Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribuneโs daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
The 20 articles of impeachment against state Attorney General Ken Paxton, filed Thursday night in the Texas House, accused the Republican official of a range of criminal acts that the full Texas House will be asked to vote upon.
Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, who leads the House General Investigating Committee, which recommended that Paxton be impeached, told House members that the articles allege โgrave offenses.โ
According to House Resolution 2377, those accusations were:
Article 1, disregard of official duty
Paxton violated the duties of his office by failing to protect a charitable organization by directing employees to intervene in a lawsuit between the nonprofit Mitte Foundation and Austin real estate investor Nate Paul, a Paxton friend and political donor. โPaxton harmed the Mitte Foundation in an effort to benefit Paul,โ the resolution said.
Article 2, disregard of official duty
Paxton misused his official power to issue written legal opinions to help Paul avoid foreclosure sales of properties owned by Paul and his businesses.โโ Paxton concealed his actions by soliciting state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, to seek the attorney generalโs opinion as a โstraw requestor,โ the resolution said, adding that Paxton also directed employees to reverse their legal conclusions in ways that helped Paul.
Related Story
Attorney General Ken Paxton was impeached. Hereโs how that process works in Texas.
Paxton is now suspended until the outcome of a trial in the Senate. Gov. Greg Abbott can now appoint someone to temporarily fill the vacancy.
Article 3, disregard of official duty
Paxton misused his official power to administer the stateโs public information laws by directing employees to act contrary to the law on an open records request for Department of Public Safety documents and in another unspecified case.
Article 4, disregard of official duty
Paxton misused his power to administer public information laws to obtain previously undisclosed information held by his office โfor the purpose of providing the information to the benefit of Nate Paul,โ the resolution said.
Article 5, disregard of official duty
Paxton misused his official powers by violating the laws regarding how outside attorneys should be appointed. Paxton hired Brandon Cammack, a lawyer of five years, to investigate a โbaseless complaintโ made by Paul, who had accused federal and state investigators of improperly searching his home and businesses. Cammack responded by issuing 30 grand jury subpoenas in an effort to help Paul, the resolution said.
Article 6, disregard of official duty
Paxton violated his duties of office by firing or retaliating against employees in violation of the Texas Whistleblowers Act, which protects public employees who make good-faith reports of potentially illegal action to law enforcement.
โPaxton terminated the employees without good cause or due process and in retaliation for reporting his illegal acts and improper conduct,โ the resolution said. โFurthermore, Paxton engaged in a public and private campaign to impugn the employeesโ professional reputations or prejudice their future employment.โ
Article 7, misapplication of public resources
Paxton misused public resources by directing employees to conduct a โsham investigationโ into the whistleblowersโ complaints, leading the attorney generalโs office to publish โa lengthy written report containing false or misleading statements in Paxtonโs defense.โ
In August 2021, the attorney generalโs office issued an unsigned, 374-page internal report clearing him of wrongdoing in the allegations made by the fired employees.
Article 8, disregard of official duty
Paxton misused his official powers by โconcealing his wrongful acts in connection with the whistleblower complaints.โ To settle the whistleblowersโ lawsuit, Paxton agreed to pay them $3.3 million from public funds. The agreement โconspicuously delayed the discovery of facts and testimony at trial, to Paxtonโs advantageโ and deprived voters of the opportunity to make an informed decision in the 2022 election for attorney general, the resolution said.
Article 9, constitutional bribery
Paxton engaged in bribery in violation of Article 16 of the Texas Constitution when he benefited from Paulโs decision to employ a woman โwith whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair.โ
โPaul received favorable legal assistance from, or specialized access to, the office of the attorney general,โ the resolution said.
Article 10, constitutional bribery
Paxton engaged in bribery in violation of Article 16 of the Texas Constitution when Paul provided extensive renovations to Paxtonโs Austin home. In return, Paul received favorable legal help from Paxtonโs agency.
Article 11, obstruction of justice
Paxton abused the judicial process to thwart justice by causing โprotractedโ delays after a Collin County grand jury indicted him for securities fraud for soliciting investors in Servergy Inc. without disclosing that the McKinney tech company was paying him to round up investors. Those delays โdeprived the electorate of its opportunity to make an informed decision when voting for attorney general,โ the resolution said.
Article 12, obstruction of justiceย
Paxton abused the judicial process to thwart justice when Jeff Blackard, a donor to his campaigns, took legal action that โdisrupted payment of the prosecutorsโ in the securities fraud case against him, causing a protracted delay in the case.
Article 13, false statements in official records
Before and after holding public office, Paxton made false statements to mislead the public and public officials by lying to the State Securities Board during its investigation of Paxtonโs failure to register as an investment adviser as required by state law.
Article 14, false statements in official records
Before and during his time in office, Paxton made false statements on personal finance statements required by Texas law by failing to โfully and accurately disclose his financial interestsโ on disclosure forms.
Article 15, false statements in official records
Paxton made, or caused others to make, multiple false or misleading statements in his officeโs response to the whistleblowersโ claims in an effort to mislead the public and public officials. In August 2021, the attorney generalโs office issued an unsigned, 374-page internal report clearing him of wrongdoing in the allegations made by the fired employees.
Article 16, conspiracy and attempted conspiracy
While in office, Paxton acted with others to conspire, or attempt to conspire, to commit the crimes described in the other articles.
Article 17, misappropriation of public resourcesย
Paxton misused his official powers by causing employees to perform services for his benefit and the benefit of others.
The committeeโs investigators said Paxton had diverted employees to perform work that benefited Paul, costing the state at least $72,000 in taxpayer-funded labor. He also hired Cammack for $25,000.
Article 18, dereliction of duty
Paxton violated the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, plus statutes and public policy against public officials acting against the public interest.
Article 19, unfitness for office
Paxton engaged in private and public misconduct, described in the articles, that โindicate his unfitness for office,โ the resolution said.
Article 20, abuse of public trust
Paxton subverted the lawful operation of Texas government by using, misusing or failing to use his official powers and obstructed the fair and impartial administration of justice, bringing the attorney generalโs office โinto scandal and disrepute,โ which harmed the publicโs confidence in the stateโs government.
Stories like the one you just read come to life at The Texas Tribune Festival, the Tribuneโs annual celebration of big, bold ideas happening Sept. 21-23 in downtown Austin. For just a little bit longer you can grab a discounted ticket to this year’s event, but act fast โ savings end on May 31! Buy now and save.
Correction, May 26, 2023, 11:51 a.m. Central :
This article originally said the most recent election for attorney general was in 2020. It was 2022.

