Texas Lawmakers Push to Expand Attorney General’s Power on Election Crimes
Following a ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2022, certain Republican legislators in Texas are advocating for renewed legislation that would broaden the prosecutorial authority of the state’s Attorney General concerning election-related offenses.
Background on Legal Authority
In the wake of the court’s decision, which stated that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office lacks the unilateral authority to prosecute criminal cases without a request from local prosecutors, lawmakers are seeking to rectify this limitation. The proposed Senate Bill 1026, introduced by Senator Bryan Hughes, aims to modify current legislation. It mandates the Attorney General’s office to take action on election crimes if local proceedings have not been initiated within a six-month timeframe.
Legislative Support and Opposition
The Senate Committee on State Affairs has approved the bill, which has garnered support among Republican lawmakers. However, several advocates for election integrity and voting rights express concern that this could lead to unnecessary prosecutions, especially in cases where local district attorneys have opted not to proceed due to insufficient evidence.
The existing law’s language permits the Attorney General’s office to “may” prosecute offenses, while the proposed amendment would change this to “shall,” potentially increasing prosecutions in a manner some view as intimidating to voters and local election officials.
“On its own, that is a problem,” expressed Ashley Harris, an attorney with the ACLU of Texas, indicating that the bill may impose undue pressure on local prosecutors and election offices.
Interpretation of the Bill
Geoff Barr, the head of the election integrity division at the Texas Attorney General’s Office, provided a counterpoint, suggesting that the bill allows for discretion based on the viability of evidence. He stated, “If I don’t feel that I can prove the case, if the evidence is insufficient, I would argue that that ‘shall’ does not mandate me to prosecute against my ethical duties.”
Legislative Justifications
Senator Hughes articulated the rationale behind the bill, noting that local elected district attorneys may face conflicts that inhibit their ability to pursue alleged election crimes effectively. “Election law is a matter of paramount statewide importance. This bill is intended to restore the authority the attorney general has had for decades to handle those matters,” he emphasized during committee discussions.
Previous Efforts and Implications
This legislative push follows similar efforts in 2023 that did not succeed, which coincided with Paxton’s impeachment over other controversies. He faced significant scrutiny regarding his aggressive pursuit of investigations into voter misconduct, although successful convictions have remained limited despite more than 300 investigations conducted by his office since its establishment.
The ongoing debate about the Attorney General’s prosecutorial powers has roots in contentious scenarios, including one incident involving the election of a sheriff in Jefferson County. The elected district attorney chose not to proceed with prosecution of alleged campaign finance violations, prompting Paxton to seek an indictment from a neighboring county, which was subsequently dismissed by the courts.
Conclusion
The proposed changes aim to clarify the authority of the Attorney General’s office but have sparked significant discourse on the implications for local autonomy and the integrity of the electoral process. As discussions continue, the balance between enforcing election laws and safeguarding democratic processes remains a focal point for lawmakers and advocates alike.
For additional information, please refer to the coverage by Votebeat, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to election administration and voting access.
