No pressure, Texas senators, but Paxton trial is test of our entire political system | Opinion

The impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will be a national spectacle from the moment it begins Tuesday.

The allegations against Paxton are significant. Senators, serving as the jury, will be asked to determine whether Paxton abused his power and is fit to hold office.

But none of that is entirely why it matters so much. The trial could ultimately demonstrate whether the political system can police itself — and whether every question of import devolves merely into political considerations, often partisan ones.

Beyond Paxton, the senators and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who will preside, the trial is about whether the structures and procedures meant to keep equilibrium in our governing system can hold.

It’s a question ringing beyond Texas. Trust in our institutions has plummeted in recent years. We increasingly seek solutions to our political disputes in court, often in criminal trials. Partisan views of the results, rather than faith in the processes that ensure our delicate checks and balances, frame the discussions and debates over wrongdoing and fair play in our politics.

And yet, Paxton’s trial is unequivocally political. As Patrick has said, it is not a criminal or civil procedure, even if the calling of witnesses and rulings from a presiding “judge” give it that appearance.

That means it falls to 30 senators — Sen. Angela Paxton of Collin County, wife of the accused, is largely exempt from participation — to rise above the political warfare and truly determine what’s best for the state.

PAXTON SUPPORTERS VOW POLITICAL RETRIBUTION

It won’t be easy, particularly for Paxton’s fellow Republicans. His supporters, a fervent portion of the GOP base that tends to control primary elections, are not shy about the pressure they’ll bring. They want Paxton acquitted; many would even prefer that there be no trial, just an immediate dismissal of the charges. They pledge to bring a simmering split in the GOP out into the open, with lavishly funded primary charges against those lawmakers, House and Senate alike, who side against Paxton.

The evidence in the case already appears substantial, though. The House impeachment “managers” brought forth, in specific detail, a deluge of facts that are hard to explain away. The AG clearly extended himself and his office on behalf of Nate Paul, a developer who faces his own criminal charges. There is strong reason to believe that Paul handsomely rewarded Paxton for this aid.

But even if he didn’t — that is, even if bribes weren’t paid — consider the time and energy Paxton exerted on Paul’s behalf. Consider that the AG hired an unknown and untested lawyer, at state expense, to investigate the investigation of Paul. Consider that Paxton himself reportedly directed the outcome of a legal opinion that would help his donor.

Even if Paul didn’t pay for the granite countertops in the Paxtons’ Austin home renovation, the AG sure did twist a lot of procedures and norms on his behalf.

The Paxton side’s response has largely been to bemoan the impeachment process in the House, including the not-irrelevant facts that witnesses were not under oath and that the public portion of the impeachment unfolded rapidly in the last moments of the Legislature’s regular session.

Senators must focus on the evidence. And specifically, they must ask themselves: What legitimate reason was there for Paxton to work so hard on Paul’s behalf? Why would he seek to insert the state of Texas between Paul and federal investigators?

There’s also the question of credibility. Recall that this entered the House’s purview because Paxton asked for $3.3 million to settle a lawsuit brought by whistleblowers who said they were wrongfully terminated. These were not low-level people or career functionaries with political axes to grind. They were top deputies, hired by Paxton and loyal to the AG until several of them perceived violations of law and ethics that they could not countenance.

As we’ve said before: Either they are all lying, with remarkable similarity and consistency, or Paxton is. And Paxton’s credibility is suspect. He entered office under a cloud over his sloppy, at best, business dealings before he was AG. While his apologists have always brushed that case aside, it’s much harder to do so with things he may have done in his capacity as a top state officer.

DON’T VOTE TO IMMEDIATELY DISMISS PAXTON CASE

Senators’ first task may be to ensure that they hear the full case. Paxton’s team is arguing that the case be dismissed, in part on a weak legal theory that state law prevents removal of an official for actions taken before his or her most recent election. The state Supreme Court has said that provision refers to actions taken before an official’s initial election. Besides, it doesn’t pass the smell test: Are we to believe that lawmakers really intended such a giant loophole in accountability for state officials?

Senators must fight the urge to duck this duty, as unpleasant as it may be. For the good of the state, the allegations against Paxton must be thoroughly heard.

Still, the path of least resistance for Republican senators will be to follow the base of the party. They can declare, rightly, that removing a three-time elected official requires the highest bar of wrongdoing and inexorable proof. They can tsk-tsk in Paxton’s direction but solemnly state that the voters have the ultimate say. They should be braver than that.

Patrick’s role may be the most fraught of all. The rules governing the trial give him tremendous power, but an obvious attempt to tip the scales one way or the other will bring immediate outcry. We’re pleased that he appointed a jurist with a strong record, former state appeals court judge Lana Myers, to advise him. He should defer to her whenever the slightest conflict arises.

After all, Patrick embodies the tricky road ahead: His task is to ensure a fair process in a case where he is politically aligned with the accused and many of the jurors and prosecutors. He should make as much information as possible public and bring transparency to decision-making; it’s the people’s resources that were allegedly abused, and the people deserve complete answers.

At the national level, we’ve seen the lingering damage done when the political system and its officers fail to deal with wrongdoing. The answer to Donald Trump’s misdeeds after the 2020 election, culminating in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, would have been properly addressed through the Constitution’s clear remedy: impeachment and removal from office and prohibition from future candidacy.

Not enough Republicans stepped up to the moment, and now, the effects linger into the next election. The criminal system is tasked with rendering a political judgment, and no matter what it settles on, much of the country will believe the result is flawed.

Let’s not have that in Texas. Show that the system can work free of partisan politics. Texans deserve no less.

Do you have an opinion on this topic? Tell us!

We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section.

• Letters should be no more than 150 words.

• Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days.

• Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions.

You can submit a letter to the editor two ways:

• Email letters@star-telegram.com (preferred).

• Fill out this online form.

Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.