Texas House lawmakers voted Saturday to impeach Ken Paxton, the state’s Republican attorney general, temporarily removing him from office on charges that he had used his elected position to benefit himself and a campaign donor.
After a four-hour proceeding before a packed gallery, the vote landed with titanic force at the Texas Capitol, where a state office holder had not been impeached in more than a century, since the Legislature voted to oust the sitting governor, James E. Ferguson, in 1917, for embezzlement and embezzlement of public funds.
Before the vote, Rep. Andrew Murr, the Republican chairman of the House investigative committee that recommended impeachment, closed by urging his colleagues to do so. “The evidence presented to you is compelling and more than enough to justify going to trial,” he said, adding: “Send this to trial.”
The final vote was 121 members in favor of impeachment, a bipartisan coalition that included nearly all Democrats and most House Republicans, and 23 against, with two abstentions. As they voted, the board in front of the chamber lit up with green lights indicating their support. It went well beyond the 75 required.
“It was hard, very hard, really hard,” Rep. Jeff Leach, a Dallas-area Republican who voted in favor of impeachment, said after the vote.
Under Texas law, Governor Greg Abbott can appoint an acting attorney general, pending trial in the Senate, but is not required to do so. A spokesman for his office did not respond to a request for comment on what he intended to do.
With the impeachment vote, Mr. Paxton was immediately removed from office, pending trial in the Senate. No date had been set for that to begin.
The Senate trial will be presided over by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, an arch-conservative aligned with many of Paxton’s supporters. Patrick has maintained a neutral stance on public comment this week. A two-thirds vote is needed to convict in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 19-12 advantage.
The speed with which the events happened left lawmakers, Texas officials and other political observers stunned and sympathetic: Just a few days ago, hardly anyone on Capitol Hill knew that such an important investigation into Mr. Paxton was underway. , let alone that an impeachment vote could be the result.
His fellow Republicans, who introduced the 20 articles of impeachment, portrayed Paxton as a dishonest public official who could not be trusted in his position. They did so in reference to Mr. Paxton’s actions, which they said in many cases amounted to crimes, and contrasted them with the integrity of those who stood up to him, many of them conservative Republicans.
“Attorney General Paxton continually and flagrantly violated laws, rules, policies and procedures,” said David Spiller, a Republican member of the investigative committee, speaking before the House on Saturday. “As an agency we should not be complicit” in that behavior, he said. “Texas is better than that.”
Mr. Paxton issued a statement immediately after the vote, calling the process “illegal, unethical and deeply unfair.”
“I look forward to a speedy resolution in the Texas Senate, where I have full confidence that the process will be fair and just,” Mr. Paxton wrote. He has many allies in the more conservative Senate, including his wife, Angela, and personal friends of his.
The articles of indictment accused Mr. Paxton of abusing his position in various ways, including accepting what amounted to bribes, ignoring his official duty, obstructing justice in a separate securities fraud case pending against him, making false statements in official documents and abuse the public trust.
Many of the articles focused on Mr. Paxton’s alleged use of his position to benefit a particular donor, Nate Paul, an Austin real estate investor who has donated $25,000 in political contributions to Mr. Paxton. Those included using the office to intervene in a legal dispute Mr. Paul was having with a non-profit organization, and hiring a lawyer to work for the attorney general’s office, at the request of Mr. Paul already despite the objections of senior officials in the office. attorney general’s office, in order to investigate a federal investigation of Mr. Paul.
Mr. Paul also provided other benefits to Mr. Paxton, according to the articles of impeachment, including giving work to a woman described during the impeachment process as Mr. Paxton’s “mistress” and making expensive home renovations, including countertops valued at around $20,000. .
Mr. Paxton, 60, who has denied any wrongdoing, has been a staunch supporter of conservative legal causes and a leading opponent of the Biden administration on a variety of issues, including the Affordable Care Act. Low Price and immigration on the southern border. Mr. Paxton also challenged the 2020 election results in court, a losing fight that earned him the support of former President Donald J. Trump.
He was elected to a third term last year even after the alleged crimes were brought up prominently during the campaign, including by Republicans who ran against him in the primary. He has accused the more moderate Republican leadership in the House of working in concert with Democrats to oust him.
Dozens of Paxton supporters packed the House gallery — urged to be there by a public appeal by Paxton the night before — and watched the proceedings mostly in silence. There were no outbursts or attempts to disrupt the vote.
What surprised many observers at the Texas Capitol was not the nature of the allegations brought against Paxton, but rather that they ultimately caught up with him. Much of the wrongdoing publicly presented to a House investigative committee this week by its investigators was known.
The allegations of corruption and abuse of authority were outlined in 2020 by several of his top advisers, who called for an investigation of Paxton. The aides who spoke out either resigned or were ousted or fired. Four of them filed a lawsuit for their dismissal. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also opened an investigation, and in February the Justice Department said the investigation had been taken by investigators in Washington.
What changed this year was that Mr. Paxton sought state money to try to put the more serious issue behind him, requesting $3.3 million in state funds for a settlement he had reached with the four aides. The Texas House of Representatives responded by launching an investigation into the request and the underlying allegations. Their findings that Mr. Paxton’s actions had been improper and possibly illegal provided the first official condemnation of his behavior.
Many of the most prominent national voices in the Republican Party, including Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, came to Paxton’s defense, arguing that the impeachment trial was politically motivated and served the interests of Democrats.
“For the past nine years, Ken has been the strongest Conservative Attorney General in the country,” Mr. Cruz wrote on Saturday. “I understand that people are concerned about Ken’s legal challenges. But the courts should resolve them.”
Trump explicitly threatened Texas Republicans who supported Paxton’s impeachment and, less than an hour before it was to begin, urged them not to proceed. “I will fight you if he does,” Trump wrote. “Free Ken Paxton!”
Paxton himself was said to have been making similar threats, directly calling members in a last-ditch attempt to avoid impeachment and “personally threatening them with political consequences in their next election,” according to Rep. Charlie Geren, a Republican member of the investigative commission.
During the proceedings, Mr. Paxton’s Republican supporters did not defend his actions, but raised questions about fairness and due process. Several complained that they had not been given enough time or information to reach a decision, or that they were being asked to rely on “hearsay” in the form of testimony before the investigative committee instead of being able to examine the evidence against Mr. Paxton in his
The committee itself did not consider the evidence directly. Instead, he relied on the testimony of his investigators, who had collected documents and interviewed employees of the attorney general’s office and others as part of their investigation, which began in March.
“I oppose this resolution, not because I am convinced of the attorney general’s innocence,” said one of the main opponents, Brian Harrison, a Republican member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus. But, he said, the process did not “adequately document his culpability” and called it “a farce to reel in a political enemy.”
Another Republican opponent, John Smithee, tried to offer an alternative for Republicans who might be undecided: vote no on Saturday and return for a “one-day hearing” where full evidence could be presented and Mr Paxton would have a chance to defend himself. .
“If I’m ever going to be part of any impeachment proceeding that actually results in the impeachment of an officer, I don’t want to look like a Saturday afternoon lynch mob,” Mr. Smithee said, after he completed his remarks, a large section of the public gallery erupted in applause.
Democrats had been mostly quiet as Republicans debated among themselves, appearing to want to avoid making impeachment a partisan issue.
“You keep hearing, ‘Why now?’” said Rep. Terry Canales, a Democrat whose father, when he was a state representative, filed indictment charges against a district judge in 1975, the last time such a vote was held. “There’s never a bad time to do the right thing,” said Mr. Canales, banging the lectern in front of the Chamber’s chamber.
Outside the Capitol, a small number of Paxton supporters and opponents protested and occasionally clashed with each other. “What he’s doing is the right thing, and the speaker is doing the wrong thing,” said a 76-year-old retired information systems manager from Austin, who declined to name him.
Ilan Levin, 54, an associate director of an Austin nonprofit, stood by his bike arguing with Paxton supporters. He was holding a cardboard sign that read: “Wow! But he said he did not think the impeachment vote would have much of an impact.
“A lot of Texans will forget about it by the next election cycle,” he said.
J.David Goodman and james dobbins reported from Austin, Texas, and Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs from New York. david montgomery in austin and anushka patil in New York contributed reporting.