Editorial: Transparency a casualty of Senate impeachment rules

Suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will get a fair impeachment trial under rules adopted by the Senate last month, but the process deprives Texans of the transparency and good government they deserve.

On May 27, the Texas House voted overwhelmingly in open session to impeach Paxton on charges that include abuse of office, bribery and obstruction. Led by Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, the Senate has taken a different tack, shrouding important decisions about Paxton's impending trial in secrecy.

Behind closed doors, a seven-member special Senate committee hand-picked by Patrick spent three weeks crafting rules for the impending trial, according to a June 23 Texas Tribune report. General Senate rules mandate public notice for meetings by senators, even those in private closed sessions, but this special committee never announced its meetings, where they would take place, or who the panel's members were. When the committee delivered draft copies of the rules to Senate offices, it required staff members to sign confidentiality agreements in order to accept them. Then, on June 21 and 22, the full Senate debated the rules behind closed doors before emerging to approve them with a public vote, but without any public deliberation.

That's not all. Witness lists submitted by each side will be kept secret under the rules created behind closed doors. Pretrial  motions—including any by Paxton’s lawyers to dismiss articles of impeachment—also will be kept from public view. The trial itself will be public and televised, but senators' deliberations—much like a legal jury—will be private. Only after a verdict is rendered will senators be allowed to publicly explain their votes.

Patrick's promise of transparency rings hollow

Patrick promised full transparency on June 19, telling a radio interviewer, “I can guarantee you it will be totally transparent, totally fair.” But he has not delivered on that pledge. The Senate impeachment rules and proceedings so far don't reflect a government—in the words of Abraham Lincoln—of the people, by the people, for the people.

That’s why Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, D-Austin, voted against them. A lawyer and former Travis County judge, Eckhardt said she reviewed the rules in Texas’ two previous impeachment trials, as well as impeachment proceedings against an Illinois governor and South Dakota attorney general and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. In a statement submitted to the Senate Journal, Eckhardt said the Texas Senate impeachment rules don't measure up to the standards of those proceedings.

“Through these rules, the Senators have allowed themselves to be reduced from a tribunal (both judge and jury) to a largely powerless and silent jury in a trial controlled by the Lt. Governor,” Eckhardt wrote. She said the rules are “unprecedented in their presumption for opacity and closed deliberation.”

The Editorial Board has credited the Senate for barring Paxton’s wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, from participating in deliberations or voting on her husband’s impeachment fate. We should also note that she will be allowed to attend the trial as required by the state constitution, and be marked present. Her presence in the roll call without voting will effectively count as a “no” vote on the articles of impeachment. That's important because it will take two-thirds of the 31-member chamber—or 21 senators—to remove Paxton from office, and the vote could be close. If all 12 Democrats vote to convict Paxton, it would require an additional nine Republican senators voting the same way to permanently remove him from office.

Government transparency is fundamental to public trust

The lead House impeachment manager, Paxton’s attorney and outside ethics experts have said the 31 Senate rules established to govern the trial are fair, providing both the prosecution (senators) and the defense team with equitable guidelines for witness testimony, conflicts of interest and other matters. We're glad they can all agree on that much. We just wish all Texans were provided with the fairness of more transparency, and by extension a better understanding of one of the most historic and consequential legislative proceedings in our state's history.

Transparency is a fundamental and indispensable component of good, open government, and crucial to securing the public's trust. Sadly, the Senate has failed to provide for it in planning for Paxton's impending impeachment trial.

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Editorial: Paxton impeachment trial lacks adequate transparency