2 Tarrant County lawmakers voted against impeachment of Paxton. They explain their votes

Republicans Tony Tinderholt of Arlington and Nate Schatzline of Fort Worth were the only Tarrant County area lawmakers to vote no on the articles of impeachment against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Saturday.

Tinderholt, speaking in the House before the vote, raised concerns about the process and quick turnaround of the impeachment proceedings.

Tinderholt said the process lacked transparency, careful deliberation and is about politics. He raised concerns that Paxton hadn’t been interviewed as part of the investigation and that an attorney general office staff member wasn’t able to testify as a resource witness earlier in the week.

He said that instead of questioning witnesses in a hearing, investigators were allowed to summarize and “potentially editorialize” their findings.

“If you think this is how we best serve Texans, you’re gravely mistaken,” Tinderholt said. “When you vote today, don’t listen to the bullies inside or outside this building that try to intimidate you into submission.”

Following the vote, Tinderholt told the Star-Telegram that he thought most people who voted no had a problem with the process.

“We want this process to be unquestionable,” he said. “We want it to be the highest standards. And I think today what we did is cheapen impeachment in the state of Texas.”

He had a problem with the selection of the investigators. He said they worked with vice chair Democrat Ann Johnson of Houston and that they were from Harris County.

“Three to four of them are voting Democrat,” he said.

But the real problem, he said, was a lack of transparency.

“If we ever do something like this, people should never be able to say that it was politically motivated or that some committee was weaponized to get rid of someone they didn’t like,” he said.

Schatzline said he had nothing but respect for the committee and its chairman, Rep. Andrew Murr of Kerriville, but said he was concerned because members were not given access to evidence or allowed to question witnesses.

“If I’m going to make a judgment call that’s going to potentially create precedents and future impeachment, then I want to make sure that I’m doing so off of good faith and offer good knowledge of the actual evidence and being able to ask questions myself,” he said. “And so for me, that’s why I voted no. It had everything to do with the procedure and the process.”