Still a crook any way you look
Two weeks before this year’s primary elections, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the creation of a tip line for the public to report people or groups suspected of voter fraud.
“Free and fair elections are a cornerstone of a thriving republic, and with the authority granted to my office by the Legislature, we will stop at nothing to uncover and stop any illegal voting activity,” Paxton said in a February news release announcing the tip line.
The announcement linked to guidance from his office about election laws in Texas, which included a requirement to be a U.S. citizen, a prohibition on collecting mail ballots on behalf of others and a warning that “it is illegal to misrepresent your residence on election records or to establish a residence for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election.”
“You must register to vote using the address where you reside,” the attorney general’s guidance stated.
Despite his own warnings, Paxton appears to have used an address where he did not live while voting in six elections in the past two years, including in May’s runoff that made him the Republican nominee for U.S. senator, according to records obtained by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.
State Sen. Angela Paxton said in a 2025 divorce filing that Paxton, whom she accused of adultery, moved out of their Collin County home a year earlier. But Paxton continues to list the home’s address in the northern Dallas suburb on his voter registration. Angela Paxton declined to be interviewed. A source close to the Paxtons said the attorney general has not moved back into the home since leaving.
It is unclear where Paxton has lived for the past two years, but reporting by ProPublica and the Tribune has linked him to a home in neighboring Denton County since February.
Three election lawyers told the news organizations that Paxton may have violated the same Texas laws his office cautioned about in its news release.
[…]
State courts have repeatedly ruled that there is no single way to determine where someone lives, and judges must consider multiple factors, such as where a voter sleeps or stores personal belongings. Prosecuting such cases also requires proof that a voter “knowingly” or “intentionally” broke the law.
Even if it’s clear that someone doesn’t live at the address where they are registered to vote, state law allows them to remain registered if their absence is temporary and they intend to return. The provision is commonly used by college students and military service members.
“So long as you truly intend to return, I think you’re fine,” said Beth Stevens, an election lawyer who worked for the Harris County clerk and the Texas Civil Rights Project. “When you start doing things that suggest, ‘Oh, I’ve fully moved. I’m just wink-wink saying I intend to return,’ that’s when you get into questionable territory.”
Paxton’s public and contentious split from his wife could make it difficult to argue that he intended to return to the home they own and where she continues to reside, said David Becker, a former voting rights lawyer for the Justice Department.
“I think there would be questions raised about a residence where someone does not live, does not spend the night and can in no way have the intent to continue to reside. Those would probably raise red flags in any state,” Becker said.
Becker, who is now the director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that works to build public trust in elections, added that the situation is particularly problematic because Paxton’s job is to enforce election laws.
“Certainly, the chief law enforcement officer of the state of Texas, someone who has made claims about election integrity and made it a priority of his office, should be charged with knowing the laws of residencies of the state of Texas with regard to voting,” Becker said.
[…]
Paxton is not registered to vote in Denton County, voter rolls show. Instead, since February, he has voted in Collin County twice: once in the March Republican primary and once in the May runoff. Each Texas county elects its own slate of local officials, which is why state law requires voters to register where they live.
Ekow Yankah, a law professor at the University of Michigan whose expertise includes election law, said Paxton’s voter registration situation should remind the attorney general of what studies have consistently shown: that intentional illegal voting is rare.
“You would think that somebody who’s going through this would learn a little bit of humility that lots of things which look on their face, like technical violations of the law, are usually explained by totally ordinary things,” Yankah said. “It’s only if you’re utterly cynical and ignore all the evidence that you make a claim that, in fact, these cases are attributable to nefarious criminal intent.”
Paxton cannot claim ignorance of the law because he enforces it, said Joshua Blank, research director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. In fact, as attorney general, Paxton should avoid even the appearance that he is not following the law, Blank said.
“We expect these laws to be understandable by ordinary citizens,” Blank said. “When our elected officials who are tasked with passing and enforcing these laws exhibit troubles in engaging with the voting process themselves, that raises serious questions.”
There’s more, so read the rest. I’d say the first order of business is for all interested parties to send in a tip about this to that “vote fraud” hotline, and for criminal complaints to be filed in Denton and Collin counties. None of that will go anywhere, of course, but it’s important to have a paper trail. After that, bring this up at every opportunity, both to throw some mud on the extremely tired “vote fraud” narrative and to remind everyone that this is yet another example of Paxton being a lawbreaker in general. Most importantly, have fun with this. Let a million memes bloom. Ken Paxton is a gift that keeps on giving. Let’s not waste it.
Texas has a method to identify voters who have moved and not updated their record, namely the mass mailout of new voter certificates (with a new color scheme) at the beginning of every even-numbered year. They are not supposed to be delivered by the USPS to a person at an address which the USPS is aware is no longer current, nor can they be forwarded. When that certificate is returned to the Voter Registrar/EA, a process is triggered to induce the voter to update their address, part of which is to be placed on the suspense list if they do not respond with a timely address update.
No doubt this will give plenty of folks an active case of schadenfreude.
But, in a more sober analysis, and no matter how plausible the living-elsewhere scenario is, it should be noted that:
(1) The residency info (that Ken Paxton has not been living at the still-marital home) is from a divorce petition, which is merely a pleading. What’s in a pleading may or may not be accurate. Pleadings are not evidence, not to mention conclusive proof. And even if there is no deliberate falsity or distortion of the truth, clerical or data-entry errors do occur. Such routine pleadings are often not even prepared by lawyers, but by (supervised) legal assistants or paralegals.
(2) It’s the petition by the wife, not his, so it’s not an admission against interest or judicial admission either. Ken Paxton did not file a counter-petition, only a general denial, which is catch-all at the pleading stage to put all allegations in issue, i.e., nothing is admitted (except that jurisdiction in the assigned court is proper, I suppose), specificially not the grounds for divorce not even the no-fault grounds (irrconcilable differences etc, see Family Code verbiage, which is the source for the template-based pleadings).
(3) What’s relevant for divorce is (a) residency of at least one spouse for purposes of jurisdiction of the court in which the divorce petition is filed, and (b) “cohabitation” or not, which has a bearing on the marital relationship and whether there is a reasonable chance of reconciliation. It’s the policy of the state of Texas to encourage amicable resolution of disputes generally, and family disputes in particular, so to deduce from the filing of a unilateral petition of divorce (followed by arrangements for mediation) that there is no chance of reconciliation (and resumption of cohabitation) is unwarranted. Even if there is a “paramour”, nobody can predict how long the paramour relationship will last. There are plenty of instances in which divorce cases are dismissed without a final decree. If there is no counter-petition, the spouse that filed can even dismiss unilaterally. Some are later refiled. Sometimes people even remarry after divorce, and sometimes they keep the marital residency for the kids to live in, with the parents alternative in and out on a weekly or other time basis, rather than the kids being shuttled back and forth between two residences.
Typically, the husband will move out of the marital home, but if he is still paying the mortgage (as the higher-income earner) and hasn’t moved out all his stuff, it’s not clear that there is no intention to return. What if he pushes for and gets the house in the divorce settlement, and the mortgage liability, if any, and resumes living there? Particularly where there other major assets, such as other real estate, for off-set to even out the overall asset distribution.
PS: I am not an attorney, but a political scientist, with interest in open records matters.
I have conducted an in-depth review of everything that was filed after the Paxton case filed was unsealed last December and you can find my paper on the SSRN site. In any event, that’s now public record, and the docket info is accessible throught Collin County Courts Portal. As of today, the last item is the cancellation of trial. There is no final decree and therefore no decision as to who gets the still-marital home, assuming its jointly owned. Asset-transfers pending divorce typically require court order and there is none here.
When there is still someone of the same last name at the address, things for the person not there get delivered all the time. I know because I get things for my kids all the time even though they filed change of address.
FACT CHECKING UPDATE
So, since this has become a big story, I went to the trouble of looking up the divorce petition (again).
Texas Tribune:
“State Sen. Angela Paxton said in a 2025 divorce filing that Paxton, whom she accused of adultery, moved out of their Collin County home a year earlier.”
Here is what Angela’s petition says in relevant part:
4. Domicile
Petitioner [Angela Paxton] has been a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six-month period and a resident of this county for the preceding ninety-day period.
5. Service Process should be served on Respondent at [McKinney TX address], or wherever he may be found.
7. Dates of Marriage and Separation
The parties were married on or about November 1, 1986, and ceased to live together as
spouses on or about June 1, 2024.
8. Grounds for Divorce
The marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities
between Petitioner and Respondent that destroys the legitimate ends of the marriage relationship and prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation.
Respondent has committed adultery.
12. Request for Temporary Orders Concerning Use of Property
Petitioner [Angela Paxton] requests the Court, after notice and hearing, for the preservation of the property and protection of the parties, to make temporary orders and issue any appropriate temporary injunctions respecting the temporary use of the parties’ property as deemed necessary and equitable, including but not limited to the following:
a. Awarding Petitioner [Angela Paxton] the exclusive use and possession of the residence located at [McKinney, TX address], as well as the furniture, furnishings, and other personal property, including computers and electronic devices, at that residence, while this case is pending, and enjoining Respondent from entering or remaining on the premises of the residence and exercising possession or control of any of this personal property, except as authorized by order of this Court.
COMMENT
1. Pleadings by people represented by lawyers are prepared by the lawyer (run-of-the-mill pleadings often by a legal assistant using a document assembly system). It’s common practice to attribute the lawyer’s work to the client (and not incorrect, since the lawyer is acting as agent), but that doesn’t mean that the client wrote it. The media makes too much of standard template language, also called boilerplate.
2. Petitioner Angela Paxton (i.e., Angela Paxton’s lawyer) asked for Respondent Ken Paxton to be served at the McKinney address, which is the address of the house that Angela wants exclusive temporary use for, i.e. the marital home.
3. Whether there is or is not conjugal cohabition (and when, or how long not) can be relevant under the Family Code, but hardly under the Election Code. Also, while a three-year separation without cohabitation is a ground for divorce in Texas, that has not been pleaded here; nor would it apply, based on the pleaded facts. See TFC Sec. 6.006. LIVING APART. The court may grant a divorce in favor of either spouse if the spouses have lived apart without cohabitation for at least three years.
It seems to me that the Trib should issue a correction or at least a clarification, if not an apology.
Angela Paxton’s divorce petition simply does not support the voter-registration scandal proposition that it has been utilized for.
Here is an interesting twist, though: The copy of the petition that is on the web is redacted (SSN digits and street address blackened out). Because of the redaction the reader can’t see that the address where Ken Paxton is to be served with citation is actually the same address given for the marital home that Angela wants exclusive use of by temporary order.
So, if the public has a right to know these things, the redaction stands in the way of full knowledge and instead encourages speculation that the service address for Ken Paxton is a different address elsewhere and that Angela knows what it is.
But the unredacted version could also fuel speculation. It would be consistent with Ken Paxton still residing at the martial home, Angela not wanting to tell where her husband lives or with whom, or not knowing where best to serve her husband (if not a work). More likely, however, arrangements were already in place for Ken to have his own lawyer(s) file something immediately, which is what happened. He filed an answer, so the question where he shall be formally served with divorce papers is moot.
Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino
Here is a write-up of my own independent deep-dive into the Paxton divorce file:
The Angela & Ken Paxton Divorce File Unsealing: What the Legacy Media Missed (January 28, 2026). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6144849