Texas Democrats are calling for an investigation into Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after recent reporting raised questions about whether he may have violated state election laws by voting while registered at an address where he allegedly no longer lived.
The request follows an investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, which reported that Paxton cast multiple ballots over the past two years using a voter registration address in Collin County, despite evidence suggesting he had moved elsewhere.
Complaint Filed With Texas Secretary of State
On Tuesday, the Collin County Democratic Party filed a formal complaint with the Texas Secretary of State, asking state officials to investigate whether Paxton committed election fraud when he voted in the May Republican primary runoff.
Paxton defeated longtime U.S. Senator John Cornyn in that election, securing the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate.
The complaint was submitted by Mary Higbe, vice chair of the Collin County Democratic Party.
Democrats Cite Paxton’s Own Warnings About Election Law
In the complaint, Higbe pointed out that Paxton’s office has publicly emphasized the importance of accurate voter registration.
She referenced guidance issued by the Attorney General’s Office earlier this year stating that it is illegal for voters to misrepresent their residence information on election records.
According to Higbe, if ordinary Texans are expected to follow election laws, the state’s top law enforcement official should be held to the same standard.
She argued that an investigation is necessary to determine whether Paxton violated the same laws his office has pledged to enforce.
Questions Raised About Paxton’s Registered Address
According to reporting by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, Paxton has voted six times during the past two years while remaining registered at a home in Collin County that he previously shared with his wife, State Senator Angela Paxton.
However, the investigation reported that Paxton moved out of that residence in June 2024.
The reporting cited Angela Paxton’s divorce filing, along with information from a source familiar with the family, indicating that Paxton has not returned to live at that home.
Although his current residence has not been officially confirmed, reporters linked Paxton to another residence in Denton County beginning in February 2025.
Election Experts Say Law Could Apply
The news organizations reported that three election officials reviewed the circumstances and said Paxton may have violated Texas election law, which generally requires voters to register and vote from the address where they actually reside.
Election experts noted that Texas law does allow voters to temporarily vote using a previous residence if they intend to return there.
However, they questioned whether that exception would apply in Paxton’s case because of his ongoing and highly public divorce proceedings, which appear to indicate a permanent move rather than a temporary absence.
Texas Democratic Party Responds
The day after the complaint was filed, the Texas Democratic Party released a statement accusing Paxton of failing to respond to what it described as serious allegations involving voter registration.
Party officials argued that the allegations deserve the same level of scrutiny that Paxton’s office has applied to other election-related investigations.
How the Complaint Process Works
Under Texas law, election complaints are initially reviewed by the Texas Secretary of State.
If officials determine there is reasonable cause to believe criminal conduct may have occurred, the matter is typically referred to the Office of the Attorney General for further investigation.
A spokesperson for Secretary of State Jane Nelson confirmed that this is the standard process but did not say whether Paxton’s case would be handled differently given that it involves the state’s attorney general.
Instead, the office cited state law requiring complaints involving potential criminal conduct to be referred promptly.
Calls for Independent Investigation
Some legal experts argue that if the complaint is referred to the Attorney General’s Office, an outside investigator should handle the matter because of the obvious conflict of interest.
Joaquin Gonzalez, a San Antonio election attorney and former voting rights program director at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the most appropriate course would be to appoint an independent investigator rather than allowing Paxton’s own office to examine the allegations.
According to Gonzalez, using an outside investigator would help ensure fairness and maintain public confidence in the process.
Paxton Has Not Responded to Questions
Paxton did not respond to questions from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune regarding his voter registration or residency before the investigation was published.
Following the filing of the complaint, neither Paxton nor the Attorney General’s Office answered additional questions about the allegations or how his office would proceed if the complaint is referred for investigation.
Campaign Statement
Instead of directly addressing the voter registration questions, Paxton campaign spokesperson Madison Cercy issued a broader statement criticizing political opponents and members of the media.
The statement accused critics of attempting to exploit Paxton’s personal life for political purposes but did not specifically answer questions regarding his registered voting address.
The campaign also did not explain earlier public statements asserting that Paxton is a lawfully registered Texas voter who complies with state election laws.
Democrats Say Accountability Matters
Mary Higbe said the complaint is intended to test whether Texas’ oversight system applies equally to elected officials.
She acknowledged uncertainty about whether a full investigation would occur but argued that raising the issue is important because the state’s chief law enforcement officer should be subject to the same legal standards enforced against every other voter.
At this time, no formal finding of wrongdoing has been made, and no charges have been filed against Paxton. Whether state officials will move forward with an investigation remains unclear as the complaint awaits review.
