The Texas Tribune is your source for in-depth reporting on the Ken Paxton impeachment trial. Readers make that possible. Support authoritative Texas journalism with a donation now.
By any measure, the House impeachment managers’ prosecution of Attorney General Ken Paxton fell well short of perfect.
Trial lawyers Rusty Hardin and Dick DeGuerin, along with a star-studded lineup, faced challenges during the trial due to time constraints. They had the difficult task of connecting the various aspects of a complex case and presenting sufficient evidence to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Paxton had abused his power and should be removed from office.
In the end, senators acquitted Paxton on all 16 articles of impeachment, a thorough shellacking for a House team that had spent three months carefully building its case. The most votes any article received was 14, well short of the 21 required for conviction. And only two of 19 Republicans, Sens. Robert Nichols of Jacksonville and Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, voted in favor of conviction for any article.
According to political scientists and trial lawyers, the polarized political climate in Texas made it difficult for House managers to prevent that outcome.
According to Thomas Cullee Mayes Jr., a trial lawyer from San Antonio, the House lawyers and impeachment managers had a daunting challenge ahead of them. They needed to persuade the majority of Republican senators to vote against their own political self-interest, despite Paxton’s strong backing from conservative voters.
Mayes said it is challenging to imagine a situation in which the House lawyers, given the evidence they possessed, could have persuaded nine Republican senators to vote for conviction, considering that we have observed the complete trial.
According to Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, senators seemed to harbor resentment towards the House for impeaching Paxton, as it compelled them to publicly decide on his conviction. This issue has proven to be divisive within the Republican base.
In addition, he criticized the House for their disorganized and slow-paced presentation of evidence and witness testimony. However, he commended Tony Buzbee, a highly skilled plaintiff’s attorney, for effectively arguing that the House had failed to establish their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jillson expressed his belief that there was a divided opinion among a group of Republican senators, but ultimately they decided to vote in favor of acquittal. He described this as a display of extreme partisanship, as all 12 Democrats and two dissenting Republicans stood against the united front of 16 Republicans.
Mayes also praised Buzbee’s performance and acknowledged that House lawyer Erin Epley was the only one who could match his skills. Despite the existing political circumstances, Mayes believed that the House should have utilized Epley’s abilities sooner during the nine-day trial instead of relying on Hardin.
The leaders of the House managers, Reps. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, and Ann Johnson, D-Houston, hinted at this dynamic in speaking with reporters after Saturday’s verdict. Murr said there was a “challenging threshold” to meet in what was functionally a political trial.
“He stated that our obligation was fulfilled by exposing the evidence to public scrutiny during the impeachment proceedings. This trial effectively portrayed a precise and transparent image of an attorney general who had lost control, disregarding the urgent advice of his conservative legal team, whom he had entrusted to assist in managing his office. Mr. Paxton has yet to provide an explanation for his unwavering commitment to assisting Nate Paul, while dismissing the desperate warnings of his most loyal advisors.”
Johnson had particular criticism for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who served as the trial’s judge and afterward castigated the House for impeaching Paxton, saying a trial could have been avoided if House leaders had taken a more careful approach to examining the allegations.
When asked about Patrick’s intentions of exerting an inappropriate influence on the vote, Johnson replied that Patrick appeared to have premeditated notes to criticize House members and the legislative process.
According to Hardin, some of Patrick’s rulings have severely limited the House managers’ ability to present their case. One such ruling was the exclusion of testimony from Laura Olson, who is believed to be Paxton’s romantic partner, after she expressed her intent to invoke the Fifth Amendment to protect herself from self-incrimination.
According to Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University, Republican senators considered the safest course of action was to acquit Paxton, regardless of Patrick’s involvement in the proceedings. Their primary concern lies in how their decisions will be received in hyper-partisan Republican primaries, especially in districts where Democrats have minimal chances of winning.
Jones stated that ultimately, this was a political choice made by the Senate, predominantly as a unified decision. He explained that the primary reason behind this decision was the desire to meet the expectations of the most engaged members of the Republican primary electorate. In Texas, the primary election in spring holds more influence and authority compared to the general election in November.
Patrick Svitek, Robert Downen and Kate McGee contributed reporting.
Disclosure: Rice University and Southern Methodist University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
The Texas Tribune Festival is almost here! Join us Sept. 21-23 in downtown Austin for 125+ unforgettable conversations featuring nearly 300 speakers. Be there for Texas’ biggest politics and policy event when you buy your tickets today.
