Connect with us

Published

on

A historic resolution passed by the Texas House of Representatives has sent shockwaves through the Lone Star State’s political landscape. The resolution, brought forth by the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, officially impeaches Attorney General Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr. on a multitude of charges, backed by a series of meticulously detailed articles of impeachment.

The impeachment trial will start Tuesday, September 5, 2024. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick will assume the role of the presiding judge, while the senators will act as jurors. According to the established rules, if Paxton is found guilty on any of the impeachment charges, he will be ousted from his position for the remainder of his four-year term, set to conclude in 2026. Furthermore, such a conviction could result in a permanent prohibition from holding any public office within the state.

ARTICLE I: Disregard of Official Duty – Protection of Charitable Organization

In this first article, it is alleged that Paxton failed to fulfill his role as the guardian of charitable organizations, as mandated by Chapter 123 of the Property Code. It is claimed that Paxton’s actions adversely affected the Roy F. & JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation in favor of Nate Paul.

ARTICLE II: Disregard of Official Duty – Abuse of the Opinion Process

Article II accuses Paxton of abusing his official power by manipulating the issuance of legal opinions. It is alleged that Paxton used his position to obstruct foreclosure sales related to properties linked to Nate Paul, concealing his actions through a convoluted scheme involving a Senate committee chair.

ARTICLE III: Disregard of Official Duty – Abuse of the Open Records Process

Paxton is further accused in Article III of misusing his authority under Chapter 552 of the Government Code, ordering his staff to act against the law regarding public information requests. This included refusing proper decisions and issuing decisions that contravened the law and legal precedents.

ARTICLE IV: Disregard of Official Duty – Misuse of Official Information

Article IV alleges that Paxton improperly accessed non-public information for the benefit of Nate Paul.

ARTICLE V: Disregard of Official Duty – Engagement of Cammack

Paxton is charged with engaging Brandon Cammack in an investigation based on a baseless complaint in Article V. This resulted in over 30 grand jury subpoenas being issued, all seemingly in favor of Nate Paul or his business interests.

ARTICLE VI: Disregard of Official Duty – Termination of Whistleblowers

Article VI contends that Paxton violated whistleblower laws (Chapter 554 of the Government Code) by terminating employees who had reported his illegal actions to law enforcement authorities. This was allegedly done in retaliation, with Paxton also engaging in a campaign to damage the whistleblowers’ professional reputations.

ARTICLE VII: Misapplication of Public Resources – Whistleblower Investigation and Report

Paxton is accused of directing the use of public resources in Article VII to conduct a sham investigation into whistleblower complaints and produce a lengthy report containing false or misleading statements in his defense.

ARTICLE VIII: Disregard of Official Duty – Settlement Agreement

Article VIII asserts that Paxton concealed his wrongful acts connected to whistleblower complaints, entering into a settlement agreement paid from public funds. This delay was allegedly advantageous to Paxton, depriving voters of critical information when voting for attorney general.

ARTICLE IX: Constitutional Bribery – Paul’s Employment of Mistress

Paxton is charged with constitutional bribery in Article IX, benefiting from Nate Paul’s employment of a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair, allegedly resulting in favorable legal assistance for Paul.

ARTICLE X: Constitutional Bribery – Paul’s Providing Renovations to Paxton Home

Article X alleges Paxton benefited from renovations provided to his home by Nate Paul, again resulting in favorable legal assistance for Paul.

ARTICLE XI: Obstruction of Justice – Abuse of Judicial Process

Paxton is accused of abusing the judicial process in Article XI, using it to delay the trial related to his indictment for securities fraud, allegedly depriving voters of an informed choice during the election.

ARTICLE XII: Obstruction of Justice – Interference with Prosecutors

Article XII claims that Paxton benefited from a lawsuit filed by Jeff Blackard, a campaign donor, which disrupted payment to prosecutors involved in his criminal securities fraud case, causing further delays in the trial.

ARTICLE XIII: False Statements in Official Records – State Securities Board Investigation

Article XIII charges Paxton with making false statements to the State Securities Board during their investigation into his failure to register as required by law.

ARTICLE XIV: False Statements in Official Records – Personal Financial Statements

Article XIV accuses Paxton of failing to accurately disclose his financial interests in his personal financial statements, required by law.

ARTICLE XV: False Statements in Official Records – Whistleblower Response Report

Paxton is charged with making multiple false or misleading statements in the response report issued by his office in relation to whistleblower allegations.

ARTICLE XVI: Conspiracy and Attempted Conspiracy

Article XVI alleges Paxton conspired or attempted to conspire to commit acts described in one or more articles.

ARTICLE XVII: Misappropriation of Public Resources

Paxton is charged with misusing his official powers to have employees of his office perform services for his benefit and that of others.

ARTICLE XVIII: Dereliction of Duty

Article XVIII contends that Paxton violated the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, statutes, and public policy against public officials acting contrary to the public interest.

ARTICLE XIX: Unfitness for Office

In Article XIX, it is alleged that Paxton engaged in misconduct, public or private, indicative of his unfitness for office.

ARTICLE XX: Abuse of Public Trust

The final article, Article XX, accuses Paxton of using his official powers to subvert the government’s lawful operation and obstruct justice, damaging the Office of Attorney General’s reputation and public confidence.

As this impeachment process unfolds, it promises to be a landmark event in the political history of the State of Texas, with ramifications that could extend far beyond its borders.

Michael Pipkins focuses on public integrity, governance, constitutional issues, and political developments affecting Texans. His investigative reporting covers public-record disputes, city-government controversies, campaign finance matters, and the use of public authority. Pipkins is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). As an SPJ member, Pipkins adheres to established principles of ethical reporting, including accuracy, fairness, source protection, and independent journalism.

Austin

Texas GOP Wants Closed Primaries. New Secretary of State Robert Howden Is Preparing to Fight Them.

Published

on

Robert Howden Says No

Austin, TX – Texas Republicans spent years demanding control of their own primary. Now they have a new Secretary of State, Robert S. Howden, appointed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, and the man taking over the state’s election machinery is inheriting a lawsuit in which his office is expected to defend the very open primary system the GOP wants to dismantle.

The Republican Party of Texas filed the federal lawsuit in September 2025, arguing that Texas’ open primary system violates the party’s First Amendment right of association. Under the current system, Texas voters do not register by party and may choose which party’s primary to vote in during an election cycle. The GOP wants only registered Republicans participating in Republican primaries.

The case is pending in federal court in Amarillo before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

And Robert S. Howden has now inherited it.

Howden Steps Into the Fight

Gov. Abbott appointed Howden as Texas’ 116th secretary of state on July 17, effective July 18. Howden previously served as Abbott’s senior adviser and director of legislative affairs and has worked in the administrations of four Republican governors. As secretary of state, he is Texas’ chief elections officer.

Abbott has been quite clear about where he stands.

At the 2026 Republican Party convention, he said Texas would eventually make clear that “only Republicans vote in Republican primaries.” Abbott has also said lawmakers “can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be,” indicating that he expects the Legislature to address the issue during the 2027 session.

But that doesn’t mean the Secretary of State’s office is supposed to simply surrender in court.

That was the position taken by Howden’s predecessor, Jane Nelson.

Nelson argued that changing Texas’ primary system was a job for the Legislature, not a federal judge. In an October 2025 statement, she said it was her responsibility to defend existing election laws and that she would implement whatever changes the Legislature lawfully enacted.

The Attorney General’s office took the opposite position.

Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the Texas GOP, asking the federal court to strike down portions of the Texas Election Code governing open primaries. According to reporting by The Texas Tribune, Nelson’s lawyers said Paxton’s office gave them less than an hour’s notice before taking the opposing position.

So the Republican Party sued the Republican-controlled state government. The Republican Attorney General joined the plaintiffs. And the Republican Secretary of State fought the lawsuit.

That’s not exactly the tidy party unity politicians like to advertise.

The Real Fight Is Over Who Controls the Nomination

The GOP argues that crossover voting allows Democrats and independents to influence Republican nominations, potentially helping candidates who are less conservative than the party base.

The lawsuit specifically pointed to the 2024 Republican primaries involving former House Speaker Dade Phelan and Rep. Gary VanDeaver. Both won their races by fewer than 800 votes, and the party argued that crossover voters helped determine the outcomes.

The party has already made closing primaries an official priority. Republicans adopted rules supporting closed primaries in 2024 and renewed that push at their 2026 convention.

But changing the system is not as simple as flipping a switch.

Texas has more than 18 million registered voters, and the state’s registration system was never designed around party registration. Moving to closed primaries could require new registration procedures, computer-system changes and a method for existing voters to establish party affiliation.

The GOP wants the courts to clear the way, preferably in time for 2028.

Continue Reading

Business

San Angelo’s Data Center Fight Is Now a Recall Fight

Published

on

Data Center Divas

San Angelo, TX – San Angelo’s battle over massive data centers has moved from City Hall chambers to the ballot box, and two council members could soon have to defend their seats before voters angry about how the city has handled the projects. What began as a fight over water, power, development and transparency is now a full-blown political revolt, with recall efforts targeting Council Members Harry Thomas and Joe Self.

And the controversy comes at an interesting moment for Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state regulators to conduct a comprehensive audit of data centers moving through the state’s electric grid interconnection process, saying the review must be completed before any data center project moves forward. ERCOT subsequently told Fox News Digital that Abbott’s directive “effectively pauses all data center projects” while the state reviews their demands on the grid.

That means the questions being shouted at San Angelo City Hall are no longer merely local complaints from residents opposed to a particular development. Texas officials are now asking some of the same questions.

Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT to examine pending data center projects and gather information, including projected annual and peak electricity demand, water consumption, water sources, and whether facilities intend to generate some of their own electricity. ERCOT reported that roughly 90 percent of the 474 gigawatts of large-load interconnection requests currently under review are associated with data centers, more than five times Texas’ record peak electricity demand.

Back in San Angelo, the San Angelo Data Center Citizen Coalition has been pushing its own accountability campaign.

A petition seeking the recall of Council Member Harry Thomas, who represents Single Member District 3, was submitted July 15 with more than the required signatures. The city clerk later certified the petition after determining 53 signatures were sufficient, clearing the way for a recall election.

Following public comment, the City Council voted 6-1 to call the recall election.

Thomas has maintained that he has no intention of resigning.

I weigh every decision I’ve ever made on behalf of the 100,000 citizens in San Angelo,” Thomas said after the petition was submitted. “Every time I vote, I vote for all the citizens. I have no plans to resign from my position.

Self is now facing his own recall effort.

The coalition submitted an affidavit seeking Self’s recall and subsequently collected the signatures necessary to move forward. On Aug. 6, Self issued a statement saying he supports residents’ right to seek a recall but rejected what he described as misinformation about his involvement with data centers.

I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements,” Self said. “I have not benefited financially. I have not voted in favor of a data center.

Self said the council has instead voted on regulations that would apply if a data center is established in San Angelo.

That distinction between approving a specific project and approving regulations governing potential projects has become one of the central arguments in the political fight. San Angelo officials have considered rules addressing land use, water and wastewater issues as the city confronts proposals for large-scale data center development.

The proposed Skybox project has become particularly contentious. City officials have described it as a potential $7.2 billion investment, while opponents have raised concerns about water consumption, electricity demand, infrastructure, noise and transparency surrounding the development process.

The political consequences are spreading beyond San Angelo.

Residents in Temple and Granbury have also launched recall or charter efforts amid disputes over data center development. In Temple, opponents have cited concerns about land, water consumption and heat generated by facilities. In Granbury, activists gathered signatures seeking recalls involving the mayor and most members of the City Council.

Continue Reading

Art & Culture

McKinney Approves Controversial Islamic Center After Marathon Meeting That Exposed Deep Divisions

Published

on

Islamic Center Approved in McKinney

McKinney, TX – After nearly six hours of emotional testimony, shouted applause, boos, and police intervention, the McKinney City Council unanimously approved plans Tuesday night for a new Islamic center, closing another chapter in a debate that has simmered in Collin County for years. The vote may have been unanimous, but it certainly wasn’t uncontroversial.

Just before 11:30 p.m. on August 4, the council voted 7-0 to approve the site plan for the McKinney Islamic Association‘s proposed campus on roughly 5.5 acres at Virginia Parkway and Crutcher Crossing. City officials repeatedly emphasized that the decision before them was not whether Islam should have a place of worship in McKinney, but whether the submitted site plan complied with existing city ordinances and development standards. According to council members, the property’s current planned development zoning already permits religious assembly, leaving the city with little legal discretion to deny an otherwise compliant application.

The approved project includes a roughly 15,000-square-foot sanctuary, a classroom building of approximately 10,000 square feet, a 7,000-square-foot multi-purpose gymnasium, parking, and related site improvements. The McKinney Islamic Association says its current facility, where it has served the community for decades, can no longer accommodate its growing congregation.

The meeting itself became the story.

More than 150 people registered to speak, forcing city officials to delay the start of the regular meeting while names were entered into the system. Supporters and opponents packed the council chambers, overflow rooms, and hallways, creating an atmosphere that multiple local news outlets described as tense and, at times, hostile.

Opponents raised a mix of concerns.

Some focused squarely on practical issues, including increased traffic, parking shortages, neighborhood compatibility, and whether a campus serving large numbers of worshippers could comfortably fit on the site. Others voiced broader objections rooted in concerns about Islamic doctrine, Sharia law, and the changing cultural landscape of North Texas. Congressman Keith Self, whose district includes McKinney, spoke against the proposal before public testimony began, warning of dangers he associates with extremist interpretations of Islam.

Supporters argued that the project involved a long-established congregation simply seeking room to grow. They pointed to constitutional protections for religious liberty and rejected accusations directed toward the association as prejudice against Muslim residents. Veterans, longtime community members, and faith leaders urged the council to evaluate the application based on municipal law rather than religious disagreement.

Former McKinney Mayor George Fuller received one of the night’s harshest public receptions after speaking in support of the project. He was booed by portions of the crowd, and according to WFAA, police escorted him from the building after a woman reportedly shoved a sign reading “Don’t Sharia My Texas” into his shirt while he exited the meeting.

Despite the emotional testimony, council members repeatedly returned to the same legal conclusion, the site plan either met the city’s development requirements or it did not. Planning and Zoning had already recommended approval in July, and council members indicated denying a compliant application would almost certainly expose the city to litigation it was unlikely to win. Previous proposals involving substantially larger facilities required rezoning and were rejected, but the revised plan fits within the property’s existing zoning framework.

The approval does not authorize immediate construction. The project must still complete platting requirements, undergo a traffic study, and obtain building permits before construction can begin.

Below is the list of the current city council that voted 7/0 to approve the project.

Member NameTitleEmail
Bill CoxMayorEmail
Rick FranklinMayor Pro Tem – District 4Email
Justin BellerCouncil Member – District 1Email
Patrick CloutierCouncil Member – District 2Email
Geré FeltusCouncil Member – District 3Email
Ernest LynchCouncil Member – At Large 1Email
Michael JonesCouncil Member – At Large 2Email

Continue Reading