Judges get earful on vote fraud decision
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judges’ phone lines and email inboxes have been flooded for more than a week by callers angry about a ruling last month that stripped Attorney General Ken Paxton of the authority to prosecute election fraud cases without cooperation of the local district attorney or county attorney.
At least some of the calls were spurred by an automated phone message from Texas activist Dr. Steven Hotze that were sent to tens of thousands of Republicans statewide by his political action committee, Conservative Republicans of Texas. The prerecorded message, a copy of which was obtained by Hearst Newspapers, included the phone number to the all-republican court and urged them to call the judges.
“Leave a message that you want the court to restore Paxton’s right to prosecute voter fraud in Texas,” Hotze said. “If this decision isn’t reversed, then the Democrats will steal the elections in November and turn Texas blue.”
The group is also funding radio and TV ads on the subject, said Jared Woodfill, a spokesman and attorney for the Houston activist.
“It’s Dr. Hotze’s position that the electorate should be able to reach out to the officials they elect,” Woodfill said.
The court’s general counsel Sian Schilhab said the unusual flood of communications included one email was referred to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which investigates threats against state employees.
Paxton has requested a rehearing of the case, and Hotze and more than two dozen Texas Republican congressmen, state senators and representatives are supporting him in friend-of-thecourt briefs.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and gubernatorial candidate Don Huffines have also signed briefs. Gov. Greg Abbott, who was Tex
as attorney general before Paxton, in a statement Tuesday offered his support as well.
“Texas’ highest law enforcement has constitutional authority to enforce that election-integrity law,” he said. “The Court of Criminal Appeals needs to uphold Texas law and the Attorney General’s responsibility to defend it.”
The 8-1 Court of Criminal appeals decision last month stemmed from an appeal of an election fraud prosecution pursued unilaterally by Paxton’s office, after a county attorney referred it to him.
It’s unclear whether the “higher than usual” amount of calls and emails is part of a coordinated effort to sway the judges in the case.
“Callers and email writers typically identify themselves as ‘concerned citizens,’ but none, to my knowledge, have identified themselves as being with a particular group or organization,” Schilhab said, though she added they have all referenced the case.
James Wesolek, spokesman for the Texas GOP, which also signed a friend-ofthe-court brief, said the party had no involvement.
“We have not encouraged anyone to reach out to the judges,” he said.
The decision overturned more than 70 years of legal precedent allowing the office to take up cases that local prosecutors either can’t or don’t want to handle, critics say.
The attorney general’s office and Paxton’s campaign spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.
Paxton has publicly blasted the court’s Republican judges for the decision. He and other Republicans have also suggested Democratic district attorneys will not be vigilant against election fraud.
“Now, thanks to the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, (George) Soros-funded district attorneys will have sole power to decide whether election fraud has occurred in Texas,” Paxton wrote on Twitter at the time of the decision, referring to the Democratic megadonor. “This ruling could be devastating for future elections in Texas.”
Other Republicans statewide have made similar comments in pushing for reconsideration.
“The Attorney General’s Office must be able to defend election integrity in our great state,” Sen. Paul Bettencourt, one of 14 state senators who signed onto a friend-ofthe-court brief, wrote in a statement last week. “We cannot allow our elections to be manipulated.”
The case that sparked the ruling came about when a county attorney in Jefferson County referred to Paxton’s office the decision on whether to prosecute Sheriff Zena Stephens over campaign-finance allegations related to the 2016 election.
Paxton’s office took up the case and got an indictment from a grand jury in neighboring Chambers County. Stephens was charged with accepting two contributions in excess of the $100 limit, and with tampering with a government record by placing a $5,000 contribution in the $50 or less section of her state-required campaign contribution report.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision that had said Paxton was “clearly and unambiguously” able to prosecute in such cases, instead finding that the office’s longstanding interpretation of the law was incorrect.
“Because Texas Election Code section 273.021 delegates to the Attorney General a power more properly assigned to the judicial department, we conclude that the statute is unconstitutional,” read the opinion written by Judge Jesse F. Mcclure, a former Harris County criminal court trial judge.
The timing of the opinion, which came out days after the candidate filing deadline in December, also appeared calculated and political to some Republicans.