Last Thursday, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought against First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, second in command under Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Both men have been sued by the Texas state bar’s Commission for Lawyer Discipline for pushing false claims about the 2020 Presidential Election. At stake is whether the Bar has the right to discipline the AG office for promoting false and politically motivated narratives.
Immediately after President Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential Election, Republicans began insisting there was widespread fraud involved. Paxton and Webster joined 21 other states in a petition to deny Biden the Electoral College votes in four swing states. Texas, which was won by former President Donald Trump, was not included in the accusation of interference by Democrats.
The lawsuit said that there was significant evidence that the election was stolen. Four years later, no evidence has been produced. The most high profile election fraud case in the country is Trump himself, who was indicted for interfering with Georgia’s election and still faces trial.
The U.S Supreme Court denied the petition on the basis that Texas did not have the standing to claim election fraud on behalf of other states. Yet, the false accusations remained, and the Bar took notice.
The lawsuit claims that Webster and Paxton’s actions make them unworthy representatives of law and order in Texas. Such a move to reprimand the sitting attorney general is rare, and the office argues that such a lawsuit, if successful, would erode the separation of powers.
“The main complaint they have is about the legal theories, which we know were only resolved last year by the [U.S.] Supreme Court,” said Solicitor General Aaron Nielson with Paxton’s office. “In my entire career, I have never seen anyone sanctioned for conduct remotely similar to what we are talking about here.”
This argument may find supporters in the Texas Supreme Court, but does not get at the heart of the matter. Though the Bar declined to accuse Paxton or Webster of outright lying when they filed the 2020 petition, the fact is that they spread false and anti-democratic ideas about a stolen election on behalf on Trump and the Republican Party.
Paxton and Webster have never produced the compelling evidence they claim existed to justify the petition in the first place. Intentionally or not, they operated in bad faith on behalf of the people of Texas to stop the certification of the election.
The only defense Paxton’s office seems to have mounted so far is that he is technically allowed to do so, not that he was acting on solid evidence. If the Texas Supreme Court rules that Paxton and Webster are immune from reprimands because of the nature of their office, it is likely to make future false claims that much more brazen.
