<>
The Collin County Democratic Party has formally requested an investigation into Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, alleging that the state’s top law enforcement official may have committed election fraud. The complaint, filed on Tuesday, centers on accusations that Paxton repeatedly cast ballots while registered at a residence in Collin County where he no longer lives, a potential violation of Texas election laws, according to documents submitted to the Texas Secretary of State’s office.
The inquiry follows reports that Paxton has voted six times in the past two years while maintaining registration at his former family home. Under the Texas Election Code, voters are required to be registered at their actual place of residence, though temporary absences are permitted if the voter maintains an intent to return. Legal experts and election officials have questioned whether this exemption applies to Paxton, noting that he moved out of the property in June 2024 amid ongoing divorce proceedings, as indicated by filings from his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton.
The Complaint and Allegations of Residency Misrepresentation
Mary Higbe, vice chair of the Collin County Democratic Party, spearheaded the filing, arguing that the Attorney General’s actions contradict the very policies his office enforces. In February, the Office of the Attorney General issued public warnings stating that “it is illegal to misrepresent your residence on election records.” Higbe’s complaint asserts that Paxton should be held to the same standards he advocates for when pursuing cases of alleged voter fraud.
The situation gained further attention following reports that have linked Paxton to a residence in neighboring Denton County since February. Because the Attorney General’s office is responsible for prosecuting election-related crimes, observers have raised concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest. Joaquin Gonzalez, a San Antonio-based election lawyer and former director of the voting rights program at the Texas Civil Rights Project, stated that the most appropriate course of action would be for the state to appoint an independent special investigator to review the matter.
Regulatory Process and Potential Oversight
The administrative path for this complaint remains uncertain. According to Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State, the office conducts an initial review of such filings and, if warranted, refers the matter to the Office of the Attorney General. While state law mandates a “prompt” referral to the Attorney General when there is reasonable cause to suspect criminal conduct, the office has not provided specific details on how it intends to handle a complaint directed at its own lead official. Jane Nelson, whose tenure as Secretary of State concludes on Friday, has not indicated whether this case will be treated differently than standard election inquiries.
Paxton’s campaign has dismissed the allegations as politically motivated. Spokesperson Madison Cercy issued a statement characterizing the scrutiny as an attempt by the “political elite” to probe into the Attorney General’s private life to produce unfavorable conclusions. The campaign has not provided further details regarding Paxton’s current residency or addressed the specific discrepancies between his voter registration and his reported living arrangements. Previously, representatives for the Attorney General had stated that Paxton is a “lawful, registered Texas voter in full compliance with the law.”
Broader Implications for Texas Election Integrity
The filing serves as a litmus test for the state’s internal checks and balances, according to Higbe. By bringing these discrepancies to light, Democrats are attempting to highlight what they describe as a double standard in the enforcement of voter residency requirements. The case underscores the complexities of residency laws in Texas, particularly for individuals undergoing significant life changes such as divorce.
As of now, no independent special investigator has been appointed, and the Attorney General’s office has not responded to inquiries regarding how it might recuse itself or manage the potential conflict. The public and interested parties are currently awaiting further guidance from the Secretary of State’s office regarding the formal intake and potential referral of the complaint. Updates on the status of this investigation will be monitored as the state transitions its leadership in the Secretary of State’s office.
Related reading