Texas House’s power to impeach would receive ‘guardrails’ under proposal
AUSTIN — A veteran East Texas lawmaker is asking Gov. Greg Abbott to expand the agenda of the current special session to include adding “guardrails” to the state Constitution’s process for impeaching elected officials.
Six-term Nacogdoches GOP Rep. Travis Clardy, who in May opposed the House’s impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton, said Friday that any future impeachment probes should be required to have sworn testimony and cross examination of witnesses.
“If you only listen to one side, it sounds proper and right — until you hear the other side,” Clardy, a lawyer, said in an interview.
Spokespeople for Abbott did not immediately respond to an email Thursday night and a text Friday morning asking if the three-term Republican governor supports Clardy’s proposal and will add impeachment-process changes to the “call” of the year’s third special session.
The session, on school choice, border security and COVID-19 vaccine mandates, can’t go beyond Nov. 7.
Under Clardy’s proposed constitutional amendment, filed Thursday, a targeted politician and his or her lawyers would have to be allowed to be present as the House or its investigating panel took testimony.
If the Legislature sent Clardy’s amendment to voters and it was approved, future House impeachment investigations, starting in January 2025, would have to start earlier in a session than Paxton’s did.
Paxton, who last month was acquitted after a Senate trial, was impeached by the House in the final days of the year’s regular session.
Under Clardy’s plan, if articles of impeachment are drawn up, House members would have to have at least two weeks to review them before taking a vote.
If the House did vote to impeach, the suspended elected official would still get paid.
After Abbott named interim replacements for Paxton during the four months he was suspended, Comptroller Glenn Hegar said he did not have authority to pay for two attorneys general at the same time — and cut off
Paxton’s paychecks. Paxton lost about $50,000 of pay and has demanded back pay.
On Thursday, Paxton posted praise for Clardy’s proposed constitutional amendment on X, formerly known as Twitter.
“This should never happen to anyone in Texas ever again. Strong work, Rep. Clardy,” Paxton wrote.
On May 27, two days before the regular session ended, the House voted 121-23 to impeach Paxton.
Of the chamber’s 85 Republicans, 60 voted for impeachment.
Clardy rose to speak against impeachment, saying the House was in “a rush to judgment” it would regret.
The House’s case against Paxton “is predicated on … hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay,” not evidence that would be admitted in a court, Clardy said.
He advised colleagues to oppose impeaching Paxton.
“We’re on Day 138 of a 140-day session,” he said. “To do that now just seems wrong.”
House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-beaumont, has been under fire from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick for the House’s “rushed impeachment proceedings.”
On Friday, Phelan spokeswoman Cait Wittman said the speaker would have “no comment at this time” on Clardy’s proposed constitutional amendment.
Clardy said he wasn’t “looking backwards” or criticizing House leaders or the chamber’s key players in the investigation and prosecution of Paxton.
Now is the time to finetune the House’s power of impeachment, he said, “while it’s fresh on our minds.”
Future generations of
Texans would benefit, he said.
“Hopefully, nobody ever feels the need to impeach anybody, regardless of who and when and what party they belong to,” Clardy said. “But if they do, they’ll find that there’s provisions that were put in place that give some guardrails to how the process should work.”