair Ann Johnson, D-Houston, asked.

Investigator Erin Epley, a former assistant US attorney, responded: “That would be my opinion.”

[…]

Earlier this year, Paxton and the whistleblowers announced a tentative settlement agreement.

The agency agreed to pay $3.3 million to the four whistleblowers, contingent on legislative approval, and Paxton would apologize for calling them “rogue employees.” Neither side admitted to “liability or fault” by agreeing to the settlement.

The request spurred the House ethics committee to look into the funding request. While the probe began in March, Murr and Phelan first confirmed the inquiry on Tuesday.

Epley said the team reviewed hundreds of pages of documents, including emails, contracts, criminal complaints and lawsuit documents over months. They also interviewed the whistleblowers, other agency employees, officials in the local prosecutor’s office and more.

The team’s presentation to the committee, which lasted more than three hours, delved into years of alleged misconduct by Paxton, including the whistleblower accusations as well as active state securities fraud indictments.

They did not shed any new light on Paxton and Paul’s relationship. But the team said it found evidence to support the whistleblower’s allegations that Paul helped remodel the kitchen in Paxton’s Austin home and secured a job for a woman with whom Paxton was allegedly having an affair.

The investigators said Paxton seemed to sympathize with Paul, whose businesses and offices were raided by the FBI in 2019. Over the course of the next year, investigators say Paxton began personally steering the agency to intervene in matters benefiting Paul.

It began with public records requests, when Paxton repeatedly pushed staff to release sensitive FBI documents to Paul’s legal team, the investigators said. Paxton told an agency staffer he believed Paul was being railroaded, said investigator Terese Buess, who previously led the Harris County prosecutor’s public integrity unit.

“[Paxton] said he did not want to use his office, the OAG, to help the feds” or or [the Department of Public Safety,” she added.

Murr stopped Buess at that moment, asking, “Did you just state, I want to be very clear, that the Attorney General for the state of Texas said he didn’t not want to use his office to help law enforcement?”

Buess responded: “That is exactly what was relayed to us.”

Over the coming months, and against the advice of top staff, he directed the agency attorneys to issue a rushed legal opinion that Paul’s team used to fight a dozen foreclosures, the team noted. And Paxton ordered staff to intervene in a legal conflict between Paul’s businesses and a local charity in a way that helped the developer, investigators said.

“General Paxton, in this instance, charged with protecting Texas charitable foundations, disregarded his duty and improperly used his office, his staff, his resources to the detriment of the (charity) and to the benefit of a single person: Nate Paul,” Buess said.

[…]

The investigators also discussed in detail the active criminal fraud cases against the attorney general. Paxton was indicted for felony securities fraud eight years ago related to his involvement with a North Texas technology firm but has not yet faced trial.

An unrelated bribery investigation also came up. In 2017, the Kaufman County district attorney looked into concerns that Paxton took a $100,000 gift from a man his agency had investigated for Medicaid fraud. She closed the investigation after determining Paxton did not break state laws because he had a personal relationship with the donor.

The team spoke with at least 15 people and said all but one had concerns about retaliation inside the agency. They did not list who they interviewed. It is unclear whether they spoke with Paxton or Paul.

The four members of the investigative team all said they believe sufficient evidence supported the whistleblower’s allegations. They listed a series of crimes they believe Paxton may have committed, including abuse of official capacity and misuse of official information, both felony offenses.

“In relation to many of these crimes, there’s of course the aiding and abetting portion of it,” said investigator Mark Donnelly, another former prosecutor. “He’s acting with other individuals, and conspiracy to commit crimes that violate both the state of Texas laws and federal laws.”

“That’s alarming to hear,” Murr responded. “It curls my mustache.”

Okay first, go back to the Trib story above and look at the picture of Andrew Murr. You’ll know how serious that statement of his is. Second, those are some real greatest hits that this committee is playing. I mean, the Kaufman County bribery investigation, which ultimately went nowhere? Are they thinking about that as background material – you know, “establishing a pattern”, as they say on “Law & Order” – or do they think there was something that should have been acted upon? The mind reels. Finally, maybe the Justice Department ought to perhaps Do Something with this investigation, which is now in their laps? And maybe Texas Democrats ought to push them to take action on this? Again, just a thought.

And for the third time, wow.

The House investigators, a group of five attorneys with experience in public integrity law and white collar crime, said they reviewed hundreds of pages of documents, including emails, contracts and criminal complaints, and interviewed 15 people. All but one stated they had “grave concerns” regarding Paxton showing hostility or retaliation toward them for their participation.

Paxton signed a settlement with the whistleblowers in February for $3.3 million, but the deal is effectively dead because the Legislature has declined to fund it this session, which whistleblowers have said was a condition of the agreement. The session ends May 29. The whistleblowers’ attorneys have asked the Texas Supreme Court to continue on with the suit.

Epley told committee members Wednesday that Paxton violated the state’s open records law to help Paul obtain information about the FBI’s investigation into him and a raid it had executed against his home and business office.

The attorney general’s office, which is charged with determining whether information needs to be released, had issued a “no-opinion” ruling on the matter — the first time it had done so in decades. The office receives about 30,000 requests per year.

Epley said Paul should have been denied the documents, since the open records law has a clear exception for law enforcement matters, yet Paxton pushed for its release.

According to Epley, Paxton obtained his own copy of the documents and directed an aide to hand-deliver a manila envelope to Paul at his business. After that, Paul’s attorneys stopped asking for the FBI records.

Investigator Mark Donnelly also provided new information on Wednesday that an attorney of Paul’s had recommended that Paxton’s office hire a young and inexperienced lawyer named Brandon Cammack as outside counsel to help Paxton investigate the federal officials looking into Paul. That could have been a conflict of interest, as Paul was the one who had requested the investigation in the first place.

Donnolly did not name the attorney who referred Cammack, but Hearst Newspapers has reported on the strange relationship between Cammack and an attorney who represented Paul, Michael Wynne.

Paul, who is in the middle of multiple bankruptcy proceedings and financial litigation, had wanted the attorney general’s office to uncover details about the federal law investigation into him and his businesses.

Paxton hired Cammack as a “special prosecutor” against the advice of his staff, according to the investigators. They said Cammack was able to use the unredacted FBI report from Paxton to pinpoint the targets of 39 subpoenas, which went to Paul’s business interests and law enforcement officials.

You know, this stuff has been out there for a long time. And for a long time, it’s largely been ignored despite the voluminous record. In the same way that there’s basically no such thing as an anti-Trump Republican any more, because they’ve either been corrupted or they’ve left the Republican Party, at least up until now there’s been no such thing as an anti-Ken Paxton Republican in Texas. Mad respect to the three Republicans on this committee and their investigators, and to the whistleblowers before them, but there have been multiple opportunities before now to deal with the Paxton problem. Even if the Lege ultimately moves forward with impeachment, which by the way will require at least eight of Dan Patrick’s hand-puppet GOP Senators to turn on Paxton, he’s gotten away with this shit – and done a ton of damage while doing so – for way too long. Better late than never and all that, but boy howdy is this late.

I will close with three tweets of interest.

I’ve already pre-ordered that book for my Kindle. Texas Public Radio, the Associated Press, Reform Austin, and TPM have more.

A brief Uvalde roundup one year after the massacre

Just a few links for you…

A year after Uvalde’s school massacre, healing remains elusive.

In the year since 19 children and two teachers were killed inside their classrooms at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, the search for healing has been elusive.

Many victims’ relatives have said healing cannot begin without closure. But closure has been impossible, because 12 months later there are still many unresolved questions about what happened that day — most stemming from the failed police response. It took officers an agonizing 77 minutes to enter the classroom and kill the gunman. It was more than an hour during which some of the victims slowly bled to death.

Details about precisely what happened, which victims might have survived if police had acted faster, and why the law enforcement response failed so miserably are the subject of ongoing local, state and federal investigations. Many surviving families are pinning their hopes for closure on their findings. Others are skeptical. But in the meantime, much of the community is suspended in its grief, grasping still for a narrative of what happened on that tragic day, and searching for ways to cope.

A year after the Uvalde school shooting, officers who botched response face few consequences.

In the year since the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, much of the blame for law enforcement’s decision to wait more than an hour to confront the gunman has centered on the former chief of the school district’s small police force.

But a Washington Post investigation has found that the costly delay was also driven by the inaction of an array of senior and supervising law enforcement officers who remain on the job and had direct knowledge a shooting was taking place inside classrooms but failed to swiftly stop the gunman.

The Post’s review of dozens of hours of body camera videos, post-shooting interviews with officers, audio from dispatch communications and law enforcement licensing records identified at least seven officers who stalled even as evidence mounted that children were still in danger. Some were the first to arrive, while others were called in for their expertise.

All are still employed by the same agencies they worked for that day. One was commended for his actions that day.

For many families of victims in the small Texas town, promises from top state law enforcement and government officials to hold all those responsible for the 77-minute delay in stopping the shooter today feel empty. Instead, they have learned to live alongside officers who faced no repercussions and remain in positions of authority in the community.

The officers shop at the same grocery stores as the families. They umpire weekly softball games. They live in the same neighborhoods. In some cases, they are blood relatives.

“When we see them, they put their heads down,” said Felicha Martinez, whose son was killed in the attack and whose cousin is a police officer who responded to the shooting. “They know they did wrong and wish they could go back and do it over again.”

Hearts In Turmoil: Uvalde Families’ Endless Quest For Gun Control And Answers.

A year ago, an 18-year-old kid with an assault rifle killed nineteen fourth-graders and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. The gunman, Salvador Ramos, massacred the students while officers waited outside for more than an hour before engaging him. It’s been a year since the shooting, and families of the victims are still grieving, whilst fighting for gun control and answers.

The Robb Elementary School shooting is the third-deadliest school shooting in the U.S. after the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre in 2012 and the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007.

In this past year, the victim’s families have fought for new restrictions and more transparency, but the government presented resistance to cooperating.

After the shooting, Governor Greg Abbott publicly condemned the massacre, but instead of addressing Texas’ mass shooting problem, he blamed the Uvalde massacre on mental health – while at the same time cutting a lot of mental health spending.

At the state Capitol in Texas, families showed up repeatedly to push a bill that would have raised the age to buy semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21, but the bill barely got a vote and never made it out of committee.

On the front lines of the fight was State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, representing the Uvalde district, who spent the last five months trying to pass bills that would restrict young adults’ access to semi-automatic rifles. Guiterrez’s final attempt -amending another gun bill to raise the minimum age – failed just days before the one-year anniversary of the Robb Elementary massacre.

Texas Sen. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio, activists blast lawmakers’ inaction on guns.

Gun-control advocates joined State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, at the Texas Capitol to condemn lawmakers’ inaction on a bill that would have raised the minimum age required to purchase a semi-automatic rifle to 21.

Gutierrez, whose district includes Uvalde, championed the proposal and a raft of other gun reforms. He’s argued the measures are necessary after last year’s massacre at Robb Elementary School, in which a shooter claimed the lives of 19 students and two teachers.

Families of those who died at Robb repeatedly pressed the Texas Legislature to pass a proposal this session raising the purchase age for semi-automatic rifles.

“Congratulations, you just told every single Texan and every single visitor to Texas that you don’t give a damn about the families of Uvalde,” Manuel Rizo said at Tuesday’s live-streamed gathering. Rizo is loved one of Jackie Cazares, 9, who died at Robb Elementary.

Uvalde and Santa Fe families, bonded by unthinkable tragedy, unite in Texas gun reform efforts.

Uvalde and Santa Fe are about 315 miles from each other, but these residents are like family. Cross and Hart have spent long nights together trading stories, sharing meals and advocating at the Texas Capitol. They comment on each other’s social media posts and text each other memes.

They are part of a growing group of Texans touched by gun violence, connected by trauma, grief and, in some cases, a new calling to advocate for change.

“Unfortunately, we’re a part of this club that nobody wants to be a part of,” Cross said. “When you have a grief like this, the average person doesn’t understand. You can’t grasp the notion of how much pain that is.”

Santa Fe survivors don’t know everyone in Uvalde, and the same is true in reverse. There’s no “mass shooting phonebook,” Hart said — and she sometimes wishes there was a better way to connect with others across Texas who have been in their shoes: families in El Paso, Sutherland Springs, Midland-Odessa and now Allen.

It’s a network established by meeting at political events or asking around for someone’s number after seeing them in the news, Hart said.

She first connected with Cross and his wife, Nikki, over the phone last June, and they met in person for the first time in August at an Astros game in Houston. The team had invited the Uvalde families out for “Uvalde Strong Day,” so Hart bought a ticket.

Hart met some of the other Uvalde parents that day, too. She talked to Kimberly Garcia, the mother of 10-year-old Amerie Jo Garza, and “instantly connected” with her. Amerie was a Girl Scout, just like Hart’s daughter.

1 year after the tragedy in Uvalde, the memory of the 21 victims lives on.

On May 24, 2022, a gunman killed 19 fourth-graders and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. It was the worst school shooting in Texas history.

The children loved TikTok and baseball, Pokémon and Starbucks. They had dreams of becoming a lawyer, a veterinarian, a marine biologist, an art teacher, a cop.

The teachers died trying to save their students. One was a “diamond in the rough” who loved CrossFit, running and biking.

Another was a caregiver who supported her family and friends in everything they did. Her husband, a devoted father, died of a heart attack on May 26 after placing flowers at her memorial.

This is who they were.

I had a hard time reading the second to last story. I didn’t even try to read the last one. You can read or not read whichever ones you want. There were many more out there on Wednesday as well. I’m a small bit of hope, a large bit of rage and frustration, and a medium bit of despair about it all.

The final 227

Somewhere in here are your Board of Managers.

With about a week until the Texas Education Agency plans to appoint a new Houston ISD superintendent and board of managers, the state agency says it is still considering more than 200 applicants for the nine-member board.

The Chronicle obtained through a public information request the names of the 227 people — educators, business professionals, parents and others — who completed a two-day Lone Star Governance training during one of two weekends last month. All of those people remained under active consideration for placement on the board as of Tuesday, said Jake Kobersky, the state agency’s media relations director.

“We’ll be whittling down from that list,” he said, confirming that no one from outside that group of 227 will be chosen for the board.

[…]

Niti Patel, an HISD parent who completed the training, said she was not invited to conduct a virtual interview or participate in the follow-up weekend session.

Instead, she and other participants said they received an email from Lecholop on April 28 thanking them for engaging in the application and selection process.

“TEA is in the process of vetting all applicants who attended LSG training and will continue to conduct candidate evaluations between now and the placement of the board in June. All applicants who attended LSG training remain in contention for potential appointment to the Board of Managers,” Lecholop wrote in the email. “Your genuine participation and belief that all students in Houston ISD can and will be successful are emblematic of why this intervention will be successful.”

Patel said she believes she has been eliminated from the process.

“I think if I was in the process of being narrowed, they would have talked to me by now,” she said.

The weekend training was educational, she said, and included activities like role playing a scenario in which an angry parent shows up at a board meeting. Patel said she was impressed by the other participants but felt that there was a lack of clarity surrounding the criteria and qualifications needed to serve on the board. She now believes the process may be a “sham.”

“There was a lot of talk about how student outcomes don’t change until adult behaviors change,” she said. “It wasn’t clear to me that this was anything more than an actual training…Later on, I found out it was kind of an audition for going to the next step.”

Pamela Boveland, a community advocate and adjunct professor at the University of Houston, said Lecholop and another TEA representative were “circling like sharks” during the training sessions. She did not get a follow-up interview and also believes she has been cut from consideration, although she has not received any communication explicitly telling her so.

“I don’t think they wanted to be caught with the 30 (names),” Boveland said. “We’re not still in the process…That’s as far away from the truth as it can get.”

Daniel Gorelick, an associate professor of biology at Baylor College of Medicine and an HISD parent, said he completed the two-day training session and a Zoom interview but did not progress to the next step. He said he learned a lot about how HISD and the school board work.

“I left that two-day session thinking that if they picked all nine people from that group we’d be in good hands,” he said. “There were really a lot of good, smart, dedicated, talented folks. I was actually very impressed.”

See here and here for some background, and click over to see both the original list of 450 applicants and the 227 who made the cut by attending the sessions. One of the latter is the parent of one of my daughter’s classmates; I texted them about this and was told they did not get any further interview from the TEA but was impressed by the people in their session and felt a lot better about the whole process afterwards. I remain skeptical of the TEA and how they have handled this, but as I have said before if they pick a good Board it will help. We’ll see.

Texas blog roundup for the week of May 22

The Texas Progressive Alliance isn’t emotionally ready for “Succession” to end as it brings you this week’s roundup.

(more…)

Lege kneecaps Harris County elections

I have three things to say about this.

The Texas House of Representatives voted Tuesday to force Harris County to eliminate its chief election official and to give state officials more authority over elections there.

On a 81–62 party line vote, House Republicans passed Senate Bill 1750, which will abolish the Harris County elections administrator position — a nonpartisan position appointed by local elected officials — and return all election duties to the county clerk and tax assessor-collector.

Failed amendments by Democrats would have changed the new law’s effective date to December, instead of Sept. 1, to give county officials time to conduct the November county and municipal elections and to transfer the duties. Another failed amendment would have given the authority to transfer election duties to the county commissioners. The bill is now on its way to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk — and could ultimately face Harris County’s opposition in court.

Harris County Elections Administrator Clifford Tatum said in a statement to Votebeat that when the provision takes effect in September, it’ll be 39 days from the voter registration deadline and 52 days from the first day of early voting for a countywide election that includes the Houston mayoral race.

“We fear this time frame would not be adequate for such a substantial change in administration, and that Harris County voters and election workers may be the ones to pay the price,” Tatum said.

Also approved Monday was a bill that would let the Texas secretary of state intervene in local elections. It would grant the state the authority to investigate election “irregularities” after complaints are filed and the authority to order the removal of a county election administrator or to file a petition to remove a county officer overseeing elections, such as a clerk, if “a recurring pattern of problems” isn’t resolved. The secretary’s current role in elections is only to guide and assist counties, with no oversight powers.

Senate Bill 1933 was originally written to apply to all counties but was amended on the House floor to impact only Harris County, by the House sponsor of the measure, Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress. The House’s changes to the bill now have to receive approval from the Senate this week.

[…]

Harris County leaders say the two bills would set a “dangerous precedent.” That’s why the county is now evaluating whether they can take legal action if the proposals become law.

County Attorney Christian D. Menefee in a statement said state legislators are singling out Harris County “to score cheap political points.”

“I want to be clear: this fight is not over,” Menefee said. “We cannot and will not allow the state to illegally target Harris County.”

1. It’s obnoxious and petty, but I still don’t quite understand the hate-on for the Elections Administrator office. Nothing will substantially change in terms of how elections are done in the county as a result of this, just the names and who they report to. Hell, as things stand right now the Chair of the Harris County GOP is on the oversight board of the EA. That authority disappears once the powers revert to the County Clerk and Tax Assessor. It’s a poke in the eye, but beyond that I don’t see what the Republicans think they’re getting out of this. What am I missing?

2. SB1933 is a lot easier to understand. The possibilities to screw with elections are scary enough, but I’m more worried about it being used to screw with voter registration, both to make it harder to get registrations done and to make it easier to throw voters off the rolls. There’s a reason why the voter rolls barely grew in the years that Paul Bettencourt was in charge of that.

3. There are some obvious avenues for attack in court, both state and federal. I don’t have much faith that the end result will be what we want, though. Like everything else, the only way out of this is winning more elections. And yes, the Republicans who pass these laws to make that harder for Democrats to do know that, too. The Chron, TPM, and Mother Jones have more.

Paxton calls on Phelan to resign

The last few days of a legislative session are always the dumbest days of the session.

A crook any way you look

Attorney General Ken Paxton said Tuesday that state House Speaker Dade Phelan should resign, accusing him of presiding over his chamber “in a state of apparent debilitating intoxication.” Paxton also asked the House General Investigating Committee to probe Phelan, a fellow Republican.

Paxton’s call for Phelan’s resignation came days after a video clip went viral that showed Phelan slurring his words while overseeing House floor proceedings Friday night. Phelan’s office has declined to comment on the incident.

“After much consideration, it is with profound disappointment that I call on Speaker Dade Phelan to resign at the end of this legislation session,” Paxton said in a statement posted on Twitter. “His conduct has negatively impacted the legislative process and constitutes a failure to live up to his duty to the public.”

Minutes later, Paxton also posted to Twitter a screenshot of a letter he sent the chair of the General Investigating Committee, Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, asking him to open an “investigation into Speaker Phelan for violation of House rules, state law, and for conduct unbecoming his position.” The General Investigating Committee was meeting Tuesday afternoon but does not publicly comment on any pending investigations.

Phelan’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Paxton’s remarks.

Texas Republicans regularly fight among themselves, but Paxton’s comments Tuesday were striking even by that standard.

The 44-second video clip of Phelan began circulating on social media over the weekend. It was pushed by Phelan’s intraparty critics, including former state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford. It was also the subject of anonymous text messages deriding Phelan as “Drunk Dade.”

Phelan’s defenders noted he seemed to speak normally before and after the clip. They also noted that the people pushing the video, like Stickland, may be out for revenge after the House voted to expel one of their political allies, ex-state Rep. Bryan Slaton, R-Royse City.

[…]

Paxton shares political ties with Slaton, the ousted lawmaker. A top campaign contributor to both has been Defend Texas Liberty PAC, the Stickland-run group that is mostly financed by conservative megadonors Tim Dunn and the Wilks family.

You can see the video here if you’re so inclined. I have not given this any real thought, but Scott Braddock speaks for me:

I have no opinion about what condition Speaker Phelan was in, nor do I particularly care. Honestly, he was probably just as exhausted as everyone else is at this point in a session. I do care about the assholes who enabled Bryan Slaton and who are still mad that he faced consequences for his repellant actions. That’s about all the thought I care to give this. The Press and Reform Austin have more.

UPDATE: Okay, now I’m interested.

Following Attorney General Ken Paxton’s call for Speaker Dade Phelan’s resignation, Phelan’s office responded by presenting their perspective on Paxton’s motives.

The House Committee on General Investigating has issued subpoenas to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) relating to the firing of eight whistleblowers from the attorney general’s office.

Cait Wittman, the spokeswoman for Phelan, highlighted the committee’s investigation into “Matter A” since March, as evidenced by committee minutes and official House records. According to Wittman, the motives and timing behind Paxton’s recent statement calling for Phelan’s resignation are abundantly clear.

She stated, “As outlined in the attached preservation letter, the Committee is conducting a thorough examination of the events tied to the firing of the whistleblowers in addition to Ken Paxton’s alleged illegal conduct.” The committee minutes further revealed the issuance of subpoenas.

Wittman characterized Paxton’s statement as a desperate attempt to salvage his reputation, stating, “Mr. Paxton’s statement today amounts to little more than a last-ditch effort to save face.”

The letter says that, “The House has been conducting an investigation related to your request for $3.3 million dollars of public money to pay a settlement resolving litigation between your agency and terminated whistleblowers.”

Nice. Do the letters FAFO mean anything to you, Kenny?

UPDATE: Color Jeremy Wallace skeptical of the video evidence.

Another path to hockey in Houston

If not expansion, then relocation.

The Arizona Coyotes have taken yet another blow in their hopes of finding a long-term home in the Phoenix area.

As a result, speculation has renewed about whether the desert’s potential loss could become Houston’s long-awaited path to the NHL.

While the results are still unofficial, a Tuesday referendum for a Tempe entertainment district that would’ve included a new arena for the Coyotes appears to be headed to a resounding defeat in the Phoenix suburb.

That had hockey fans and media speculating on the next destination for the Coyotes, who’ve had relocation rumors swirl around the franchise for the better part of two-plus decades.

While a move doesn’t appear to be immediate — NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told ESPN on Wednesday that he didn’t envision the team not playing in Arizona next season — staying at Arizona State’s Mullett Arena with its league-low capacity of 4,600 is a highly unlikely long-term proposition. The Coyotes moved there this season after playing from 2003-22 in the far-flung suburb of Glendale.

Enter Houston, the largest market in the country without an NHL team, making it a popular (and logical) candidate to get an NHL team and the subject of perpetual speculation. While NHL power brokers like Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, the chairman of the league’s board of governors, have advocated for Houston before and the city has a hockey-ready arena in Toyota Center, there are some obstacles to bringing a team here.

First, events in the arena are controlled by the Rockets. When owner Tilman Fertitta bought the NBA franchise in October 2017, he said “I would put an NHL team here tomorrow” as its owner or as a co-tenant if the situation worked to his liking. However, in the years since, Fertitta has said little publicly about the NHL.

It appears price is the big sticking point according to Elliotte Friedman, a hockey insider for Canadian cable network Sportsnet.

“The one thing there is that Houston owner, when they met with him about the NHL, it wasn’t at a number that the NHL liked,” Friedman said Wednesday on his “32 Thoughts” podcast with co-host Jeff Marek.

“I don’t know if that’s changed or how it would go, but that was the one thing that I know that they were concerned about. … At a time when Ottawa’s story is incredible because of the kind of interest that’s in the team and the passion that seems to be around owning the team, you want that kind of passion around your ownership group. They didn’t sense it from Houston.”

As noted recently, expansion is not on the table at this time, so if Houston is going to get an NHL team, it would have to be an existing one looking for a new place. Even if the Coyotes did move, there’s no guarantee they’d come to Houston – multiple other cities, including two that used to house NHL franchises, are also in the running. It would be at least a year before anything happens, so much can change. But for now at least, there’s still a chance. The Press has more.

More plaintiffs join lawsuit against Texas over abortion restrictions

Good.

One woman had to carry her baby, missing much of her skull, for months knowing she’d bury her daughter soon after she was born. Another started mirroring the life-threatening symptoms that her baby was displaying while in the womb. An OB-GYN found herself secretly traveling to Colorado to abort her wanted pregnancy, marred by the diagnosis of a fatal fetal anomaly.

All of the women were told they could not end their pregnancies in Texas, a state that has enacted some of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws.

Now, they’re asking a Texas court to put an emergency hold on some abortion restrictions, joining a lawsuit launched earlier this year by five other women who were denied abortions in the state, despite pregnancies they say endangered their health or lives.

More than a dozen Texas women in total have joined the Center for Reproductive Rights’ lawsuit against the state’s law, which prohibits abortions unless a mother’s life is at risk — an exception that is not clearly defined. Texas doctors who perform abortions risk life in prison and fines of up to $100,000, leaving many women with providers who are unwilling to even discuss terminating a pregnancy.

“Our hope is that it will allow physicians at least a little more comfort when it comes to patients in obstetrical emergencies who really need an abortion where it’s going to effect their health, fertility or life going forward,” Molly Duane, the lead attorney on the case, told The Associated Press. “Almost all of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit tell similar stories about their doctors saying, if not for this law, I’d give you an abortion right now.”

The lawsuit serves as a nationwide model for abortion rights advocates to challenge strict new abortion laws states that have rolled out since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Sixteen states, including Texas, do not allow abortions when a fatal fetal anomaly is detected while six do not allow exceptions for the mother’s health, according to an analysis by KFF, a health research organization.

Duane said the Center for Reproductive Rights is looking at filing similar lawsuits in other states, noting that they’ve heard from women across the country. Roughly 25 Texas women have contacted the organization about their own experiences since the initial lawsuit was filed in March.

See here and here for more on the original lawsuit. A copy of the amended suit, which will be heard in Travis County, is here. The story has details about several of the new plaintiffs – as we have seen, too many times before, these were wanted pregnancies that ran into deadly complications, and the effect on these women because of the strict restrictions on what doctors can do now is harrowing – with more about them here. I haven’t seen any further coverage of this yet, which annoys me. There was a brief moment, in the 2022 campaign and at the beginning of the legislative session, when there were a few words spoken by Republicans about maybe softening the super-strict bans just a little, to include rape and incest exceptions and clarify the “life/health of the mother” situation. That got shot down by the usual suspects, and instead we get some more anti-abortion crap, this time being slipped into a bill to extend Medicaid coverage to 12 months for new mothers. So yeah, I’m very invested in this litigation. The press release from the Center for Reproductive Rights is here, and they have more in their Twitter thread.

There will be a broadband referendum on your fall ballot

One more reasonable accomplishment amid the wreckage.

Rep. Trent Ashby

Texas lawmakers took another step Thursday toward expanding internet availability in the state by passing a bill that invests $5 billion for broadband development.

House Bill 9, filed by Republican state Rep. Trent Ashby of Lufkin, would create the Texas Broadband Infrastructure Fund. The money would be administered by the Texas comptroller’s office and would be the biggest state investment in broadband development to date. The bill is accompanied by House Joint Resolution 125, which proposes a constitutional amendment that would ask Texas voters to approve the historic amount and create the fund.

The legislation has cleared both chambers, and two amendments adopted Thursday will send it back to the House for final approval before going to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk. One amendment, proposed by Sen. Joan Huffman of Houston, said it was a recommendation from the Texas Comptroller’s office as a way to “remove legal burdens allowing for moneys to be allocated without the need for burdensome legal filings for each individual asset.”

Another amendment, proposed by Sen. Robert Nichols of Jacksonville, would direct the state’s broadband office to supplement the non-federal match on a sliding scale based on where it’s necessary to add additional state funds to make a project area economically feasible to serve. Nichols said this would allow the state to amplify the impact of federal funding and ensure providers have skin in the game.

The proposed legislation is an attempt to fill the gaps in broadband availability statewide. Nearly 7 million Texans don’t have reliable internet service. According to the Broadband Development Office’s map, released earlier this year, most urban areas of the state have broadband availability, while most rural areas have slow service or none at all.

This and another bill by Rep. Ashby and Sen. Nichols would build on legislation passed last session, and would add to the money that will come to Texas from the bipartisan infrastructure bill of 2021. The House had not concurred with the Senate amendments as of when I drafted this, but it seems likely all that will be dealt with in short order. Even in terrible sessions there are decent things that get done. It’s just that the bad so outweighs the good. We know what the solution is for that.

Vallejo to run again in CD15

Let’s hope for a better outcome this time.

Michelle Vallejo

Democrat Michelle Vallejo is running again for the 15th Congressional District, looking to flip back the one U.S. House seat in Texas that Republicans captured last year.

Vallejo made the announcement Tuesday morning in a video that criticized the GOP incumbent, U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz of Edinburg, on multiple issues, including Republican efforts to cut spending for social services and curtail access to abortion.

“In South Texas, Monica De La Cruz makes a lot of promises to us, la gente, but in Congress, her record tells a different story,” Vallejo said in the video.

Vallejo ran for the 15th District in 2022, when it was an open seat, and lost to De La Cruz by 9 percentage points. Redistricting had tilted the seat in favor of the GOP, but national Democrats also declined to seriously invest in Vallejo and prioritized other races. That decision led to recriminations inside the party as it sought to fend off a well-funded GOP offensive in South Texas, which ultimately produced mixed results.

Vallejo said she’s optimistic about national Democratic investments in her race, noting that both Republicans and Democrats have singled out the district as competitive.

“I’m feeling very confident about the resources that they are gearing up for Texas 15,” Vallejo said. “Both sides have targeted this seat as a battleground, and that really points to the vulnerabilities that Monica De La Cruz, as a member of Congress, right now has shown us to have.”

[…]

Vallejo ran as an unabashed progressive when she emerged as the 2022 Democratic nominee in the 15th District. She championed proposals such as a $15-per-hour minimum wage and the single-payer health care system known as Medicare for All. Vallejo narrowly defeated centrist Ruben Ramirez in the 2022 Democratic primary by only 0.2 points.

Vallejo said she would continue running on a similar slate of policy issues, including access to health care, economic development and reproductive rights. Vallejo runs a “pulga,” or flea market, started by her family, which she said gave her a unique outlook on wide swaths of her community.

Vallejo shrugged off criticism that she’s too progressive for a district that has traditionally been represented by moderate Democrats.

“I grew up here in the district. I’m a small-business owner. I grew up serving many other small businesses, and I’ve never labeled myself one thing or the other, other than being a champion of the people,” Vallejo said.

So far, no other credible Democratic candidates have stepped forward to run for the 15th District in 2024.

As noted, the DCCC is in on CD15, the only district in Texas so far. I’m semi-optimistic about this – it should be competitive, hopefully more so than it was in 2022. The Republicans will certainly put a lot of money into defending this seat, so we’ll see how serious the DCCC is, and how well Vallejo can do raising funds when she’s a featured player. I look forward to her July finance report.

Previewing Allred vs Gutierrez

I have some thoughts.

Rep. Colin Allred

Since announcing his 2024 Senate campaign, U.S. Rep. Colin Allred has focused his attention on the potential bruising fight against incumbent Republican Ted Cruz.

Before Allred can get to Cruz, however, he’ll likely have to face a significant challenge in the Democratic Party primary.

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio is preparing to challenge Allred for the Democratic Party nomination against Cruz, according to four people with knowledge of his deliberations. Gutierrez, 52, is considering launching his campaign after the Texas’ legislative session concludes on Memorial Day. There could be special sessions that impact the timing of that decision.

Gutierrez has gotten media attention for his gun safety crusade for the victims of the May 24 Uvalde massacre, wants to provide party voters with an alternative.

Other contenders could emerge, including Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, according to numerous Democratic Party sources. Former Midland City Council member John Love is already in the field with Allred.

Let me stop you right there. I have no idea where this “Sylvester Turner” business is coming from. His name has come up before, in the “Other names mentioned” part of the story, and I assume that’s what is happening here as well. Why it is coming up, other than the fact that he’s in his last year as Houston Mayor and he’s a reasonably recognizable name, is the mystery. I’m not going to claim that I know everything there is to know about Sylvester Turner, and I know that even this kind of loose speculation is based on people talking and that never comes completely out of the blue, but I just don’t see this. Please feel free to set me straight if you know something I don’t know.

Also, kudos for the mention of John Love, the first declared Democrat in this race. Now I need to start a campaign to get Heli Rodriguez-Prilliman mentioned as well.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

Gutierrez did not comment on his political future.

But Colin Strother, a consultant for Gutierrez, said Allred does not have the right message. His comments are an early peek at how Gutierrez could try to contrast himself with Allred.

“Based on everything that [Allred has] said and tweeted, and posted thus far, he’s trying to appeal to Republicans, and he’s citing his work across the aisle and his support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” Strother said. “The Chamber of Commerce has enough members in the Senate, and I just don’t see base Democrats getting excited to vote for Republican-light.”

Strother added: “The ground is very fertile for a progressive candidate to run.”

Allred, however, comes into a primary contest with broad support. He’s been endorsed by the political arm of the Congressional Black Caucus. Along with being backed for his congressional races by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he’s been supported by organized labor.

Allred’s campaign did not comment on Strother’s criticism, instead pointing to the congressman’s remarks that he’s focused on defeating Cruz.

Gotta say, it’s a little weird to see Colin Strother associate himself with the “progressive” candidate in a Democratic primary. Politics is a strange place. From where I sit, neither candidate is a “progressive” in the sense that that word is often used in this context. This isn’t going to be a primary about Medicare for all or a national $15 minimum wage. Both candidates have connections to business and energy interests that a Jessica Cisneros type would attack them for, but neither has any bad votes or associations on topics like abortion or LGBTQ issues or (obviously) gun control. If Gutierrez wants to define himself as the more progressive candidate because of his activism on gun control, that’s fine by me and it’s perfectly reasonable strategy. I would just like it if we all kept some perspective on this.

“The way it starts off is Allred has the advantage of probably being able to rely on the African American votes in Dallas and Houston, which is a substantial share of the Democratic primary electorate,” said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University who is studying the race.

“Gutierrez is more likely to be able to appeal to Latinos,” he said, “so the group that will be the decisive group would be liberal Anglos. Where do they go?”

[…]

“Last year, Rochelle Garza cleaned up against Joe Jaworski, though that was partly the male/female dynamic,” said North Texas-based consultant Jeff Dalton, who managed the 2020 Senate campaign of state Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas. He said Garza appealed to Latinos from the Valley and San Antonio and other parts of the state.”

But Gutierrez’s challenge is raising enough money to be able to amplify his message. If he can’t, Allred will drown him out.

“Anybody with a Latino last name in the Democratic primary comes in with a base,” [Democratic strategist Matt] Angle said. “The question is whether or not you could take that and expand upon it.”

Angle added that both candidates, largely unknown outside of their hometowns, will have to build a coalition to win. That means they will have to extend beyond their Black and Latino support.

“You have to build a coalition,” he said.

[…]

Dalton said a competitive primary could help raise the profiles of the contenders and make them better candidates.

“Primaries are not necessarily a bad thing,” Dalton said. “Sometimes a primary can raise attention about the race or help people raise money.”

Most Democrats warn against a bitter fight.

“I hope that people run for only one reason and that is to beat Ted Cruz,” Angle said. “We don’t have the luxury of symbolic campaigns.”

I think we’re all basically in agreement here. Allred started out with a big fundraising haul right after his announcement, which certainly helps him. Gutierrez is dependent on the end of the legislative session to try to reap the same benefit. He has the signature issue, which should help with activist energy. If they’re out there beating the bushes and getting people excited about taking on Ted Cruz, it’s all good.