Don't Texas my California

The Impeachment Acquittal of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Provides an Important Reminder to Progressives in California of why we Have a key Constitutional Protection

Yesterday, the Texas State Senate voted to acquit Texas Attorney Attorney General Ken Paxton of all 16 counts for which he had been impeached earlier this year by the Texas State House.¹

The evidence against Paxton was overwhelming. He had already settled a lawsuit against former employees for wrongful termination and unlawful retaliation, admitting culpability and using taxpayer funds to pay the expensive settlement.

While only a majority was required to impeach him in the State House, which is controlled by Republicans, the vote was 121-23 in favor. The impeachment was not a partisan affair either. The House impeachment panel was led by Republicans. Over 60 Republicans in the Texas State House voted to impeach him.

One Democratic State Representative, Shawn Thierry, who is fairly progressive, tweeted her gratitude at the time to Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, a conservative Republican, “Thank you for not DC-ing my Texas.”

Despite all of that, the State Senate still acquitted him. Only two Republicans in the body voted to convict. Party politics played a critical role, where one faction of the Texas Republican Party claimed the impeachment was the retaliatory act of a rival wing within the party.²

Republican Party activists took Paxton’s side and lobbied State Senators extensively. Republican State Senators who voted to convict Paxton faced the threat of primary challenges and the loss of key fundraising.

Paxton’s wife also serves in the State Senate. Though she was barred from voting on the impeachment, she still remains a State Senator. Those who voted on whether to convict her husband of the high crimes and misdemeanors he was accused of still have to serve with her post-impeachment. They still may need her vote on critical legislation and appropriations. They may even need her vote for legislative leadership roles within the Republican Party caucus.

This story is very sad. A clearly corrupt elected official who has shown disregard for the rule of law, his office, and the people of Texas, will remain in office until at least the end of 2026. And he will remain in office, even more emboldened to continue his pattern of law breaking, free to engage in even worse conduct than before.

It would be very easy to use this episode as a cudgel against the Republican Party, especially in light of the current tolerance of Donald Trump’s rotten criminal behavior. And I could further lament the levels of political polarization that led to the outcome where Republican Party activists ignored obvious criminality to lobby for keeping a corrupt politician in office.

But I won’t because that’s (1) generally stupid, (2) not going to persuade any Republicans who closed their eyes to Paxton’s criminal behavior to open them, and (3) ignores a very important lesson for those regardless of political ideology.

Ken Paxton’s acquittal should remind us all of why the right of recall in California is so important.

It’s why I have so stridently defended California’s recall system and opposed efforts to make it more difficult to recall elected officials, even though this goes against the extreme whining of many Democratic elected officials, Democratic Party activists, self-proclaimed social justice warriors, and some reporters who are unaware of the law.³

Many dislike recall because it can be used against them. It can weaken their own hold on power. Unfortunately, those individuals are not looking at it from a wholistic perspective.

The right to recall our elected officials is not a whacky legislative choice but a right guaranteed to us under the California Constitution.⁴ It ensures that we have the ultimate authority to remove bad actors from political office. It also ensures that we can have that opportunity free from the typical political considerations that are present in a legislative system.

Does politics still play a role in recalls? Of course. But citizens have the power to exercise their choices without reliance upon political factors that insulate a corrupt elected official. Maintaining personal relationships with fellow elected officials, pleasing donors, and keeping your party activists happy are generally not going to factor into whether a politician survives a recall election.

And I acknowledge that it is far from a perfect system. Many start recall petitions over spurious reasons, not over any actual corruption or wrongdoing of an elected official. But most of those fail. Recalls tend to succeed when an elected official has committed bad acts or demonstrated complete incompetence. It is a tool that is employed when the regular forces of politics have failed.

Paxton’s acquittal should remind us of not only of the importance of the recall system, but our need to defend the recall system from attack.

For those who would get rid of California’s recall system or attempt to weaken it to the point of irrelevance (a way of getting rid of it while pretending not to), I paraphrase Democratic Texas House Representative Thierry.

Don’t Texas my California.

1. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/ken-paxton-texas-attorney-general-impeachment-acquitted/?taid=65064f9afee5c10001887ad5&utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=social

2. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/ken-paxton-supporters-gop-civil-war/

3.

4. Cal. Const. Art. II, § 13 (“Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.” See also Cal. Const. Art. II, § 14(b) (detailing the specific procedural requirements to recall the Governor, a statewide elected official, or state legislator); Cal. Const. Art. II, § 19 (guaranteeing the right of recall elections for local elected officials while allowing the State Legislature or local city charter to specify the method for recall).