Here’s what Tarrant County lawmakers said about their Paxton impeachment 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, said it was a “sad day for our chamber” as he took the front podium to speak in opposition of the impeachment resolution. He and others who spoke against the measure 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.”

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.”

Republican Rep. Giovanni Capriglione of Southlake said he was one of the first representatives to endorse Paxton when he initially ran for attorney general. He voted in favor of the resolution.

“This decision weighed heavily on me, and it brought me no joy,” he said in a statement. “The resolution passed with a significant majority. Let me clarify that the primary objective of impeachment is to safeguard the state and entrusted with the responsibility to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant further legal proceedings. Having watched the committee hearing, scrutinized its transcript, and devoted hours to listening to testimonies and debates, there is no doubt that the evidence against the Attorney General is substantial and compelling.”