Paxton trial looms over summer's end
Texans are getting a double dose of misery over the next six weeks: the daily drumbeat of the summer heat and nonsense stemming from the impeachment case against Attorney General Ken Paxton.
No one can do much about the weather, but our leaders owe us a lot better than the sniping that’s preceding Paxton’s Sept. 5 trial in the Senate. For starters, the suspended attorney general’s legal team is seeking to remove three duly elected Democratic senators from the “jury” that will decide if Paxton can return to office, arguing that past statements prove they cannot be impartial.
Worse, though, is Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick–the “judge” in this proceeding –reporting $1 million in campaign contributions and $2 million in loans from a West Texas political group that has made defending Paxton a priority.
In a criminal proceeding, that would be grounds for recusal or disqualification. But impeachment, as we’ve said before, is a political exercise. Analogies to court trials are useful but imperfect. Politics is messy, and when Republicans who have had alignments and disagreements, conflict of interest is unavoidable.
That said, even a political knife-fight should have standards. Does no one here have a sense of honor– or at least an adviser to whisper, “Sir, that might not be the best look?”
Paxton lost any sense of political propriety long ago–if he ever had one.
He’s in the fight of his career. Still, he doesn’t get to choose his jury. Surely, some Democrats have essentially made up their minds to convict him–just as some Republicans firmly intend to vote to acquit.
By the standards of Paxton’s attorneys, anyone who endorsed him or one of his opponents couldn’t serve. A trial would be impossible.
The charges against Paxton strike at the heart of the integrity of his office. He stands accused of accepting bribes, shaping policy to help a donor, and abusing his power. The trial must be above-board.
Every juror should do the right thing and examine the evidence openly and fairly. But the duly elected senators will have to make that call and answer to their voters; it’s inappropriate, even vulgar, for Paxton to smear some of them in advance.
Speaking of vulgarity, there might not be a better word for Patrick’s generous campaign donation from the Defend Texas Liberty PAC. The staunch-conservative group is largely funded by West Texas energy executives, and to be fair, its support of Patrick is not new or sudden. But the timing of the donation and loan for a state official more than two years out from his next campaign raises questions.
Presiding over the Paxton trial is the most significant thing Patrick will do in the near future. Accepting such largess from a group so dedicated to Paxton — and determined to inflict political retribution on the House members who impeached him–is an unacceptable conflict.
Patrick won re-election handily and won’t be on the ballot again until 2026. What’s so urgent that he needed a huge campaign loan?
When lawmakers are in session, they and statewide officials are prohibited from raising money. It’s one of Texas’ few strong campaign-donation regulations. In an ideal world, anyone connected with the Paxton trial would rebuff at least large-dollar donations until the proceeding ends. But that, too, is a political question, and no senator or statewide official will unilaterally disarm, appearance of conflict be damned.
When Paxton finally goes on trial, yes, his fate is inevitably a political question for senators. But they should remember, too, that it’s not just Paxton whom their verdict will affect. The integrity and dignity of state government will bear the mark of what they do as well.
