Texas Senate Primaries Show Early Leads for Crockett and Paxton

AUSTIN, Texas – A new poll released by The Texas Tribune indicates that Jasmine Crockett and Ken Paxton are leading their respective primary races for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. The survey, published on February 9, 2026, highlights the early momentum for both candidates as they vie for their party nominations in a closely watched election cycle. The results point to strong voter recognition and support for Crockett in the Democratic primary and Paxton in the Republican primary.

The poll, conducted among likely primary voters across the state, shows Crockett holding a significant lead over her Democratic challenger James Talarico, while Paxton maintains a commanding position among Republican contenders John Cornyn & Wesley Hunt.

According to the poll, Ken Paxton leads with 38 percent of likely GOP primary voters, pulling ahead of incumbent John Cornyn, who trails at 31 percent, while Wesley Hunt remains a distant third at 17 percent. The survey indicates Paxton would hold a commanding advantage in a runoff scenario and currently outperforms Cornyn across nearly every key Republican demographic group, with Latino voters the lone exception, where Cornyn maintains a seven-point edge.

Among Democrats, the poll shows Jasmine Crockett opening a notable lead, capturing 47 percent of likely primary voters compared to 39 percent for James Talarico—a meaningful shift from earlier polling that had Talarico in the lead. While still early, the numbers suggest momentum is consolidating ahead of primaries that will determine the general election matchups.

Jasmine Crockett, a sitting U.S. Representative whose district lines were redrawn out from under her, has responded to political extinction with a desperate lurch toward the U.S. Senate. Her campaign, widely criticized as race-baiting and grievance-driven, has leaned heavily on inflaming urban Democratic turnout while cloaking thin policy substance in fashionable slogans about healthcare and “equity.”

By contrast, Ken Paxton enters the race with a long, battle-tested record as Texas Attorney General, earning fierce loyalty from conservatives for his aggressive defense of state sovereignty, constitutional limits, and successful legal challenges to federal overreach. Though relentlessly targeted by opponents, Paxton’s tenure reflects durability, clarity of purpose, and an unapologetic alignment with the voters he represents—qualities that define his standing in the contest.

The Texas U.S. Senate race draws national attention, as the state remains a critical battleground in determining the balance of power in Congress. With incumbent dynamics and shifting voter demographics at play, the primary outcomes will set the stage for a potentially contentious general election. The Texas Tribune poll serves as an initial benchmark, though voter sentiment could evolve as campaigns intensify and debates unfold in the coming weeks.

TEXAS – It began quietly, the way many insider power plays do, with paperwork, phone calls, and closed doors. But within days, the Republican primary for Texas House District 98 erupted into a public spectacle involving court orders, barred debates, and accusations that party elites were deciding elections before voters ever had their say.

At the center of the fight is Zee Wilcox, a Southlake Republican running for the open HD-98 seat, a district that includes Southlake, Grapevine, Keller, and Colleyville. The seat is currently held by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, who is not seeking reelection. In a district that reliably votes Republican, the March GOP primary will almost certainly determine the next state representative.

Wilcox is not the candidate party insiders expected, or wanted. That, she argues, is precisely the problem.

Removed From the Ballot, Then Restored by Judges

On January 7, 2026, Wilcox was removed from the Republican primary ballot by Tarrant County GOP Chairman Tim Davis. The stated reason was technical: Wilcox filed her candidate application using a federal form rather than the Texas state form. The two documents are nearly identical, with the primary distinction being that the state form includes a clause acknowledging Texas’s nepotism laws.

Wilcox maintains that the issue was non-substantive and correctable. The form was notarized and accepted at the time of submittal. She says she attempted to resolve the matter after being notified, and that she had already acknowledged nepotism laws through other required filings, including the appointment of a campaign treasurer. Nevertheless, her name was struck from the ballot by Davis.

Within days, Wilcox sued.

On January 12, a Tarrant County district judge granted her a temporary restraining order, halting further action against her candidacy. Three days later, Judge Ken Curry went further, ruling that Davis could not continue efforts to remove Wilcox from the ballot. Unless appealed, the injunction keeps her in the race.

“I thought campaigning was going to be hard,” Wilcox told the Fort Worth Report. “I didn’t know that I was actually going to have to fight my own party.”

Davis has defended his actions publicly as a matter of election integrity, denying any conspiracy or political motivation. He declined to comment further following the court’s ruling, according to the Fort Worth Report, which first covered the case in detail.

Barred From Debates and Public Forums

While the ballot fight played out in court, Wilcox says she faced a second, quieter form of exclusion.

According to Wilcox, Republican-aligned organizations, including the Metroplex Republican Women and the Colleyville Conservative Club, hosted public candidate forums and debates for HD-98, but denied her the opportunity to participate. She says she was explicitly told she could submit written answers but would not be allowed to speak or appear alongside the other candidates.

Wilcox showed up anyway.

She says her presence was meant to alert voters that a legally qualified candidate was being intentionally silenced. Organizers later claimed she arrived improperly dressed or left early. Wilcox disputes that account and says she has emails and messages documenting her exclusion on her Facebook Page.

The clubs have characterized themselves as private organizations with discretion over their events. Wilcox counters that once an organization advertises a candidate forum to the public and invites voters, it crosses into what courts have long recognized as a limited public forum, where viewpoint discrimination is prohibited under First Amendment law.

She has publicly stated her intent to pursue legal action over the exclusions.

The Insider Connections Drawing Scrutiny

The controversy does not exist in a vacuum. Wilcox is running against Keller Mayor Armin Mizani and Colleyville businessman Fred Tate. Both have strong ties to local GOP leadership.

Davis, the county GOP chairman who ordered Wilcox’s removal, has acknowledged a personal friendship with Mizani and previously donated $10,000 to his campaign. Mizani has also received high-profile support from party insiders.

Complicating matters further, the president of the Texas Federation of Republican Women, is Jill Tate, who is the spouse of Fred Tate, another candidate in the same race. While no illegality has been established, the overlapping relationships have fueled Wilcox’s argument that the process was designed to narrow the field, not expand voter choice.

Wilcox has gone further, alleging that Mizani was promised the HD-98 seat if he exited a separate State Senate race, clearing the way for another preferred candidate. With Wilcox in the race, she argues, the plan breaks down, likely forcing a runoff.

That, she says, is why she had to be removed.

A Broader Pattern, Not an Isolated Case

The Wilcox case unfolded amid broader ballot challenges across Tarrant County. Davis also challenged multiple Democratic judicial candidates, prompting retaliatory challenges from the local Democratic Party against GOP candidates. The result has been widespread uncertainty heading into early voting, which begins February 17.

In court, Wilcox represented herself, arguing that election laws are meant to ensure fair access, not operate as a “gotcha” system used selectively against disfavored candidates. Judges appeared to agree, at least in her case.

Opinion: When the Party Forgets the Voters

What makes this story larger than one candidate is not the paperwork dispute or even the courtroom drama. It is the underlying question of who controls Republican primaries in Texas.

Conservatives have long argued that sunlight, open debate, and voter choice are antidotes to corruption. Yet in HD-98, those principles appear to have collided with a culture of insider management. When party officials decide who may speak, who may appear, and who may even run, the primary becomes a formality rather than a choice.

If Zee Wilcox is wrong, the remedy is simple: beat her at the ballot box. If she is right, the implications are far more troubling.

Either way, voters in HD-98 deserve to hear from every lawful candidate, not just the ones approved behind closed doors.

*Pipkins Reports requested comment from Armin Mizani, Mayor of Keller and a candidate for House District 98; Tim Davis, Chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party; Tammy Nakamura, Colleyville Conservative Club; Carol Anderson, President of Metroplex Republican Women; and Fred Tate, a candidate in the HD-98 race.

After 48 hours, as of publication, no responses have been received.

Zee Wilcox did respond to our requests for comment. The reporting that precedes is based on her statements, along with publicly available records and court filings independently reviewed by Pipkins Reports.

WASHINGTON, DC — The Clinton political machine, long accustomed to dictating the terms of engagement, ran headlong this week into an institution that does not negotiate its constitutional authority. In a rare and politically explosive move, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted on a bipartisan basis to advance contempt of Congress resolutions against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for defying lawful subpoenas tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

The January 21 vote clears the way for the full House to consider whether to formally hold the Clintons in contempt, a step that could result in criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. While neither Clinton has been accused of a crime related to Epstein, lawmakers framed the issue more narrowly and more starkly: whether elite political figures are subject to the same compulsory process as everyone else when Congress demands sworn testimony.

The subpoenas arise from Congress’s ongoing investigation into how Epstein operated a vast international sex trafficking network for years while avoiding meaningful accountability. Epstein allegedly died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019 as he awaited trial, but subsequent court filings and document releases revealed his deep and troubling access to political, financial, and cultural power centers. Bill Clinton, and numerous other influential figures appear in those records.

Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said the subpoenas issued to the Clintons were approved unanimously last summer by Republicans and Democrats alike. Bill Clinton’s deposition was initially scheduled for October 14, 2025, then moved to December 17, and later reset for January 13, 2026. Hillary Clinton followed a similar trajectory, declining multiple proposed dates before failing to appear for a January 14 deposition. In each instance, the committee said it offered flexibility if the Clintons would propose firm alternative dates. They did not.

Instead, the Clintons’ attorneys countered with what Comer described as an unacceptable proposal. Under that offer, Comer would travel to New York to speak with Bill Clinton alone, without placing him under oath, without producing an official transcript, and without allowing other members of Congress to participate. Comer rejected the proposal, arguing that it amounted to special treatment unavailable to any other witness.

“Subpoenas are not mere suggestions,” Comer said during the hearing. “They carry the force of law and require compliance.”

The committee emphasized that sworn, transcribed testimony is essential to transparency and accountability. Oversight investigators have already released transcripts of interviews with former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, both of whom had direct dealings with Epstein during earlier stages of his prosecution. Allowing the Clintons to substitute informal conversations or written statements, Comer argued, would erode the integrity of the investigation and leave the public dependent on competing recollections rather than a fixed record.

Democrats on the committee were divided. Some argued the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose, while others conceded that Congress cannot selectively enforce its authority based on party loyalty. Rep. Robert Garcia of California said no current or former president should be categorically immune from oversight. Several Democrats stressed that full transparency in the Epstein case demands uniform standards, even when politically inconvenient.

Recent history undercuts claims that contempt powers are merely symbolic. Steve Bannon, former Trump campaign and White House strategist, was convicted in 2022 of contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the House January 6 committee. Peter Navarro, another former Trump White House adviser, was likewise charged and later imprisoned after refusing to provide testimony to the same panel. Both cases demonstrated that contempt citations can and do result in criminal penalties, including incarceration.

The Clintons have argued through counsel that the subpoenas are invalid and that they possess little relevant information. In a letter to the committee, they described Epstein’s crimes as “horrific” and said they had cooperated in good faith by offering written declarations outlining their limited interactions with him. The committee rejected that approach, noting that Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state gives her direct knowledge of federal anti trafficking initiatives and that both Clintons maintained documented personal and social ties to Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

Historically, contempt of Congress has been used sparingly, particularly against high profile political figures. No former president has ever been successfully compelled to testify before Congress. However, legal analysts note that the Clintons are private citizens and cannot claim executive privilege protections that might apply to a sitting president.

The contempt resolutions now move to the full House, where passage will require a majority vote. Even if approved, the Justice Department retains discretion over whether to pursue prosecution. That uncertainty has not dampened the broader significance of the moment.

At its core, the dispute is not about partisan score settling or retroactive guilt. It is about whether Congress’s investigative power means what the Constitution says it means. For decades, the Clintons operated within a political ecosystem that treated them as exceptions. The Oversight Committee’s vote suggests that era may be ending.

If subpoenas bind only the unfavored and the powerless, they bind no one at all. The House must now decide whether the rule of law applies equally, even when the names on the subpoena are Clinton.