Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, the wife of Attorney General Ken Paxton, will not be allowed to vote during his impeachment trial slated to begin on Sept. 5.
She will, however, be allowed to be present for the trial.
“I’ve never seen 31 senators more united,” Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the Senate’s presiding officer, following the vote. “You’re united to take an Oath so that justice prevails so that everyone will do their job to the utmost, fairness in this impeachment trial upcoming in September.”
“The citizens of Texas can count on the Senate of Texas to have a fair and just trial,” said Patrick.
A vote to convict Paxton in the Senate would require a two-thirds threshold in the 31-member chamber, which is made up of 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats.
If all Democrats vote to convict him of the charges, nine Republicans would have to join them in order to have him removed from office permanently.
“I have twice been elected to represent the nearly one million Texans who reside in Senate District 8, and it is a tremendous honor and privilege to be their voice in the Texas Legislature,” she said. “Each time I was elected, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this great state, and Texas law compels each member of the Senate to attend when the Senate meets as a court of impeachment.”
Articles of Impeachment Against Paxton
“As a member of the Senate, I hold these obligations sacred and I will carry out my duties, not because it is easy, but because the Constitution demands it and because my constituents deserve it,” the senator concluded.The GOP-led Texas House voted 123–23 to adopt 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton on May 27.
They accuse Paxton of conducting a “sham investigation” into whistleblower complaints made by employees at his office whom he allegedly fired in retaliation for reporting him to federal law enforcement for alleged “illegal acts and improper conduct.”
The whistleblowers accused Paxton of improperly issuing legal opinions to benefit real estate developer Nate Paul and had previously reached a tentative settlement agreement with Paxton for $3.3 million, which prompted the Texas House committee investigation.
According to the articles of impeachment, Paxton “benefited from Nate Paul’s employment of a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair. Paul received favorable legal assistance from, or specialized access to, the office of the attorney general.”
The articles also accuse Paxton of having benefited from Paul providing renovations to Paxton’s home in exchange for “favorable legal assistance” and “specialized access” to the office of the attorney general.
Other charges date back to Paxton’s pending 2015 felony securities fraud case, shortly after he won his first attorney general election, and include making false statements to state investigators.
Paxton, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump who was reelected to a third term as attorney general in November, was immediately suspended from office pending the outcome of his trial.
Impeachment Trial ‘Politically Motivated’
Paxton’s trial will be largely open to the public, save for closed-door deliberations. Other rules passed Wednesday include that both sides will have the right to present evidence, and call and cross-examine witnesses.They will also have roughly one hour to present for both opening and closing statements.
Elsewhere, Matt Rinaldi, chair of the Republican Party of Texas, has called the impeachment proceedings against Paxton “the latest front in the Texas House’s war against Republicans to stop the conservative direction of our state.”
Paxton previously said his office had made “every effort to present evidence, testimony, and irrefutable facts that would have disproven the countless false statement and outright lies advanced by Speaker Dade Phelan and the Murr-Johnson panel he appointed.”
Only two Texas officials have ever been impeached: Gov. James “Pa” Ferguson, a Democrat who was removed from office in 1917 after being charged with misapplication of public funds, embezzlement, and the diversion of a special fund, and State Judge O.P. Carrillo, who was removed from his position in 1975 after being found guilty for the personal use of public money and equipment and filing false financial statements.