A Time for Choosing

I got my photo with Ken Paxton and Ted Cruz (left) at the Paxton rally on September 21, 2026;
Trump endorsed Paxton on video at the rally (top right)

We’re less than a month out from the start of early voting in the November midterm elections (Early Voting begins October 19 in Texas). It seems we say this every time, but it becomes more intensely true each time: this may be the most important election ever for our future.

The reason that is more true now is that the Democrats have laid out their plan, if they gain the House and the Senate: impeach Trump, pack the Supreme Court, remove election integrity laws, give statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, and allow in illegal aliens—and let them vote, get rid of the Electoral College, and possible abolish the Senate. In short, it is to remove any possibility of opposition in the future, giving them a total and permanent socialist dictatorship.

The outcome of having socialists and Islamists in power would not offer a better future for America; it would be to offer what Cuba, Venezuela, and other socialist regimes have offered: poverty and tyranny.

They say they are offering better economic and social conditions. But no socialist regime has ever come through on that promise; that is simply the lie they use to get themselves installed in positions of power.

Here in Texas, we have a couple of races that exemplify the existential battleground. There’s Greg Abbott vs. Gina Hinajosa for Governor. And the other is the senate race: Ken Paxton vs James Talarico.

This is Texas, where a Democrat has not won a statewide race since 1994. Before that, Texas was pretty much a reliably Democrat state, but that was back when they were Democrats just because they were in the South (the South was mainly Democrat in the Civil War), and some of them even considered themselves “conservative.”

While, in the wild, you can still find some non-radical Democrats in Texas, they aren’t in leadership positions or running for office.

Texans are, as a people, no-nonsense, common sense, plain speaking, hard working, and God believing. The Democrat Party is none of those things. The Democratic Socialists, who run the party now, are dead set against all of those things—and anything else wholesome and good that could lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

On Monday I attended a rally for Ken Paxton. Senator Ted Cruz also came—and he is an excellent and entertaining speaker. This was in the middle of the day, at a church in northwest Houston. It was packed. I don’t know quite how to estimate numbers, but I’m guessing around 500 (maybe it was double that; I don’t know). It was hosted by Cypress Republicans and was a very positive and well-organized event. That’s a lot of people at a ticketed (but low-cost) event on a workday. And there was a lot of positive energy in the room. It’s hard, after an event like that, to believe that the polls are close, and we could really be facing the possibility of a tyrannical takeover of our beloved state. And, as Texas goes, so goes the nation. This is precarious.

To read the full article, FOLLOW LINK TO SUBSTACK.

It Depends on Who You Trust

Last week I was a shocked as anyone to learn that the Texas House was doing an impeachment hearing of Attorney General Ken Paxton—with about 48 hours’ notice, at the tail end of the session when normally you’d see them gaveling down a vote every half minute to get through those agreed upon things. (Honorary recognitions fit in that category, but also a number of significant bills that just need a floor vote before they’re ready to be sent to the governor for signature.)

What is going on?

Texas Attorney General Paxton holds a press conference in response to
the call for his impeachment, screenshot from here.

And then I tuned in for the impeachment hearing on Saturday, which took a total of four hours, during which there was no witness testimony, no evidence presented, just House members speaking on one side or the other, followed by an up or down vote on the recommendation of the House General Investigating Committee. And, unlike a US presidential impeachment, the House impeachment would suspend the officeholder until the completion of a trial in the Senate. Instant ouster, albeit not yet permanent.

Word as of this morning is that the Senate will take up the trial August 28. That will be at best three months of AG Paxton being unable to do what he was in the middle of doing, which we should probably consider. Governor Abbott has appointed former Secretary of State John Scott to fill the role in the interim; I do not know anything about Scott.

tweet from Jill Glover SREC committeewoman from SD 12

The vote, after that non-trial half day was 121 Yea 23 Nay. The House is majority Republican; AG Paxton is Republican. 60 Democrats of course voted for impeachment, with 2 or 3 absent or not voting. 61 Republicans voted for impeachment. My representative was one of them (I had urged her to vote Nay based on what I could see).

Among those lonely 23 were two new representatives that I knew as grassroots conservatives for years before they even considered running: Mark Dorazio of San Antonio and Teri Leo-Wilson of Galveston. If they voted Nay, I trust they had good reason. And maybe I was right about what I was seeing.

vote board in the Texas House on Paxton impeachment
image passed along from a friend

I have a gut-level reaction to what has happened, in step with many friends but not everyone. So that was followed by questions about whether I knew enough to make that judgment. So, in the week since, I have tried to do some due diligence, such as it is, which I’m sharing below in what is, I’m sorry to say, much too long for one post (or four), but here it is anyway. And my due diligence and consideration may in fact be more than most of those who voted to impeach on Saturday bothered to do.

the roll call vote on impeachment, May 27, 2023
image passed along to me, from Texas Legislature Online

 

SOURCES

If you’d like to get the basic facts for yourself, I suggest starting with the following:

·        Committee hearing (4 hours) here. (The video is actually only three hours of report, followed by a full hour of a still shot of the room while the committee met privately in executive session. Supposedly the committee began investigation into a possible Paxton impeachment in February, but I can only find these 4 hours related to it, from May 24. There are two other brief videos of this committee, May 23 and 25; no other video record of this committee is provided. See full House video list here.)

·        House Floor debate (4 hours) here.

·        There are 20 counts: here.

·        The OAG put together a very long (374-page) response to allegations, here.

·        The OAG hired an independent group of lawyers to investigate; their report is here.

 

COMMITTEE BACKGROUND

Texas House General Investigating Committee
image from Texas Legislature Online

Here’s the basic background. There were several employees of the Office of Attorney General who were fired in late 2020. They filed whistleblower complaints and claim that their firing was motivated by their complaints. There was a lawsuit involving four of them, which was being settled for $3.3 million dollars, for which the OAG requested state funding.

It is neither unusual nor improper for a state office to require state funding for defense or legal payment regarding suits against a sitting elected official related to his duties in office. That is to protect such officeholders from lawsuit abuse and threat in the course of their work. $3.3 million sounds like a lot of money, and to most of us it is. But it is likely considerably less than yet more ongoing legal defense costs, and is not a great deal more than the wages would have been for four high-level officials in the OAG for the two years since their firing.

It was the request for that $3.3 million that triggered the investigation by the House Investigative Committee, which was convened in February.

In mid-March the Committee hired several lawyers to investigate the allegations of the whistleblowers. They carried out that assignment and made their three-hour oral report on Wednesday, May 24. The Committee then deliberated for one hour and made the recommendation for impeachment to happen on Saturday, May 27.

The Committee did not hear from anyone other than the hired investigators. They did not call for testimony from any first-hand witnesses. Nor were witnesses under oath when interviewed by the investigation team. Nor did they allow as evidence anything from either the OAG (although their long report is referenced by the investigators) or from the independent investigative report, I’ll refer to as the Brisbois report (the name of one of the lawyers of the firm).

The Saturday hearing did not hear either from the investigators or any witnesses. They had floor discussion, as with any other bill, which included hearing from Committee members and other House members who asked to weigh in.

Committee Chairman Murr claimed, during Saturday’s floor debate, that they (the Committee) had been working on this investigation since February, and that the Attorney General could have testified or submitted evidence at any time. That isn’t exactly true. The Committee, as most other House committees, was formed in February, a month after start of session. The Committee assigned the investigation team in mid-March. The investigation team did not interview AG Paxton, nor any others accused of being involved in wrongdoing; they interviewed the whistleblowers and combed through their paperwork. Looking at this now, I wonder if they were avoiding alerting the OAG of their investigation and possible intention to impeach.

Committee Chairman Murr during Saturday's impeachment debate
screenshot from here

The Committee was not open about the investigation. Most House members first learned of the investigation by the Committee when the Committee announced their recommendation to hold the impeachment hearing—with 48 hours’ notice. The Committee had not asked for testimony or information from the OAG, nor from Ken Paxton himself. There must have been some awareness, however, because we were told on Saturday that the OAG had sent someone to present the findings of the independent law firm’s investigation (the Brisbois report), but the Committee had refused it; this happened I believe on Wednesday, the day of the hearing.

So, the House had the three-hour report to go by—and nothing else but their gut instincts about the guilt or innocence of the duly re-elected Attorney General (that is, re-elected for a third term, after the accusations of the whistleblowers were public for two years).

There’s another timing detail we probably ought to add. House Speaker Dade Phelan was drunk during floor debates and votes; video of him slurring his words and appearing either drunk or having a stroke went viral the week before. (Info for non-Texans: his name is pronounced Fee-lin; and I have heard him speak as fast and crisp as an auctioneer in a hurried close of session in the past. He really was drunk in the video.) AG Ken Paxton called him out for it and asked for him to step down. This happened Tuesday, May 23 (a tweet shows 2:53 PM). Paxton followed with a letter to the General Investigative Committee—the one investigating Paxton that no one knew about yet—to open an investigation into Phelan’s drunkenness, a violation of ethics and appropriate behavior that embarrasses the state.

video of House Speaker Dade Phelan drunk on duty
screenshot from here

This is the day before the Committee hearing on Paxton, which Chairman Murr claims was scheduled for that date as of the previous Friday. I can’t verify that after the fact, but since the investigation team presumably had to travel in to give their report, that could be true.

The question is, could Paxton’s call for Phelan to step down be related to the upcoming report on the investigation into him, to deflect? Or could the way the investigation suddenly showed up and quickly turned into an impeachment be a retaliation for calling for Phelan to step down? Or both? Or neither? I don’t think I can answer that here, but it’s worth noting that there’s a lot going on behind scenes that we’re not privy to.

What we can and ought to know, then, is what was reported to the Committee by the investigation team, and what was reported by the Brisbois investigation. (I didn’t yet read through the long OAG report, but a fair trial ought to include that as well; I hope the Senate does that.)

 

INVESTIGATION TEAM REPORT

Texas House General Investigating Committee hearing May 24, 2023
screenshot from here

Five lawyers (I believe that was the number) were hired by the House General Investigating Committee, around March 14, 2023, to follow the accusations of the whistleblowers and make a report. As I said, it is unclear whether most (or rather, it’s unlikely that most) or any of the voting House members watched the video report to the Committee in its entirety, or perhaps read the transcript (I don’t know where that would be) or a written report provided by the investigators (if there was a written report, I also don’t know where that would be).

The investigation team lawyers have strong credentials. I don’t have any knowledge of any of them to distrust them. But, then, there are a whole lot of people involved in this that I didn’t know I had reason to distrust, so there may be plenty of reasons that I’m unaware of.

Twenty counts is a lot. They can be categorized, or grouped.

·        1-6, 8, 18 are Disregard of Public Duty, dereliction of duty

·        7, 17   misapplication of funds or resources

·        9-10   bribery

·        11-12  obstruction of justice

·        13-15 false statements in official records

·        16   conspiracy and attempted conspiracy

·        19-20   unfit for office, abuse of public trust

There’s a rhetorical technique, sometimes called the Galloping Gish (or Gish Gallop, if you prefer). You pile on a lot of things, all at once, each of which could be dismissed, with enough time and effort, but the idea is to overwhelm the opponent with so much that they think, among all this wrongdoing, there must be some truth to the fact the guy is guilty. When you make it an impeachable offense (conspiracy) to defend yourself against the other allegations, I think there might be more counts than necessary. Piling on in a Galloping Gish is what this looks like to me.

There was a securities case, brought in 2015, regarding behavior in 2009 or earlier, if I’m getting that right. The case will be eight years old in July. Every civil litigation regarding the same accusations was long ago dismissed. Yet this case still hasn’t been brought to court. The investigation team pointed out that this meant the defense team never had to go through discovery. They fail to mention that the prosecution hasn't had to go through discovery and actually present their case either.

It seems to me a trivial matter. I may be missing details, but it appears that Paxton was asked by clients for recommendations about a securities investment company. Paxton recommended someone he knows and was associated with—but failed to mention that he got a payment for recommending them. The clients were fully satisfied with the recommendation. They did not complain about any lack of disclosure; someone else trying to take him down did that.

This doesn’t have very much to do with the whistleblower complaints. This suit was there well before Paxton ran for AG, and any employees knew about it when they agreed to work for him. The investigation team report detailed it nevertheless.

Many of the complaints come from anything associated with a real estate developer named Nate Paul. He made a one-time campaign donation of $25,000 to the Paxton campaign, for his first election to AG I believe. It was reported according to law, no illegality there. While it is sizable, the man is extremely wealthy, and that isn’t a huge donation for a man of his budget. He was a friend of Paxton’s prior to and after the donation and election.

There seems to be an attempt to tie the donation to Paxton’s actions that may favor Nate Paul. One of the ones they bring up twice relates to the renovation of Paxton’s house. There was water damage. The Paxtons decided to do a full renovation, rather than simply repair. The investigation team report seems hung up on the fact that Paxton asked for an upgrade on the countertops, to granite; they bring it up twice. This is in a day when any high-end home probably already has granite countertops; they are de rigueur. Someone who talked with the investigation team overheard a conversation between Paxton and the contractor, asking for the upgrade. The contractor said it would be an additional $20,000. Paxton said to go ahead. The contractor said OK, he’d talk to Nate about it.

The assumption was made, I presume, by the person overhearing, that Nate Paul was doing the house renovation as a gift to Paxton in exchange for possible favors. But the Paxtons have the receipts to show that they paid for all the work. It may have been Nate Paul’s company that did it. That would be logical for a person to hire a good friend who does that kind of work. There is nothing to this allegation whatsoever, and yet it occupies a chunk of the investigation team report.

Of course, there’s more. We’ll start with the peripheral one. The claim is that Ken Paxton was having an affair with a woman, and that he asked Nate Paul to give her a job, as a favor to him.

Paxton has said that the whistleblower allegations are all false, innuendo, and gossip. He and his wife remain married (she is a state senator and will thus be on the jury for his trial in the fall). She is independent and powerful in her own right, so why would she stay with a man having an affair?

The media speak of the affair openly, as if it is a known fact. I find this troubling. The one time I met Ken Paxton was at a Tea Party meeting. I’m trying to remember when. I think it was from his 2014 campaign. He convinced me that he was a constitutional conservative, and that was based on his strong Christian worldview. A person willing to break a marriage covenant, it seems to me, would have even less trouble breaking the covenant of the Constitution.

Nevertheless, recommending someone you know for a job at a friend’s place of business seems both normal and legal. The inference is that these behaviors only happen because of corrupt reasons. But there doesn’t appear to be any related illegality. No one knows what position the alleged woman was given nor what she might have been paid, nor did they seem concerned with whether the unknown woman could have been hired because she was capable of doing a particular job.

The investigation team report does claim that there are actions Paxton took that benefited Nate Paul. One of them relates to a search warrant at Nate Paul’s property/offices. Paul’s lawyers were given the list of items to be sought, the brief warrant. But when his lawyers asked for the full search warrant, to know what their client was being accused of, they were refused and got only a heavily redacted version.

The investigation team explained that this is standard; they don’t want the accused to know ahead of time what they’re being accused of, because they could tamper with or hide relevant evidence.

One thing they mention is a conversation about this rather heavy-handed search, and Paxton sympathized, saying he’d suffered that kind of treatment as well, and he didn’t want to go out of his way to help out the FBI. The investigation team—emphasized by the Committee—seemed shocked, shocked! that the top law enforcement officer of the state wasn’t 100% behind a law enforcement body.

However, in this day of SWAT raids on innocent and harmless citizens—including a former US President—some of us might be fully behind Paxton on those sentiments.

Anyway, related to the warrant, Paxton asked for and obtained the unredacted warrant and held it in his office for several days before returning it. Meanwhile, there was a jurisdictional change made such that Paul’s lawyers could seek again to get the unredacted information they sought.

But someone reporting to the investigation team saw that, around this time, Paxton had a staffer hand-deliver a manilla envelope of unknown contents to Nate Paul at Paul’s office.

Paul’s lawyers didn’t seek the unredacted information again. The investigative team assumes it is because they already had the information they needed, because Paxton had illegally given it to Paul in the manilla envelope.

Paxton is being impeached because he handed a manilla envelope to a person.

There was, however, another item related to Nate Paul. He believed his documents had been tampered with. He turned them in for examination. Whoever handled that in the OAG found no evidence of tampering. Also, the whistleblowers claimed that Paul didn’t provide the documents in question. Both, it seems to me, can’t be true.

Paxton asked about it. He asked for a list of documents the OAG lawyers wanted Paul to provide. This was considered interference by the whistleblowers.

I think it was related to this that Paxton hired a lawyer to look further into this matter. The lawyer, the investigation team made a big note of saying, had only five years’ experience and wasn’t a prosecutor, so Paxton had no business hiring him—although they admitted the AG has the legal right to hire who he wants, whether he goes through the official review protocol or not.

I’m surmising here, but it could be that Paxton had lost trust in the staff who was handling these issues. He was aware of them because he was friends with Nate Paul, but the trust issue would go beyond that. So, what may look like giving preferential treatment to a friend could be dealing with corruption in his office. Or maybe the friend was getting preferential treatment—but unless he was getting illegal help, that still isn’t necessarily an impeachable offense.

Note that the investigation team did not think it worth their time to interview Nate Paul or his associates related to any of the questions involving him. And the paperwork they went through was provided by the whistleblowers, who were of course not providing anything exculpatory.

 

BRISBOIS REPORT

a page from the Brisbois report

Let’s look at the other side now.

The Brisbois report lets us know that there was full authority to fire at will by the AG, and political appointees are not subject to whistleblower protection, only public employees. The Brisbois report concludes:

First Assistant Webster has identified, and the objective evidence we have been able to review supports, that each Complainant who was fired was fired based upon that individual Complainant’s poor work performance and, in some cases, clear insubordination.

We’ll take a look at a few examples. There was the former First Assistant Penley. He had warned AG Paxton against doing anything related to any Nate Paul case. And he was very offended that his boss did not do as Penley ordered, and particularly about the hiring of the lawyer, Cammack. So he acted in direct opposition to the AG.

According to the Brisbois report:

After Mr. Penley released incorrect information as part of his official duties at OAG, the Attorney General wished to place Mr. Penley on administrative leave. As mentioned in the OAG Report, OAG found that Mr. Penley misled:

·        Don Clemmer to obtain copies of secret grand jury subpoenas for the unlawful purpose of providing those subpoenas to a third party, namely Johnny Sutton[i].

·        The 460th Criminal District Court Judge, in a court filing, by not disclosing that Penley had within his possession a signed contract between AG Paxton and Cammack that designated Cammack as OAG’s outside counsel. See, e.g., OAG Report at 2.

In addition, after removing the Attorney General’s name from the OAG Seal on OAG letterhead, Mr. Penley sent an unauthorized cease-and-desist letter to Brandon Cammack on September 30, 2020, in violation of direct orders from the Attorney General. This is referred to as the “Penley Letter” in the OAG’s Report. See OAG Report, Ex. 19.

Yeah, the whistleblower was worried about Paxton's “impeachable offenses,” but didn’t see anything wrong with forging documents and lying in direct opposition to his boss.

This next is about a person named Vassar, in relation to trying to get grants that I believe were used to pay for certain OAG staff. Vassar was saying the OAG could not get grants because of the longstanding prosecution filed against AG Paxton in 2015—although that longstanding case was not a hindrance in past years, the whole first term, and the second term up to that point. The Brisbois report says this:

During Lewis Brisbois’s interview of Mr. Kinghorn, Mr. Kinghorn reported his belief that Mr. Vassar had raised this issue in an effort to obtain leverage as part of an effort to force the Attorney General to resign. Mr. Kinghorn’s opinion is buttressed by the fact that Mr. Vassar had approved many of the very same and similar grant applications for several years without expressing any concern.

It seems more likely that Vassar was trying to find a way to get rid of AG Paxton, rather than do the work he was assigned. That might warrant firing.

A third person was a Ms. Mase, who was being fired for abusive behavior toward her subordinates. She was fired right after her meeting with the FBI. She claims the firing was retaliation for her whistleblowing. However, no one in the OAG was aware of her meeting with the FBI, so it couldn’t be retaliatory. The Brisbois report says:

In an interview Mr. De La Garza stated that Mr. De La Garza believes Ms. Mase knew she was going to be dismissed from OAG, and so Ms. Mase likely timed her meeting with the FBI to provide the appearance of a connection between that meeting and Ms. Mase firing. There appears to be no evidence to indicate that any individuals at OAG, including First Assistant Webster, knew beforehand that Ms. Mase intended to meet with government authorities on October 20, 2020, shortly before the First Assistant carried out the prior decision to fire Ms. Mase. If First Assistant Webster and others did not know about this meeting, they could not have retaliated against Ms. Mase for attending it.

More on Mase:

Given Ms. Mase’s insistence on knowing all interactions between Mr. Simpson and the First Assistant, Ms. Mase’s knowledge of OAG placing Mr. Vassar on investigative leave, and the above-mentioned email from First Assistant Webster on October 19, 2020, it seems likely Ms. Mase surmised she would soon be fired or placed on investigative leave. As such, the timing of Ms. Mase’s meeting with federal authorities seems more likely to be an effort to obtain the “job insurance” Ms. Mase has discussed with Mr. De La Garza in light of Ms. Mase’s reasonable perception of the OAG’s pending decision to fire Ms. Mase.

Rather than merely dismissing employees, AG Paxton seemed more likely to put them on paid investigative leave, or to move them to a different department—no loss in pay. It may be that he was too soft on certain people who were intent on doing harm to his reputation and his ability to do his job.

The paper trail shows that all the firing offenses were documented and in process of investigation well before any whistleblowers claimed that status or made their reports. So we’re starting with a rather major lie on their part.

 

CONCLUSION

It could be that the whistleblowers are right, and that the AG is wildly corrupt.

Or it could be that the whistleblowers are among a rather large number of establishment Republicans who don’t want AG Paxton to do what he’s been doing. And there’s a sizable list—things that grassroots Americans approve of, but that elites do not. Some of these actions show up in the list of resources below.

Republican Party of Texas Chair
Matt Rinaldi's statement

I have in the past been persuaded to question AG Paxton’s rulings as well as the rumors of corruption in his office. I depended on people I trust. I now question where those people were getting that info. I actually voted for another person in the 2022 primary. Seeing what looks like a railroading scheme now—so similar to what was done to President Trump for his entire term, and beyond—I think I might have been steered wrong.

There are plenty of people who have written responses to this impeachment. There are also some theories about the reasons. I’ll list a few below, rather than going through those arguments in addition to what is already too long a piece.

To summarize, my personal belief is that the impeachment was unjust. I hope that the Senate trial will bring out all the facts and reveal the corruption wherever it lies. The voters in the state deserve that.

 

MORE BACKGROUND RESOURCES

·        “ANALYSIS: Crony Establishment Will Veto Your Vote” by Michael Quinn Sullivan for Texas Scorecard, May 30, 2023. 

·        “Texas AG Ken Paxton Take-Down – Why Now?” by Devvy Kidd, May 31, 2023. 

·        “Dade Phelan Targets Trump’s Top Lawyer With Illegal Impeachment” by Cary Cheshire for Texas Scorecard, May 26, 2023. 

·        “FEUD: SPEAKER OF TX HOUSE DADE PHELAN VS. TAGKEN PAXTON” by Donna Garner, May 25, 2023. This piece lists a large number of cases AG Paxton has been involved in, which probably explains his popularity with the voters but not the elites. 

·        “Pax­ton Launch­es Inves­ti­ga­tion into Gain-of-Func­tion Research and Mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions by Covid-19 Vac­cine Manufacturers” official OAG press release May 1, 2023. 

·        “Paxton Announces Sec­ond Inves­ti­ga­tion into Texas Hos­pi­tal for Poten­tial­ly Unlaw­ful­ly Per­form­ing ​'Gen­der Tran­si­tion­ing' Procedures” official OAG press release May 19, 2023. 

·        “Texas AG Ken Paxton’s COVID-19 vaccine investigation could stick it to Big Pharma execs” by Miranda Devine for the New York Post, April 30, 2023. 

·        Rep. Schaeffer’s response to the impeachment, May 26, 2023, within an email from Grassroots for America. 

·        “Texas Legislature has a WHORE HOUSE in it...Everything you might want to know about the Texas Coup” BIZPAC email (I don’t know if it originated with them; I saw it passed on from friends before I received it from BIZPAC). 

·        “Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan’s Popularity Plummets Following Lackluster Session” by Brandon Waltens for Texas Scorecard, May 29, 2023. 

·        “A Time for Choosing in Texas” by Wallace Hall Jr, for Texas Scorecard, June 1, 2023. 

·        “WATCH: Texas AG Ken Paxton Holds Press Conference in Response to House RINOs’ “Deceitful Impeachment Attempt” – He Was Railroaded – Urges Supporters to “Petition Your Government” TOMORROW AT 1 PM” by Jordan Conradson for Gateway Pundit, May 26, 2023. 

---

[i] Johnny Sutton is the attorney famous (or infamous) for prosecuting two border guards “for using a gun in carrying out a crime” when they shot an illegal intruder at the border. Their long sentence was commuted after a couple of years.

Primary Picks—Part I: Statewide Races

Today is already the first day of early voting in Texas. I’m sitting down today to go through the ballot and figure out—and share—who’s getting my vote in the various races.

I’ve been working hard on the Mark Ramsey for Congressional District 38 campaign. That has left me less time to go over all the others. So some I’m still fuzzy about. But at least today I can put together the info I have. Whatever happens in these races, I’m ready to support the Republican candidates in the general election, barring some catastrophic news I can’t foresee.

Today I’ll get through the statewide races. The local races and judicial races will take additional posts later this week.

Governor

Governor Greg Abbott has a number of challengers this year. People outside Texas might not be aware of reasons for displeasure. We have a conservative state. We’re not locked down. Business is growing. In fact, businesses—and people—from locked down states are moving here in droves.

Public Service Announcement: Y’all are welcome here, but leave your blue state politics behind.

Anyway, what has Texans riled can be summed up with pandemic response government overreach. Governor Abbott, in campaign materials, is claiming Texas is successful because we didn’t lock down. But we did. It was comparatively short, about four weeks, a week longer for “nonessential” businesses. Then it became a local prerogative. But we did shut down. Remember the Shelley Luther, Dallas salon owner, who was arrested for opening back up a few days early? She had people on her payroll who needed income for food and housing; after a month she had to open up. So, yes, we did shut down. And it took quite a long time before the state stopped local jurisdictions from forcing lockdowns and mandates.

And mandates—that’s another thing. We never actually had mask or vaccine mandates statewide. But we didn’t get the governor to step in against them until fall 2021. A year and a half of allowing local places to impose mask mandates—on school children, on workers, on private businesses, on churches. And vaccine mandates were allowed under certain circumstances—like for healthcare workers, regardless of whether they had natural immunity. Governor Abbott’s executive order to stop mandates came at the end of the third special legislative session. That means it was his fourth opportunity to put forth an executive order at a time that the legislature could then follow up to make it lawful. But he waited until it was too late for the legislature to act—until 2023.

Back a decade or more earlier, Governor Rick Perry got into trouble with Texans by calling for a vaccine mandate of Gardasil for young women. It’s intended to prevent the spread of some causes of HPV (human papilloma virus), an STD that can lead to cervical cancer. But it had been tested on women 16-26 old—so untested on those younger, and he was requiring it for 12 and up. There were risks, including a few deaths. And it is totally unnecessary for young women who are not sexually active. He seemed shocked when there was an uproar against his mandate.

What I don’t understand is any elected official who claims to believe in the Constitution—and I’ve been a big Abbott fan in the past for his ability to articulate constitutional principles—thinking they have authority under any circumstances to force people to put something into their bodies. Ever. Even if it’s a massive Ebola outbreak. Go ahead and make a recommendation. But do not suppose you control the sovereign bodies of individual citizens.

Add to this disappointment the lack of response to the conservative grassroots and their legislative priorities.

So, Governor Abbot has challengers. There are many, but foremost are Allen West, Don Huffines, and Chad Prather. I have good and bad to say about each. You can see candidate forums here and here. Governor Abbott did not participate. I also recommend checking out the Conservative Coalition of Harris County voter’s guide and questionnaires. If you go to their website, you can get their recommendations in a page or two; they only endorse when a candidate gets 70% of their board’s support. You can also click on the level of race—federal, state, county—and get the questionnaire answers that the candidate submitted, and links to other information that candidate provided. This is for Governor and the other state, congressional, and county races.

Allen West, former military, former representative in Florida, until he was redistricted out of his district and couldn’t retain the seat. He moved to Texas—his wife’s choice after lots of military-required moves in their life. Two years ago he ran for state GOP party chair. Name recognition paid off. We had a good administrator in that position. But the grassroots elected West—during that weird convention where we were forced at the last minute to do the largest political gathering in the country (world?) online, purportedly because of COVID-19. There were tremendous problems involved—including denial of service hacking. Eventually, then, West took over the remainder of the convention. And we never really finished. We didn’t get to discuss the platform. We put off handling remaining business. It was a mess. Not necessarily caused by him, but not relieved by him either.

Then he steps down less than a year before the next convention (to be held in person in Houston in June 16-18). I have friends who explain this. There was a rule that he couldn’t run for governor while holding that other elected office, and he felt the need to run for governor. There are those who thought he only ran for RPT chair as a step to something higher, and now it appears they were right.

West talks a good conservative message. I like that. And he’s charismatic enough to draw people in. But I have yet to see him actually succeed in administration.

Then there’s Don Huffines. He’s a former state senator from near Dallas, with a good conservative voting record. He has an unfortunate way of sounding like a used car salesman, but there are times I’ve been leaning toward him. However, in the forums there have been a couple of things that trigger a negative response. One is his push for replacing state property tax with some version of a consumption tax, not necessarily a bad thing. He explained that he’s run the numbers. We run a surplus in Texas, and that should be used to buy down property taxes, and over time we can convert to a consumption tax. But, he says this will only take 8 to 10 years. That may very well be true. But no one can go into office with a plan that they may not be there to complete and expect it to happen. What mess would we be in if we were halfway there—with consumption taxes increasing to take over for property taxes—and then some other leader comes in and keeps the property taxes too?

Then there’s Chad Prather. When he got in the race, people couldn’t tell if he was serious. He’s an entertainer, with a show on The Blaze, where he does political commentary. And he’s known for being provocative, in a Texas sort of way. He started out doing YouTube videos from his truck, wearing a cowboy hat. The things he said rang true and spread. Sometimes what he says, though, is too spicy for my taste. But in the forums, he actually comes off as the most conversant in the Constitution and how government should be run according to those principles. He’s intelligent, articulate, and convincing. What I don’t know is whether he could actually translate those principles into running a state that’s something like the 12^th largest economy in the world. The principles work—every time they’re tried. But would he have the influence to implement the correct principles?

Chad Prather, image from his campaign website

What I expect to happen is that Abbott will win the Primary, and he will handily be reelected against Democrat challenger Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, who lost against Ted Cruz in a Senate race a few years ago. This is the Beto who said, “Heck, yeah, we’re taking their guns,” but has suddenly now modified to saying he’s a great fan of the 2^nd Amendment. That’s not going to convince anyone here in Texas.

Anyway, I plan to do something of a protest Primary vote, possibly for Chad Prather, maybe Huffines. This is to let Governor Abbott know that we expect better from him. Then I’ll support Abbott, who is light years far and away better than the likes of former Congressman Beto, who shouldn’t be elected to anything ever again.

I’m going to have to be briefer about the rest of these races.

 

Lieutenant Governor

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick is from our part of Texas. He was state senator for my district before this position. We want to like him here. But, as with Governor Abbott, we feel disappointed. When he put out his priorities at the beginning of last year’s legislative session, it did not fully encompass the grassroots legislative priorities—the things the state convention voted on that they wanted the legislature to accomplish. Of our 8 priorities, some version of 4 got passed, and that was better than any previous Republican-led legislature in the nearly two decades of GOP leadership. Still, what happened to the other things? Why, for instance, couldn’t we get a vote on the Senate floor once our school choice bill made it out of committee—with the support of even a Democrat committee member? The Lt. Governor is leader of the Senate. His priorities get done. But this priority did not.

So, again there are challengers: Daniel Miller (website here); Trayce Bradford (website here); Aaron Sorrells (website here); Zach Vance (website here); and Todd Bullis (website here). There was a candidate forum (Patrick did not attend) in Wise County; video here.

 

Daniel Miller is probably the most well-known. He heads the Texas Nationalist Movement (Texit—I wrote about it here), although he’s not talking about that much on the campaign. He would probably see to it that the question gets put before the people of Texas, which is all he’s been asking for—and that is in the party platform. It just never gets anywhere in the legislature, which it must go through first. His book on the subject is convincing, and I’ve leaned toward that. But in truth I want the United States to remain whole and return to the Constitution. So, until that becomes impossible, I think that’s where most Texans are. Nevertheless, Miller knows the law and the Constitution—and the state constitution—better than most. I also have liked some of what Aaron Sorrells said in the forum.

Daniel Miller, image from his campaign website

 

So, again, I may do another Primary protest vote here, probably for Daniel Miller, in the hopes that Lt. Governor Patrick will wake up to our displeasure that he hasn’t kept faith with us. I think he can do better.

 

Texas Attorney General

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (campaign info here) will have primary challengers in 2022. He has made national news, and again those outside Texas (and many inside) will wonder why the challengers. There is a corruption lawsuit always looming in the background; his defense seems to be saying that it is not criminal, not that it wasn’t done. I don’t know enough to say. But there have been a number of issues where my lawyer son Political Sphere has raised questions about his incompetence. My disappointment has been his slowness to prosecute election fraud—even when the evidence is laid out for him in detail from people I know who did the investigation here in Harris County.

 

The challengers include current Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush (campaign info here), former TX Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman (campaign info here), and US Rep. Louie Gohmert (campaign info here).

 

Eva Guzman,
image from her campaign website

George P. Bush is a Bush, which is a drawback this decade. He was actually educationally qualified to be Land Commissioner. People were upset about his handling of the Alamo preservation approach. Mostly I was not. But he had some transparency issues, to which he eventually opened the books. That said, I don’t see evidence that he’s qualified to be Attorney General.

 

Louie Gohmert is a US representative, and has been pretty reliably conservative. He also ruffles feathers. That’s a good thing, if also effective in making good things happen. Son Political Sphere doesn’t trust that he can translate that into Attorney General skills.

 

Eva Guzman, on the other hand, is a former state Supreme Court justice, and definitely has the skills and demeanor. I doubt that she’ll have enough push to oust an incumbent, but I would be pleased to see her in that position. So I’ll give her my vote in the Primary.

Texas General Land Office Commissioner

Dr. Jon Spiers,
image from his campaign website

The Texas Land Commissioner position is open, as GLO Commissioner George P. Bush is running for a different office. The candidates are Dr. Jon Spiers (campaign info here), State Senator Dawn Buckingham (campaign info here), former Texas Real Estate Commissioner Weston Martinez (campaign info here), Ben Armenta (campaign info here), Victor Avila (campaign info here), Rufus Lopez, Don W. Minton (campaign info here), and Tim Westley (campaign info here). Texas Scorecard has video conversations with five of the Texas Land Commissioner candidates here.

I haven’t spent a lot of time on this race. My first impression is to support Jon Spiers. He’s from here locally, so I got somewhat acquainted with him several years ago. He was one of eight candidates in the Congressional District 2 race after the retirement of Rep. Ted Poe; Dan Crenshaw won that race, but several of the candidates were impressive. Spiers was quite good on the Obamacare issue, which was on all our minds at the time. And he was good on other issues as well. He’s a former heart surgeon turned medical attorney (an accident made it impossible for him to continue doing heart surgery, so he went to law school). He seems thoroughly conservative.

I suggest, again, looking at their videos. And also check the Conservative Coalition of Harris County voter’s guide and questionnaires. 

 

Texas Agriculture Commissioner

 

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller (campaign info here) will be challenged by Rep. James White (campaign info here) and Carey Counsil (campaign info here). Texas Scorecard article here. Texas Scorecard has video conversations with the each of the three candidates here. Again, this is not a race I have spent a lot of time on. There are whispers of some corruption that I can’t seem to get clarity on. Maybe true, maybe spin, maybe just an attempt to discredit for political reasons. I don’t know. But my outside view is that Sid Miller has been a good Ag Commissioner, and I plan to vote for him.

Sid Miller, Texas Ag Commissioner
screenshot from this campaign video

 

 

Wayne Christian,
image from campaign website

Texas Railroad Commissioner

 

The Texas Railroad Commission is a three-person group who handle oil & gas/energy in the state. There are long historical reasons for the name, which seems confusing. But this is really about the energy industry in Texas. Only one of the three is up this election. Texas Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian has several challengers. All candidates include Wayne Christian, Tom Slocum Jr., Sarah Stogner, Marvin “Sarge” Summers, Dawayne Tipton. I suggest, again, the CCHC questionnaire, which also shows links to their websites and social media. But my impression is that Wayne Christian has done well enough and will get my vote.

 

 

Texas Comptroller

 

This is essentially an accounting, or treasurer position.  Mark Goloby is challenging Glenn Hegar for Texas Comptroller. Goloby campaign info here. Hegar campaign info here. Goloby is actually precinct chair of my next-door precinct. He spent several years accomplishing putting an end to the Chapter 313 problem. He spoke at our Tea Party on this. It wasn’t an easy issue to take on, because it takes some explanation (I never seem able to repeat the explanations afterward). I supported him in that effort and was glad the legislature finally did what was needed—which was actually to do nothing, to not renew. But Goloby is saying the Comptroller hasn’t yet updated practices. And there are some other issues.

 

Overall I think Glenn Hegar has been a good Comptroller. One story I read acknowledged this, but added that he ought to deal with the issues brought up by his challenger. If he does that, we can be satisfied. So Hegar will get my vote—and we’ll be watching.

Glenn Hegar, image from campaign website

 

Next up, in a post later this week, will be the US congressional races and other local and county races. There are a few statewide judicial races, but rather than include them today, I’ll handle them in a separate post that will include local judicial races as well.