Texas may expand attorney general’s power to prosecute election crime

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s each day publication that retains readers up to pace on essentially the most important Texas news.

This protection is made attainable via Votebeat, a nonpartisan news group protecting native election administration and voting entry. The article is accessible for reprint below the phrases of Votebeat’s republishing policy.

Two payments filed within the Texas House of Representatives search to expand the Texas attorney general’s power to prosecute election crimes. One permits the workplace to appoint particular prosecutors to such circumstances, whereas the opposite empowers the workplace to penalize native prosecutors who “limit election law enforcement.”

Although no proof of widespread voter fraud has been discovered, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been actively pursuing election-related crimes since he took workplace in 2015. In at the very least the previous two years, his workplace opened more than 300 investigations of potential crimes by voters and election officers however has efficiently convicted solely a handful. Experts and voting rights advocates say the payments would proceed to empower state officers to scrutinize elections directors, ignite extra lawsuits and intimidate voters.

In September, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dominated in Texas v. Zena Stephens that Paxton does not have unilateral authority to prosecute election crimes. Instead, the Texas Constitution grants that authority to native prosecutors equivalent to county and district attorneys.

Soon after the ruling, Paxton publicly referred to as for the Legislature to “right this wrong.” In a tweet, Paxton wrote, “The CCA’s shameful decision means local DAs with radical liberal views have the sole power to prosecute election fraud in TX—which they will never do.”

The two items of laws — each filed by North Texas Republican lawmakers — are “a direct reaction” and a “workaround” to that courtroom ruling, specialists say.

Paxton’s workplace didn’t reply to a request for remark.

House Bill 678, filed by Rep. Keith Bell, R-Forney, would permit the attorney common to appoint a county or district attorney from an adjoining county as particular prosecutor in a case alleging an election crime. The invoice would additionally require native prosecutors to notify the attorney general’s workplace of an open investigation associated to election legislation violations, as an alternative of the secretary of state’s workplace. House Bill 125, filed by Rep. Bryan Slaton, R-Royse City, would restrict native prosecutorial discretion and would permit the attorney common to search a court-ordered injunction to cease an area prosecutor from “limiting election law enforcement.”

Austin-based attorney Chad Dunn, who has represented shoppers, together with Stephens, prosecuted by the attorney general’s workplace, stated the payments filed to expand the attorney general’s power to prosecute election crimes are “unconstitutional.” Dunn stated if legislators need to expand the attorney general’s talents to prosecute election crimes, they want an modification to the Constitution, which might be up to Texas voters to determine.

“It’s striking to see Republican officeholders trying to micromanage community decisions,” Dunn stated. “Prosecutors have absolute discretion to determine who it is that they want to investigate and prosecute. And the Stephens decision makes that clear. There’s simply not some legislative run-around [of] the court ruling.”

Bell and Slaton didn’t instantly reply to calls and emails requesting remark.

Slaton’s invoice would probably permit Paxton to step in when native prosecutors determine not to prosecute election offenses, stated Daniel Griffith, senior coverage director at Secure Democracy USA. This is identical power courts dominated Paxton didn’t have, favoring the authority of native officers to prosecute circumstances.

“[Lawmakers] are going to seek every mechanism they can to give the attorney general that authority,” Griffith stated. “This is going to continue to sow distrust because we know state officials are looking at election administration within that criminal investigation aspect.”

Anthony Gutierrez, govt director of Common Cause Texas, stated the payments would additionally hamper election employee recruitment.

“The potential for prosecution if you mess something up, that Ken Paxton just decides is not a mistake but a violation of the law, is going to dissuade voters and also the people who are qualified to do those [election administration] jobs from wanting to do those jobs,” he stated.

The limits to the attorney general’s authority had been examined after the Jefferson County district attorney declined in 2018 to prosecute alleged campaign-finance violations towards Sheriff Zena Stephens associated to the 2016 election. Paxton turned concerned within the case and obtained an indictment for Stephens from neighboring Chambers County. In 2021, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the indictment. Paxton requested the courtroom to rehear the case.

In September, the courtroom upheld its previous ruling, saying the attorney common doesn’t have the authority to independently prosecute felony circumstances in trial courts with out the request of an area prosecutor.

Then, in October, a district choose cited that call when he dismissed voter fraud charges introduced by Paxton towards Hervis Rogers, a Harris County man who was on parole and voted in 2020 after ready in line for hours. Rogers was arrested and charged with two counts of unlawful voting in 2021. Paxton prosecuted the case in neighboring Montgomery County. Rogers has publicly stated he believed he was eligible to vote when he solid his poll.

Other states have fashioned devoted units to investigate election crimes and alleged voter fraud following former President Donald Trump’s lies in regards to the 2020 election outcomes. GOP attorneys common and governors in Texas, Florida, Georgia and Virginia have not too long ago created such state-level items however have but to discover proof of widespread fraud.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis has not too long ago pushed extra restrictive voting legal guidelines and more durable penalties for election-related crimes. Last yr, DeSantis introduced the state’s newly fashioned elections crime unit was set to prosecute 20 individuals who had been charged with voter fraud. At least one individual has been convicted and three different circumstances have been dismissed.

Paxton’s unit in 2021 closed three circumstances and 17 in 2020 with no proof of fraud.

“Even the AG’s Office (through various AG opinions) and our own Legislature (through numerous statutes) have for decades declared that district and county attorneys have the exclusive duty to prosecute all criminal cases in the trial courts,” Texas Criminal Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Slaughter wrote in a September dissenting opinion of the courtroom’s determination to grant Paxton’s request that the courtroom rethink his authority to prosecute election crimes. “Given these opinions and statutes, it is quite puzzling why the AG and various legislators argue in briefs to this Court against their own opinions and statutes.”

Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting entry for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia at [email protected]

Disclosure: Common Cause and Secure Democracy USA have been monetary supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news group that’s funded partly by donations from members, foundations and company sponsors. Financial supporters play no position within the Tribune’s journalism. Find an entire list of them here.