Lawyers for Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion in the Texas Senate last week to quash the Articles of Impeachment brought against him by the House.
The motion, filed on July 24, challenges the constitutionality of the Articles due to their lack of specific information relating to each charge. Paxton faces 20 charges, or Articles, though the Senate ruled that four of the Articles relating to years-old claims of securities fraud will be set aside.
The lawyers wrote to the Senate that while "every impeachment in Texas history was the product of months of open investigation, public testimony, and a process transparent for all Texans,” the current impeachment is based on charges that are "unconstitutionally vague.”
The motion cites Texas and federal laws that require accusations for such proceedings to be specific. “The Articles must say what acts the Attorney General took and identify what laws he is alleged to have broken to justify this impeachment."
According to the motion, the Articles also fail to meet constitutional standards of fair notice, including that charging documents must contain "the elements of the offense and every fact or circumstance necessary to complete description thereof.”
According to case law cited in the motion, "The accused must be given information upon which he may prepare his defense and this information must come from the face of the charging instrument."
Paxton’s legal team argues that while "Article I faults Attorney General Paxton for directing unnamed employees to intervene in a lawsuit,… the Article does not explain why intervention was improper.”
Article I claims Paxton “violated the duties of his office” because he “caused employees of his office to intervene” in a lawsuit brought by a charity. In Texas, charities are regulated by the Office of the Attorney General.
In addition, the filing claims that while "Articles I, II, III, and IV involve alleged misconduct by the Attorney General's unnamed subordinates," the House should have been required to identify the individuals.
Article II relates to preparation by Paxton’s staff of a legal opinion. Article III claims Paxton abused his office by refusing to render a “proper” decision relating to a public information request for documents. Article IV claims Paxton “improperly obtained access” to information held by his office because it was not previously “publicly disclosed."
The filing also points out that Articles III, IV, V, and XVII fail to specify how the House can claim that lawful acts by the Attorney General may be described as impeachable offenses.
Article V claims Paxton erred by appointing a temporary prosecutor in a case, and Article XVII claims Paxton compelled employees to perform services “for his benefit and the benefit of others,” though no details about the alleged services or benefits are provided.
The motion also argues that the alleged false statements underlying Articles VII and XV must be identified. It cites relevant case law, stating, "The accused is 'entitled, upon proper exception, to know which false statement or statements the [House] would rely upon for conviction.’”
Article XV claims that one or more of the 20 charges included “conspiracy,” though no details are provided to support the claim.
The motion argues that for claims of “bribery” under Articles IX and X, "none of the elements are described with any particularity." It quotes case law, asserting that "Nothing less than setting forth the specifics of each element for bribery, including the bilateral agreement, will suffice."
Paxton’s attorneys argue that Article XVIII should be dismissed because its lack of any details make it inadmissible.
Article XVIII alleges Paxton acted "contrary to the public interest by violating one or more of 'the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, statutes, and public policy' by committing 'acts described in one or more articles.”
In addition, the motion claims that because Article XIX (“misconduct”) and Article XX (“subverting the lawful operation of government”) also do not include any details, both should be dismissed for “vagueness."
The filing urges the Senate to require the House to file a "bill of particulars" to add details to each charge.
If the court finds the Articles constitutionally deficient, Paxton's legal team requests that the House be barred from prosecuting them and prevented from bringing further proceedings based on the same conduct.
The filing was submitted by Judd E. Stone II, Christopher D. Hilton, Allison M. Collins, Amy S. Hilton, Kateland R. Jackson, and Joseph N. Mazzara, all of whom represent Paxton in the impeachment proceedings.
