Search results for "ken Paxton wife"

Texas 'Republicans are sweating through their solid gold Trump pins' — here's why

Barbed Wire Editor Brian Gaar says this year’s race for Republican senator in Texas “has everything,” including a “four-term U.S. senator trying to fend off a scandal-slicked attorney general” and “Big-money super PACs unloading cash like it’s an oil boom.”

They’re dumping considerable cash on incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, who’s raised nearly $4 million this quarter and has $8.5 million in cash on hand. Cornyn also has a super PAC with an additional $11 million haul “and a consultant team stacked with senior Trump advisers.”

But “the kicker,” says Gaar, is that despite all that cash, the incumbent is still trailing his controversial opponent Texas AG Ken Paxton by 15 points in the Texas primary.

READ MORE: 'You know Aileen Cannon?' Trump torched for 'judge-shopping' his WSJ suit to Florida

“That’s not a polling gap,” says Gaar. “That’s a canyon.”

Another plot twist that Gaar says is probably making Cornyn’s campaign staff “spit … coffee,” is the fact that those same polls showing Paxton with a lead in the primary also show he’s losing to a generic Democrat in the general election.”

“Meanwhile, Cornyn — establishment, suit-and-tie Cornyn — actually beats the Democrat by seven points,” Gaar said. “This has Republicans sweating through their solid gold Trump pins.”

“The problem is nobody with the necessary gravitas seems to be willing to state the obvious: this is shaping up to be a f—————— disaster,” one anonymous aide told Axios.

READ MORE: Media ignores 'crisis' as Trump slides further into 'cognitive decline': analysis

Gaar points out that Paxton is the same embattled Texas AG who was recently impeached by the Texas House on bribery and corruption charges and then acquitted by the GOP-dominated Texas Senate.

“And speaking of family values: Angela Paxton, Ken’s wife of 38 years and a state senator, just filed for divorce on “biblical grounds,” Gaar adds. “If you’re wondering what chapter and verse that comes from, it appears to be somewhere between ‘Thou shalt not embarrass me on national television’ and ‘Thou shalt not have a mistress during impeachment hearings.’”

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, is still holding off an endorsement in the primary.

Gaar notes Cornyn told NBC News: “I’ve talked to him about it a number of times. He is not ready to make that endorsement,” which to Gaar looks like “your state’s senior senator refreshing Trump’s texts like a teenager.”

READ MORE: Trump just made a big mistake — and he has no one to blame but himself

“So here we are,” writes Gaar. “A race that should’ve been a Republican layup has turned into a slow-motion implosion. Cornyn’s money might not matter if the base stays glued to Paxton, and Paxton might win a primary only to crash and burn in the general.”

Read the full Barbed Wire report at this link.

'Recent discoveries': Democrats may have new opportunity in deep-red state's Senate race

Texas State Senator Angela Paxton (R) announced on Thursday that she has officially filed for divorce from her husband, Texas Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Ken Paxton (R), citing “recent discoveries.”

In a post on the social platform X, she wrote: “Today, after 38 years of marriage, I filed for divorce on biblical grounds. I believe marriage is a sacred covenant and I have earnestly pursued reconciliation. But in light of recent discoveries, I do not believe that it honors God or is loving to myself, my children, or Ken to remain in the marriage.”

She continued with faith-driven reassurance.

READ MORE: 'Absolute cringe': Trump admin mocked after attacking CNN report— by confirming it

“I move forward with complete confidence that God is always working everything together for the good of those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose.”

Angela and Ken Paxton have been married since 1986 and have four children together.

The Texas Attorney General issued his own message, attributing the split to “countless political attacks and public scrutiny.”

He wrote on X: “After facing the pressures of countless political attacks and public scrutiny, Angela and I have decided to start a new chapter in our lives.”

READ MORE: The Supreme Court just chickened out — and left a mess in its wake

In his statement, he added that he’s immensely proud and thankful for the “incredible family that God has blessed us with,” and reaffirmed his dedication to their children and grandchildren. He also appealed for “prayers and privacy at this time.”

The development led to wide-ranging commentary on social media.

The Washington Post reporter Natalie Alison wrote X: "Ken Paxton's wife said she has filed for divorce on biblical grounds. The Bible cites two valid reasons: Adultery, or an unbelieving spouse leaving the marriage. (Her statement seems to indicate the former)."

Politico reporter Ben Jacobs wrote: "The tweet from Angela Paxton announcing her divorce certainly strikes a different tone than the tweet from Ken Paxton on the topic."

READ MORE: 'Those people are destroyed': Bill O'Reilly reveals what Trump told him about Epstein

Journalist Yashar Ali wrote: "Senator Angela Paxton, who is married to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, says she has filed for divorce. Attorney General Paxton has a history of infidelity."

Democratic strategist Joanna Rodriguez wrote: "What Ken Paxton has put his family through is truly repulsive and disgusting. No one should have to endure what Angela Paxton has, and we pray for her as she chooses to stand up for herself and her family during this difficult time."

"Democrats…you may have a chance to get the Texas Senate seat. HOLD THE LINE. Ken Paxton might be touchable," wrote a user.

Last month, the State of Texas submitted motions to dismiss the felony securities fraud charges against Paxton.

READ MORE: 'Scary thing': Trump has a 'very powerful' tool at his disposal to use against his enemies

More than a year ago, Paxton entered an agreement to pay nearly $300,000 in restitution, complete 100 hours of community service, and undergo ethics training, according to the Associated Press.

Special prosecutors confirmed in June that Paxton has met all the requirements of that deal.

In April, Paxton officially launched his campaign for the U.S. Senate for the 2026 election, joining the primary against incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

'Paxton has got to drop out': Internet erupts over details of MAGA AG's alleged affair

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) — a close ally of President Donald Trump – is now accused of having a sordid affair with a conservative Christian influencer, according to a new report.

The Daily Mail reported Friday that Paxton is accused of having secret trysts with 57 year-old Tracy Duhon, who is an author and mother of seven. Duhon — the former wife of Louisiana-based car dealership owner Troy Duhon — reportedly met Paxton at the 2024 Kentucky Derby, and both stayed at the home of a mutual friend during their visit to Louisville. Two months after the Derby, Duhon filed for divorce from her then-husband.

According to the Mail's unnamed sources, Paxton and Duhon took frequent trips together behind their spouses' backs, including to several overseas locations. The Mail reported that one inside source told the publication that Paxton was "enamored" with Duhon's "faith."

READ MORE: 'Total sociopath': Trump buried for abrupt pivot from Kirk murder to White House ballroom

The news of the affair comes just months after Paxton's former wife, Angela — a Republican member of the Texas State Senate — announced the end of their 38-year marriage in a tweet. While Angela Paxton didn't specifically mention an affair in her tweet, she said she was seeking a divorce "on Biblical grounds."

Social media users reacted strongly to the news of Paxton's alleged infidelity, with some suggesting the news could have a major impact on Texas' Republican U.S. Senate primary next year in which Paxton is aiming to unseat Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Cornyn is currently polling just six points ahead of Paxton according to a late August Texas Public Opinion Research poll. Paxton previously led in the polls prior to the news of his divorce.

Eric Michael Garcia, who is the Washington D.C. bureau chief at the Independent, suggested that the Mail's report was the result of Paxton "going full Thom Tillis." This may be a reference to the 2020 election in which a sex scandal sunk Democrat Cal Cunningham's hopes of unseating Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) Journalist and podcaster Karly Kingsley simply wrote: "This is exhausting."

Investment banker Evaristus Odinikaeze slammed the "pretentious sanctimony" of Texas Republicans as a whole, and opined that Paxton's push for redrawing Texas' congressional districts was done "in exchange for a future pardon" as well as "an emotional deflection from his infidelity and promiscuity." One X user responded to the Mail's report by tweeting:"Ok this guy could actually lose Texas," while another insisted the news meant that "Paxton has got to drop out."

READ MORE: 'Republican for Trump': Alleged Kirk shooter's grandmother confirms entire family is MAGA

Click here to read the Mail's full report (subscription required).

‘Massive warning sign’: Inside Trump’s new strategy to ‘intimidate' his enemies

Some political experts have voiced concern that President Donald Trump and his allies are “blatantly using the legal system to intimidate political opponents.” These concerns stem from the administration’s new strategy of targeting political foes through mortgage-fraud allegations.

According to a report published in The Guardian Sunday, political experts pointed out a “pattern of lawfare” that mirrors tactics characteristic of authoritarian governments in Hungary and Russia.

New York Attorney General Letitia James became the first target of this tactic, followed by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). And now it's Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who has been publicly pressured to resign — and even threatened with dismissal.

READ MORE: 'Not answering': Conservative scrambles as she can't cite proof of Obama’s 'political targets'

Cook, notably the first Black woman appointed to the Fed’s Board of Governors, was nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022 and holds a 14‑year term extending to 2038.


In a statement on the matter, Cook said that she has “no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet."

She added: “I do intend to take any questions about my financial history seriously as a member of the Federal Reserve and so I am gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts.”

The piece added that at the forefront of this strategy is Bill Pulte, a Trump‐appointed director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Pulte is said to have used his position to level extraordinary accusations, posting them on social media and urging legal scrutiny.

READ MORE: Trump is poised to break a 'half-century tradition': DC insider

He charges that James, Schiff, and Cook committed owner‑occupancy fraud, claiming that a secondary or investment property is their primary residence to secure better mortgage terms. In the case of Cook, he alleges she “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms,” and has forcefully called for her resignation or dismissal — even though the allegations remain unverified. James and Schiff have firmly rejected the claims. Don Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, told The Guardian, “The fact that the law is being selectively applied underlines that this is part of a pattern of lawfare.”


He added, “What we are seeing is the type of weaponization we associate with authoritarian regimes, like Hungary, Turkey or Russia. I would say that this is a massive warning sign, but the reality is that we have seen so many of these signs at this point.”

The report noted that these allegations aren’t confined to Democrats. An Associated Press investigation revealed that Republican Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General and Trump ally, alongside his then-wife, also labeled three homes as their primary residences. Paxton hasn’t addressed his own accusations but said of James: “I hope that if she’s done something wrong, I hope that she’s held accountable.”

The article also pointed out that owner‑occupancy fraud is not rare. Philadelphia Fed researchers estimated in 2023 that over 20,000 loans had been granted to “fraudulent investors” who claimed multiple primary residences within a single year.

This megadonor joined up with the GOP’s ultra-right wing — and he didn’t like what he saw

AMARILLO — In mid-September, Alex Fairly accepted an invitation to spend the day with one of the state’s richest and most powerful political megadonors.

He jumped in his private plane and flew down to meet Tim Dunn, a West Texas oil billionaire, at his political headquarters located outside of Fort Worth.

For five hours, Dunn and his advisers walked Fairly through the network of consulting, fundraising and campaign operations they have long used to boost Texas’ most conservative candidates, target those who they deem too centrist and incrementally push the Legislature toward their hardline views.

The two men talked about political philosophy and strategy. They discussed the Bible at length. Fairly was impressed, he said, if not surprised by the sheer magnitude of Dunn’s “political machine.”

“I think most people underestimate how substantial and how many pieces there are that fit together and how coordinated they are,” Fairly said in an interview with The Texas Tribune.

Dunn ended the tour with an ask: Would Fairly be willing to partner with him?

It was a stunning sign of how suddenly Fairly had emerged as a new power broker in Texas politics. Three years ago, few outside Amarillo had heard the name Alex Fairly. Now, the Panhandle businessman was being offered the chance to team up with one of the most feared and influential conservative figures at the Capitol.

Over the past year, Fairly had also poured millions into attempts to unseat GOP lawmakers deemed not conservative enough and install new hardliners. He sought to influence the race for House speaker and rolled out a $20 million political action committee that pledged to “expand a true Republican majority” in the House.

He had chosen a side in the raging civil war between establishment Republicans and far-right conservatives — and it was the same side as Dunn. Seemingly out of nowhere, he had become the state’s 10th largest single contributor for all 2024 legislative races, even when stacked against giving from PACs, according to an analysis by the Tribune.

But after mulling it over, Fairly turned down Dunn’s offer. It wasn’t the right time, he said.

And a few months later, Fairly began to question whether it would ever be the right time. Ahead of the 2025 legislative session — where his daughter Caroline would be serving her first term — Fairly dove deeper into the dramatic House leadership election, aiding efforts to push out old guard Republican leadership whom he believed were making deals with Democrats at the expense of conservative progress.

But the more he dug, the more he didn’t like what he saw: dishonest political ads, bigoted character assassinations and pressure campaigns threatening lawmakers over their votes. Fairly eventually realized much of what he thought he knew about Texas Republican politics was wrong.

He said he’d been misled by people in Dunn’s orbit to believe House Speaker Dustin Burrows was a secret liberal. Those misconceptions informed his efforts to try to block the Lubbock Republican from winning the gavel.

“I thought it was all true,” he said. “I didn’t know Burrows one bit. I just was kind of following along that he was the next bad guy. And it wasn’t until, frankly, other things happened after that that I started just asking my own questions, getting my own answers.”

As Fairly’s perspective shifted, he said he felt a moral obligation to correct course — and to try to get others, like Dunn, to change their behavior, too.

His political awakening could have seismic implications for Texas politics. Just last year, he seemed positioned as a second Dunn-like figure who could add pressure and funding to the effort to push the Legislature further right. Even now, he still supports many of those same candidates and concepts in principle. But he has come to condemn many of the methods used to achieve those goals by Dunn and his allies. Dunn did not respond to a request for an interview or written questions.

“When we spend time attacking each other and undermining each other in public and berating people's character — particularly if it has a slant that isn't completely honest and truthful — I think we are just eating each other,” Fairly said. “At some point you began to do more harm than you're doing good.”

An apolitical start

Fairly grew up in a middle-class family in Alamogordo, New Mexico, one of four siblings raised by public school teachers.

Today, Fairly, 61, said he’s just shy of being a billionaire — though he hates talking about his money and insists his children were not raised in a wealthy home. He built his fortune slowly over the course of a few decades through a career in insurance and risk management. He and his wife, Cheryl, have lived in the same two-story brick house for more than two decades.

As a child, Fairly and his family attended Church of Christ services three times a week. They were Christian legalists, he said, who viewed salvation as something achieved through a strict interpretation of Biblical rules. Still a devout Christian, Fairly said he no longer identifies with legalist teachings.

After high school, Fairly drove 311 miles east to the Panhandle where he attended West Texas A&M University in Canyon. He enrolled as a music major, playing the trombone, but later switched to computer science. There, he met Cheryl, a violin major who currently plays in the Amarillo symphony. After graduation, the two settled in Amarillo where they had five children.

After more than two decades climbing the insurance industry ladder, Fairly in 2016 started the Fairly Group, a risk management consulting firm with a client list that now includes the MLB, the NFL and Major League Soccer. From there, he’s spun off multiple successful health care companies.

With money came new opportunities for philanthropy and civic engagement. Two years ago, Fairly pledged $20 million to his alma mater to build an institute to promote traditional “Panhandle values,” centering faith, hard work and family.

“He does feel a burden for stewardship for the resources that he's blessed with,” said Walter Wendler, the president of West Texas A&M University who worked with Fairly on the institute.

But for most of his life, he wasn’t concerned with politics. Fairly didn’t register to vote in Texas until he was 37 years old. He didn’t vote in the 2016 presidential election, though he says he voted for President Donald Trump in 2020 and 2024.

He admits even now, he isn’t well versed on legislative process or the latest political news. He doesn’t consume much Texas media — his morning routine consists of waking up at 5:30 a.m. to read the Bible and the Wall Street Journal.

In recent years, Fairly started to throw his support behind politicians who aligned with his values.

One of the first big checks Fairly ever wrote to a candidate was in 2020 to support Republican Ronny Jackson’s first bid for Congress. Fairly and some other wealthy Amarilloans swooped in after the former White House doctor made it into a primary runoff against an establishment Republican backed by Amarillo’s business community.

Fairly funneled more than $300,000 into a PAC to support Jackson, who positioned himself as the more conservative firebrand candidate.

Jackson, now serving his third term in Congress, said he was grateful to Fairly for his support.

“Alex is not beholden to anyone. He's his own man,” Jackson told the Tribune. “Whenever he thinks it's appropriate to break ranks and support somebody else … he's not afraid to do it. He’s not fearful of what the repercussions might be.”

That attitude would drive Fairly’s decisions as he waded deeper into Texas politics.

Finding conservative allies

In 2022, Fairly sued the city of Amarillo to block plans to build a civic center. Taxpayers had voted the project down a few years earlier and he thought the city council’s decision to move forward circumvented voters’ desires. The city countersued, drawing Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office into the case as a neutral party. But at the trial, to Fairly’s surprise, Paxton’s office took his side. Fairly said he’d never spoken to Paxton before the lawsuit, but eventually donated $100,000 because he wanted to support an elected official for “having the courage to stand up for normal people.”

Fairly would stick with Paxton the following year when the state House impeached him on 20 charges of corruption and imperiled his scandal-prone career. Fairly gave Paxton $100,000 on the first day of his impeachment trial, and then another $100,000 a couple months after he was acquitted.

By then, Fairly was aligning with other hardline Republicans. In 2022, he gave $250,000 to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the Senate’s conservative standard bearer, because of his faith.

In spring 2023, Fairly started giving to Dunn’s Defend Texas Liberty PAC — one of the top donors to both Paxton and Patrick, and an aggressive contributor in Republican primary campaigns to oust sitting members targeted for not being conservative enough. A political consultant had advised Fairly to use Defend Texas Liberty to run ads in local Amarillo city council races, he said. He also gave to the PAC to support Paxton’s impeachment defense.

“I didn't know who they were. I hadn’t heard of them. I was, frankly, way more naive then. I wouldn't have even thought to check,” he said.

This was Fairly’s entry into Dunn’s constellation of political operations that have played a major role in moving Texas further to the right in the decade and a half since the Tea Party movement burst onto the scene. Those organizations include his PAC, which donates to far-right candidates; an affiliated conservative media outlet, Texas Scorecard; and other policy groups he’s funded over the years that promote anti-tax, anti-immigrant, and anti-LGBTQ+ positions, often using incendiary rhetoric. Last year, for instance, a group connected to Dunn mailed voters' primary attack ads insinuating that a group of Republican House members who had voted to commemorate Muslim holidays had approved of Sharia law in Texas.

These groups advocate for Christianity in public spaces, and have pushed for policies including allowing prayer in public schools. Dunn is a central player in the Christian nationalist movement, which believes the United States was founded as a Christian nation and its laws should reflect certain Christian values. Fairly, for his part, says he is devout Christian but breaks with Dunn over his views on religion and government.

By September 2023, Fairly had given Defend Texas Liberty $222,000 in donations.

Then, in October, a reporter and a photographer for the Tribune witnessed the infamous white supremacist Nick Fuentes walking into the PAC’s headquarters for a visit that lasted more than six hours. The meeting drew attention to several other racists and antisemitic figures connected to the PAC and other Dunn operations. For example, the PAC’s treasurer posted on social media that Jews and Muslims worship a “false god.”

Dunn, in a rare public statement issued through the lieutenant governor, called the Fuentes meeting “a serious blunder.” Afterward, Dunn shuttered Defend Texas Liberty and launched a new PAC called Texans United for a Conservative Majority.

Fairly said he thought the Fuentes meeting, which occurred after he donated to Defend Texas Liberty, was “utterly unacceptable” and it was a learning lesson for him to pay closer attention to where he sends his money.

A detente with Phelan

In early July, then-House Speaker Dade Phelan received an unexpected text message. Fairly wanted to meet.

Phelan, R-Beaumont, had just won his primary runoff race. It had been an ugly, expensive election and Fairly was one of the top backers of his challenger David Covey.

Over the past year, Phelan had become the face of the establishment conservatives in the Texas House whom critics had labeled as RINOs, or Republicans in name only — even after he oversaw two of the most conservative Legislative sessions in recent memory. He was blamed for the House’s inability last session to pass a private school voucher program — one of Gov. Greg Abbott’s top priorities and Fairly’s, too. Phelan also refused to bend to conservatives who wanted to end a tradition of appointing both Democrats and Republicans to chair House committees.

But Phelan’s greatest sin, according to his detractors, was that he presided over the House in 2023 when it impeached Paxton, who they saw as a conservative hero being politically persecuted.

In early 2024, Fairly decided to put his muscle behind ousting Phelan from office, writing a check for $200,000 to Covey.

Fairly also became a major contributor to other House Republican primary candidates running on being pro-school voucher, pro-Paxton, anti-Democrat and oftentimes anti-Phelan.

In total, Fairly spent at least $2.24 million in 2024 on 20 GOP legislative candidates.

When Covey pushed Phelan into a runoff, Fairly dumped an additional half a million dollars into the race, pouring a total of $700,000 into a district nearly 650 miles away from Amarillo.

Phelan held on to his seat by 389 votes. The night of the May runoff election, he criticized the dishonest campaigns against him “from Pennsylvania guys and West Texas against me,” referencing attacks funded by billionaires Jeff Yass, a national voucher advocate, and Dunn.

In early August, Fairly flew his plane down to meet Phelan in his Beaumont office.

This was not a peace offering. If Phelan was going to be the next speaker, Fairly wanted to convince him to run the House differently.

The mood was tense. Fairly suggested that Phelan’s management of the House contributed to the divisive atmosphere and that “Republicans would get along so much better if there was someone with more of a tight-fisted way of leading the chamber,” Phelan recalled in an interview.

Phelan told Fairly he’d been naive. He explained the House was just different; it’s the Wild West and it’s impossible to manage 150 members with an iron fist.

In the course of the conversation, Phelan pointed to a picture of his children on his desk and shared with Fairly what they had experienced watching their father endure a deceptive war on his reputation, including mailers that called Phelan a communist, commercials that said he took money from an LGBTQ+ group that “celebrated trans visibility day on Easter Sunday” and mailers that falsely claimed Phelan, a Christian, wished to celebrate Ramadan instead of Christmas.

“You paid for all of that,” Phelan said he told Fairly.

Many of the ads were paid for by groups that Fairly didn’t fund, but he was remorseful nonetheless.

“I didn’t care if I had [paid for] 5% of it or 50% of it,” Fairly said. “I said, ‘if I had a role in that, I apologize.’”

They left the meeting cordially, but not as friends.

Looking back, Fairly said a seed was planted that day.

“That was the first person that said [to me], ‘Hey, dude, this is just not as simple as you think,’” Fairly said.

Fairly launches a PAC

With election season behind them, lawmakers were steeling themselves for the next big battle: the race for House speaker — leader of the lower chamber who plays a key role in what bills are passed.

Fairly, too, was ready to make his mark. Even after his visit with Phelan, Fairly had no intention of supporting him.

Throughout the summer and early fall, Fairly would continue to watch House veterans and incoming freshmen sling mud over the speaker’s race. He concluded that he wanted a speaker who was elected by a majority of Republican House members. And he didn’t want the speaker to make deals with Democrats that would weaken their ability to achieve conservative goals.

In December, Rep. David Cook, R-Mansfield, emerged as the candidate of the anti-Phelan flank. And with Phelan’s supporters facing intense political pressure, the speaker dropped out of the race.

Fairly was feeling hopeful that the party would rally around Cook. But soon after, Burrows, one of Phelan’s closest lieutenants, declared he was running. The next day, the House GOP Caucus held a meeting to select the party’s choice for the gavel. Burrows and Phelan loyalists walked out in protest of the process. Cook won the caucus vote. Burrows called a press conference and claimed he had the votes to win, with an even split between Republicans and Democrats backing him.

“I saw this thing devolving into chaos again, and I was focused on Republicans being together,” Fairly said.

The campaigning continued without a clear winner. Typically an inside baseball process, the speaker’s race was framed to voters as a conservative litmus test for House members. State officials including Paxton and outside groups launched intense pressure campaigns to convince Burrows’s supporters to switch their vote to Cook. Lawmakers’ personal cell phones were aired publicly in ads accusing those supporting Burrows of party disloyalty.

As the bruising fight reached an apex, Fairly launched a PAC called the Texas Republican Leadership Fund with a staggering initial donation of $20 million.

In the announcement, Fairly said Republicans need to reject the small group of Republicans who teamed up with Democrats to cut a “joint governing agreement” and come together to elect a speaker. Just like Dunn, Fairly would use his money to threaten Republicans to get in line.

“I thought that we would probably need to do some primary-ing of people,” he said of his plans for the PAC. “It wasn't so much a PAC as it was an amount of money that … members would need to pay attention to.”

“I cannot be that”

In December, with the House speaker race still undecided, Cook asked Fairly for a favor: Meet with incoming freshman John McQueeney of Fort Worth and convince him to switch his vote for speaker away from Burrows.

At this point, Fairly was invested in Cook’s success. He was talking to Cook often and had sent him $50,000.

McQueeney was surprised to get a call from Fairly — who had bankrolled his primary opponent to the tune of $100,000.

“Why me?” McQueeney remembered thinking.

Hostility in the speaker race was bubbling over. Members like McQueeney were under fire, as mailers and text messages were flooding their districts, leading to a nonstop barrage of angry calls from voters.

Six days before Christmas, the two men met in a private airport terminal conference room in Fort Worth.

Fairly said that he imagined McQueeney was under a ton of pressure, and yet “you don’t seem to be wavering,” McQueeney recalled. Fairly wanted to know why.

McQueeney respected Burrows and Cook, but felt Burrows had a more conservative voting record and more experience as a leader in the House.

He told Fairly he did not believe Burrows had made any deals with Democrats, but Fairly wasn’t buying it.

Then, McQueeney showed Fairly the dozens of text messages, calls and voicemails he received each time an attack blast that included his cell phone number was deployed in his district.

While they were meeting, another text message had just gone out. It accused the incoming freshman of cutting a deal to elect “liberal” speaker Dustin Burrows. The angry calls were starting to roll in.

Sitting across from McQueeney, Fairly said he didn’t feel the attacks on McQueeney were honest. Yet he knew where they were coming from.

“Most of that operation that was run to come after McQueeney was put together by Tim [Dunn]'s organizations. It was choreographed by them,” Fairly said.

As Fairly flew himself back to Amarillo, he thought about the PAC he launched days earlier and the “in your face, hammering” tone of his announcement that he would primary people who he disagreed with.

“I went home thinking, I cannot be that. I'm not going to use my money to do that,” he said. “It became this moral and ethical thing for me. … I can't do with the PAC what I was planning to do.”

Caroline’s crossroads

As Fairly was having second thoughts about his role in the speaker race, so was his daughter — who was days from being sworn in for her first term as a state lawmaker.

Rep. Caroline Fairly, a 26-year-old freshman, had publicly aligned with Cook, but she said she never felt like she had a real choice: Picking Burrows would have branded her a RINO.

Burrows did not respond to an interview request.

“I'm going along, I'm a conservative. You know, I ran to ban [Democratic committee] chairs, and this is the option I have,” Caroline recalled in April, sitting in her new Capitol office. “I had been fed, frankly, that the people on the other side are just not good people.”

She liked Cook and respected his conservative bonafides. But she was bewildered by the accusations that Burrows was a liberal sell out. Burrows, after all, had a conservative record. He was the author of last session’s “Death Star bill," that sapped local government power, particularly in blue cities where progressive policies were being passed.

“That's where I started thinking, wait, hold on. This doesn't seem right to me. I met with Dustin Burrows. He's a logical conservative, an impressive guy,” Caroline said.

She took notice that Cook was also publicly courting Democrats, promising them in an open letter “an equal voice in shaping policy.” She felt it was hypocritical to criticize Burrows while Cook was doing the same thing. Cook, reached for comment, said he was "not interested in rehashing the past."

But Caroline, the youngest member of the Legislature was under tremendous pressure and scrutiny. She came into office with little experience in public service, in the shadow of her wealthy father who was the top funder of her campaign — and whose aggressive spending in other House races laid out expectations for what her alliances would be.

When the Amarillo House seat in her district came open in 2023, a political operative close to Abbott called Fairly and asked if one of his sons would be interested in running.

Fairly suggested his youngest daughter might be a better candidate. She cares about people and the issues, and she’s a tough negotiator, he said.

Fairly broached the opportunity with Caroline, but refused to weigh in until she had made a choice.

“He told me, ‘This is your decision, and I don't want to have any sway or impact in it,’” Caroline said. “And by golly, he held that.”

Still, Caroline is hyper-aware of the perception surrounding her father’s political giving and her campaign. He eventually gave her half a million dollars throughout her campaign, more than 40% of her total money raised.

“I don't love it, mainly because I don't want people to think I'm entitled to something because of money or because of connections,” she said of the optics.

After winning office, Caroline knew she would have to work to earn the respect of her colleagues and distinguish her own political path.

To change sides in the speaker’s race — before she’d even been sworn into office — would invite criticism about her conservatism, her loyalty, her experience and her father.

The speaker vote

A few days before the start of the session, the elder Fairly made up his mind. He was going to reverse course on his threat to use his PAC to pressure members to vote for Cook.

First, he called Cook, who he said was gracious. Then, four days before the speaker election, Fairly released his second public announcement about the PAC. He indicated he’d no longer seek to punish candidates for their speaker vote, essentially granting them his blessing to vote for Burrows.

“The vote for Speaker belongs to the members,” Fairly wrote in his statement.

But Fairly’s move complicated things for Caroline, who was still struggling with her own decision.

If she switched alongside her father, it would fuel the accusations that he was controlling her seat.

“I want to vote for Burrows, but I can't change the optics,” she remembered thinking. “I’m with Cook. I've committed to Cook. He is my guy.”

The night before the speaker’s race, Caroline joined a call of Cook supporters where they walked through how they expected the voting rounds to go before Cook received enough votes to win.

But when Caroline woke up the next morning, she realized she couldn’t stick with them.

“When I take away the pressure, when I take the outside influence away, and what will people think about me, or will someone primary me, and I look at just the two guys: Who would I vote for?” Caroline said. “It was Dustin Burrows.”

Caroline was worried about political blowback fueled by Dunn’s allies and network. But she also recognized that because of her father and his resources, she was perhaps the member best positioned to be brave. It felt incumbent on her to take a stand for other lawmakers who she believed didn’t feel like they had the freedom to vote as they wished.

“That was part of the conviction, too,” she said. “I have some protection, and these people need to break free of this. Like, this is ridiculous.”

She released her statement a few hours before the vote.

“This vote has brought an extraordinary amount of outside pressure, with threats aimed at those who don’t support Mr. Cook,” Caroline wrote in her announcement. “While wealthy outsiders have the right to operate like this, I won’t start my tenure as your representative capitulating to outside pressures to place a vote I disagree with.”

Caroline was one of two House members who switched their vote to Burrows at the last minute.

Burrows was elected House speaker with support from 49 Democrats and 36 Republicans.

An appeal to Dunn

By the conclusion of the speaker vote, Alex Fairly’s entire view of Texas politics had shifted. The experience taught him that wealthy donors had a responsibility, a moral obligation, to tread cautiously.

“We have the ability to essentially begin to control people — either their vote or their position — because we have enough money to overwhelm a district House race,” Fairly said. “I think we have to be so careful that we have the discipline to be careful about how we go about that.”

So he went back to Dunn.

Over the next few months, Fairly said he and Dunn spoke over the phone and in person several times. Fairly tried to appeal to Dunn to dial back his network’s smear tactics and called on Dunn’s allies to support Burrows now that he was the leader of the House.

“We should coalesce around a productive way to support conservative things happening and not spend our time trying to catch [Burrows] not being conservative,” Fairly said he told Dunn.

He laid out for Dunn what he had witnessed over the past few months, including what had happened to Republican members who received the brunt of the attacks, and how it informed his changed perspective. He tried to appeal to Dunn’s faith.

Fairly declined to share specifics of how Dunn responded. Dunn did not respond to interview requests or a list of emailed questions.

Fairly said the conversations were candid and there were moments of disagreement.

“Ultimately, I think the machine is set in its ways, and it'll go forward like it goes forward,” Fairly said. “But I have to give credit where credit's due: that he sat and had a super, super honest, candid conversation.”

Sometime after Fairly made his appeal to Dunn, Rep. Mano DeAyala, R-Houston, heard from one of Dunn’s top political operatives, Luke Macias.

DeAyala described the meeting as a gesture to mend fences after being on the receiving end of dirty primary attack ads connected to Dunn’s group.

DeAyala had previously shared his negative primary experience with Fairly — including an anti-Muslim mailer that insinuated DeAyala had voted to bring Sharia law to Texas.

“I informed [Fairly] of that as an example of how disappointed many of us have become that we are seeing those within the party bear false witness against others,” DeAyala said.

The meeting with Macias didn’t wipe the slate clean, DeAyala said, but it was humanizing. Macias didn’t respond to requests for an interview.

“I’m not saying that we’re best buds, but we’re certainly more familiar with each other and when you’re familiar with somebody it’s harder to throw daggers,” he said. “That never would have happened without Alex.”

A primary threat reemerges

Fairly doesn’t know what he’s going to do with his PAC. As of last week, he said the $20 million is still sitting in an account.

“I know more about what the PAC isn't going to do than what the PAC is going to do,” he said. “Not that the PAC won't be involved in any primaries, but its purpose isn't going to be to primary people who voted some certain way that I disagree with on some issue.”

But he does know he doesn’t want to be the state’s next Tim Dunn.

“Tim was much further along and much more sophisticated politically than I was, or am, or probably ever want to be,” Fairly said.

He doesn’t want to be the anti-Tim Dunn, either. He turned down Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a major backer of establishment Republicans, who Fairly said has also asked to join forces.

“Everyone puts people in a camp, and because I don't really just fit in one, it feels it doesn't make that much sense to people,” Fairly said. “That's just who I am, and I think I'm really comfortable with it.”

As he recalibrates his politics, he is still holding on to some hardliner allies. Despite Paxton’s close allegiance to Dunn and his involvement as ringleader in the primary and House speaker races, Fairly has already donated to his U.S. Senate campaign challenging Sen. John Cornyn.

In a statement to the Tribune, Paxton called Fairly a “principled leader,” and applauded his “courage and conviction to stand up for what is right.”

At the same time, Fairly is warming up to Burrows.

“I think he's doing great. I'm very optimistic. I have way less doubts," Fairly said of Burrows, adding that he’s reserving final judgment for the end of the session.

Yet in late April, Fairly was miffed when he received a mass text from the chair of the Republican Party of Texas, threatening to run a primary opponent against members who did not vote to pass all the remaining bills related to the state party’s priorities.

“The Texas House is failing us, stalling on the Republican priorities YOU voted for,” the text read. “We will not tolerate cowardice or betrayal.”

Fairly called RPT Chair Abraham George and told him that broadly threatening members was unproductive.

He accused the state party of being owned by the Dunn operation, and acting as its mouth piece. The Republican Party of Texas has increasingly relied on funding from PACs funded by Dunn.

“[Dunn’s network] is the place where you can get money, whether it's their money or their friends' money,” Fairly said he told George. “But … the thing that you live on is choking the life out of you.”

George did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But shortly after Fairly said he and George ended their call, George posted on social media: “One text campaign and suddenly I'm getting calls from legislators and donors telling me to back off primaries. ... We will not!”

Exhausted by George’s continued threats against Republicans, Fairly offered one of his own.

“I'm weary of this method of trying to get what we want,” Fairly said he told George. “You’re someone who’s probably trying to get something done that I probably agree with. If this is how we're going to manage people … I may use my money to help balance this out.”

Disclosure: Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Texas A&M University and West Texas A&M University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Keep reading... Show less

Republicans call for spiritual warfare at Texas GOP convention,

"At Texas GOP convention, Republicans call for spiritual warfare" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Keep reading... Show less

Explosive report reveals right-wing tactic used to influence red state's schools

In 2019, the Keller Independent School District in North Texas looked a lot like its counterpart just 30 miles to the east in the Dallas suburb of Richardson. Each served about 35,000 children and had experienced sharp increases in the racial diversity of students in recent decades. Each was run by a school board that was almost entirely white.

In the five years since, the districts have followed strikingly divergent paths as culture war battles over how to teach race and gender exploded across the state.

In Keller, candidates backed by groups seeking to limit the teaching of race and gender took control of the school board and immediately passed sweeping policies that gave outsized power to any individual who wanted to prevent the purchase of books they believed to be unsuitable for children.

Though more than half of Keller’s students are from racially diverse backgrounds, the district in 2023 nixed a plan to buy copies of a biography of Black poet Amanda Gorman after a teacher at a religious private school who had no children in the district complained about this passage: “Amanda realized that all the books she had read before were written by white men. Discovering a book written by people who look like her helped Amanda find her own voice.” The passage, the woman wrote, “makes it sound like it’s okay to judge a book by the authors skin color rather than the content of the book.”

Board members at the Richardson school district went in the opposite direction, even as they contended with similar pressure from groups aiming to rid the district of any materials that they claimed pushed critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that discusses systemic racism. The school board did not ban library books but instead allowed parents to limit their own children’s access to them, keeping them available for other students.

One major difference contributed to the districts’ divergence: the makeup of their school boards.

The way communities elect school board members plays a key, if often overlooked, role in whether racially diverse districts like Keller and Richardson experience takeovers by ideologically driven conservatives seeking to exert greater influence over what children learn in public schools, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found. Since the pandemic, such groups have successfully leveraged the state’s long-standing and predominantly at-large method of electing candidates to flip school boards in their direction.

Most of Texas’ 1,000 school districts use an at-large method, where voters can cast ballots for all candidates. Supporters say that allows for broader representation for students, but voting rights advocates argue that such systems dilute the power of voters of color. If board members are elected districtwide, there tends to be less diversity, according to research, which also shows that if they are elected by smaller geographic zones, candidates of color often have more success.

“What you’re seeing happening in Texas is how at-large districts make it easy for somebody to come in, usually from the outside, and hijack the process and essentially buy a board,” said Michael Li, senior counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit public policy institute that champions small-donor campaign financing. “Because of this conflux of factors — at-large elections and large amounts of outside money — it just sort of defeats the idea of representative democracy.”

ProPublica and the Tribune examined 14 rapidly diversifying suburban school districts where children from diverse backgrounds now make up more than half of the student population. In the six districts that used at-large voting systems, well-funded and culture-war-driven movements successfully helped elect school board members who have moved aggressively to ban or remove educational materials that teach children about diversity, even in districts where a majority of children are not white. Nearly 70% of board members in such districts live in areas that are whiter than their district’s population.

Eight nearby school systems with similar demographics employ single-member voting systems to elect school board candidates. Under the single-member system, voters within certain boundaries elect a board member who specifically represents their area. Candidates in those districts received less campaign support from ideologically driven political action committees, and none of the districts experienced school board takeovers fueled by culture war issues.

About 150 Texas school districts have transitioned to a single-member system since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is intended to prevent voter discrimination and has brought greater racial representation to local governments. Richardson joined that list in 2019 after a former Black board member sued the district.

Such legal challenges, however, could soon become more difficult. In one of his first acts in office, President Donald Trump froze civil rights litigation against school districts accused of discriminating against minority groups, and many legal experts believe that under his administration, federal prosecutors will refuse to bring challenges against at-large systems. DOJ officials did not respond to questions from the news organizations.

Trump, a staunch critic of diversity and inclusion programs, has threatened to cut federal funding to schools that he says are pushing “inappropriate racial, sexual or political content onto the shoulders of our children.”

Districts whose boards oppose sweeping efforts to restrict curriculum and books related to race and racism face even more headwinds in Texas. In January, Gov. Greg Abbott vowed to ban diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools, a move that would expand the state’s existing ban on college campuses. And Texas lawmakers continue to target the books students can access. One bill, authored by North Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, the wife of Attorney General Ken Paxton, would require every district in the state to follow a version of Keller’s library book purchase policy.

The president of the Keller board, Charles Randklev, did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and the district did not answer written questions. District officials have previously said that the board represents all students, not just those in a specific neighborhood or area.

But Laney Hawes, the parent of four students in the district and an outspoken critic of the school board, said the policy on library purchases spawned a backdoor channel to banning materials about race. That, she said, has deprived her children of reading books about Americans like Gorman that provide points of view they might not find otherwise.

“They have created a system that allows anyone in the community to complain about any book for any reason, and now that book is not on library shelves,” said Hawes, who is white. She added that the book does not contain any sexually explicit material and was strictly targeted because it dealt with race.

“They just hate the racial undertones.”

“Up Against a Machine”

School districts across Texas have drawn considerable attention for removing books from their shelves, but board members in Keller went further when they passed a policy in August 2022 that, in practice, allowed community members to block proposed purchases.

Students spoke out against the district’s removal policies during a board meeting months later, pleading for access to books about race. One biracial student, who has since graduated, told the board that books about characters from different racial backgrounds helped her feel more accepted.

“All kids deserve to see themselves in literature,” the student said. “Racial minorities being written into a story does not instantly equate the book to being propaganda. Having books that mirror the experience of race is not pushing an agenda. It's simply documenting the hardships that consistently happen to most students of color that they’re able to relate to. Concealing ideas just because they tell an uncomfortable truth is not protecting your children.”

The students’ pleas didn’t sway the board, and by July 2023, challenges to such books began pouring in.

One person opposed the purchase of “Jim Crow: Segregation and the Legacy of Slavery.” The person, who did not provide their name, pointed to a photo of a young girl participating in a Black Lives Matter protest with the caption: “Just as in the past, people continue fighting for change.” They also took issue with this quote: “You can’t ‘get over’ something that is still happening. Which is why black Americans can’t ‘get over’ slavery or Jim Crow.”

The photo and the quotes, the book challenger said, were “potentially CRT,” showed the Black Lives Matter Movement in “a positive light” and claimed “oppression is still happening.”

Another person challenged the planned purchase of “Our Skin: A First Conversation About Race,” saying that the book started “beautifully,” but that “unfortunately tenets of CRT, social justice, and anti-white activism are portrayed.” The person, who used a pseudonym, did not offer specifics.

Administrators removed those books, the Gorman biography and 26 others from the purchase list after receiving the complaints, according to district officials. Librarians can reinstate books on future lists, but 75% of those flagged for further review never made it to the shelves, an online search of district libraries shows. That includes the three books about race.

Hawes, who heads two PTA groups at her children’s schools, said book challenges and complaints have come from allies of school board members. In 2022, Patriot Mobile Action, a North Texas Christian nationalist PAC funded by a cellphone company, spent more than $115,000 supporting three ideologically driven conservatives running for control of the school board.

Leigh Wambsganss, Patriot Mobile’s spokesperson and executive director of the PAC, declined to comment but said in a 2022 podcast that the PAC chose candidates based on their Christian conservative views and sought out those who “absolutely would stand against critical race theory.” Patriot Mobile supported eight candidates in three other North Texas districts that used at-large voting during the same election cycle. All of them won their races.

“We weren’t prepared for what was coming,” Hawes said. “We were literally up against a machine.”

Another PAC, KISD Family Alliance, spent $50,000 to help elect the same Keller school board candidates. Its donors included conservative activist Monty Bennett, who previously told the Tribune that he believes schools have been taken over by ideologues “pushing their outlandish agendas.” Neither Bennett nor the PAC’s treasurer responded to requests for comment.

The slate of Keller candidates, whose combined campaign war chests dwarfed that of their opponents’ by a more than 4 to 1 margin, focused their agendas squarely on culture war issues related to library books and curriculum.

“While I have many priorities I want to focus on, if concerns over child safety, and sexualization and politicization of children make me a one-issue candidate, so be it. I will be a one-issue candidate all day long,” Joni Shaw Smith wrote on her campaign website. Smith, who is now a board member, declined to comment.

Her election contributed to what would become a sweep of the seven seats on the board. Five of those seats are held by board members who live in the city of Keller, where three-quarters of residents are white and the median household income of more than $160,000 is among the highest in the state.

Most of the Keller district’s 42 schools, however, are located in the more diverse neighborhoods of Fort Worth.

A Different Approach

Thirty miles away, the makeup of Richardson’s school board changed dramatically after the district settled a lawsuit filed in 2018 by David Tyson Jr. He argued that the continued use of at-large voting to select candidates was a “relic of the district’s segregated past.”

Tyson became the district’s first Black board member when he was elected in 2004. After he retired in 2010, he watched with growing consternation as no candidates from diverse backgrounds followed in his footsteps, even though students of color accounted for nearly 70% of the district’s population.

Frustrated, Tyson sued Richardson, challenging its system for electing candidates under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He and Richardson officials settled the lawsuit in 2019, and the district converted primarily to a system in which candidates needed to live within specific boundaries and receive a majority of votes from residents who also lived within those boundaries to be elected.

As ideologically driven candidates swept Keller school board elections, similar efforts played out differently in Richardson. In 2022, two candidates supported by groups seeking to limit instruction and library books that deal with race and gender ran against two candidates of color with differing views. A local PAC that accused the district of teaching “CRT nonsense” in a mailer hired the same Republican campaign consulting firm that was working in support of the Keller candidates.

Despite being outspent 2-to-1, the candidates of color won their elections. Their wins gave Richardson four board members of diverse backgrounds, a remarkable evolution from an all-white board just three years earlier. And, as nearby districts began mass removals of library books dealing with race and gender, the Richardson school board embraced an “opt-out” process to give concerned parents control over their children’s reading “without impacting the choices of other families who may have different values, wishes or expectations.” Opponents say opt-out systems do not go far enough in protecting students from materials they deem objectionable.

“Single-member districts benefited us in making sure our school board maintains the diversity, and diversity of thought, we have, and not just fall into those culture wars,” said Vanessa Pacheco, one of the board members who won.

Pacheco said not being consumed by such fights allowed the board to focus on “real stuff” like dual-language classes for elementary students, expanding pre-K opportunities and scheduling school events for parents in the evenings and on weekends to account for working families.

So striking was the district’s atmosphere following the 2022 election that a Dallas Morning News commentary dubbed Richardson a “no-drama district” in a sea of school boards consumed by fights over race and gender.

Tyson, whose lawsuit set the stage for the Richardson school board’s dramatic transformation, said that the shift in voting methods has accomplished what he had hoped for.

“The goal was to get representation,” he said. “We’re a majority-minority school district, and so we need to have a majority-minority representation on the school board.”

“Now or Never”

Hawes watched as voters down the road in Richardson rejected candidates seeking to limit what the district’s diverse student body could read and learn. She watched as the board itself grew increasingly diverse. And she watched with a touch of envy as the district embraced the idea that parents and community members who opposed certain books should not make decisions for every child in the district.

With Richardson as their north star, Hawes and a growing number of concerned parents began discussing ways to force the Keller school district to adopt what they believed was a more representative voting system. It wasn’t just a question of race for Hawes. It was also about geographic diversity. Board members who live in the city of Keller hold a majority, even though less than a third of students in the district attend schools there.

So last year, Hawes and other concerned parents met with law firms and the NAACP and began planning a petition drive that would require the board to hold an election to do away with at-large voting. Members planned to meet in January to finalize a strategy.

Then, in mid-January, the Keller school board shocked many in the community by proposing to split the district in two, separating the whiter, more affluent city of Keller to the east from the neighborhoods of northern Fort Worth, which are home to the majority of the district’s students, including many who are low income. Like many districts in the state, Keller faces a massive budget shortfall.

Randklev, the board president, defended the split as financially beneficial for both districts in a Facebook post last month. He also wrote that “neighboring school districts have been forced into single-member districts, and that’s a no-win situation regardless of where you live.” He did not explain his position but said the proposed split “could provide programming opportunities that best reflect local community goals and values and foster greater parent and community involvement.”

But many parents, including Dixie Davis, who previously ran unsuccessfully for the board, said the proposed change would leave the vast majority of the district’s low-income student population, and most of its students of color, with uncertain access to facilities like an advanced learning center and the district’s swimming complex.

On Friday, board members abandoned plans to divide the school district in two, citing the cost of restructuring the district’s debt. But their push to split the district has further energized efforts by some parents to do away with at-large voting. Brewer Storefront, the same law firm that fought to change the voting system in Richardson, has filed a similar legal challenge in federal court against Keller and concerned parents have launched a petition drive to force the district to vote on its at-large system. The district has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit and did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

“With the momentum and uproar around this proposed district split, it's now or never to get this done,” Davis said. “It'll be a huge uphill battle, but this is our best shot.”

Lexi Churchill, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, and Jessica Priest, The Texas Tribune, contributed research.

Ken Paxton’s TX state senator wife voted against being barred from voting in husband’s impeachment trial

Texas State Senator Angela Paxton voted against a resolution to bar spouses of people on trial for impeachment. Her husband, the suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, is scheduled for an impeachment trial on September 5.

Wednesday night, the Texas Senate voted 25-3 on rules for the upcoming trial that would keep the “spouse of a party to the court of impeachment” from voting or participating in deliberations in the impeachment trial. The rules call this a conflict of interest, citing Article III, Section 22, of the state’s constitution. Prior to the vote, Angela Paxton planned to participate in her husband’s trial, saying “my constituents deserve it,” according to The Houston Chronicle.

Though she can’t participate, she still plans to be present for the trial, the Chronicle reports. However, the included rules also say that a witness can’t hear other witnesses’ testimony; it is unknown whether or not Angela Paxton will be called upon to testify in the trial. Otherwise, the rules are much the same as those for other impeachment trials, according to the Chronicle.

READ MORE: Texas AG Ken Paxton’s office “dysfunctional” with child porn and shady political dealings

To be removed, two-thirds of the Senate, or 21 senators, will have to vote to convict Ken Paxton. The 31-member Senate is comprised of 12 Democrats and 19 Republicans. The required count has not been adjusted with Paxton being unable to vote; she will instead be counted as “present.” Despite Angela Paxton being barred from voting, her husband is still supported by many senators, according to the Associated Press.

Ken Paxton was suspended from his role as Texas Attorney General on May 27, when the Republican-controlled Texas House voted to impeach. Ken Paxton faces 20 articles of impeachment, however, four of those articles are not included in the September 5 trial. The Senate may choose to take those specific articles up in a later trial. The four articles involve criminal security cases that are currently pending, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

Many of the other allegations against Ken Paxton involve using the Attorney General’s office to help campaign donor Nate Paul, a real estate investor, according to the Texas Tribune. Paul was being investigated by the FBI on suspicion of fraud. Ken Paxton is accused of hiring another lawyer outside the Attorney General’s office to investigate on behalf of Paul over claims of altered search warrants. When the state’s investigators found no evidence to support Paul’s allegations, Ken Paxton refused to close the case and hired an outside lawyer to keep the investigation going. When the FBI found out, they were able to convince the judge to quash the subpoenas issued by the outside lawyer.

READ MORE: Listen: Uvalde School Massacre Was God’s Plan Says Texas AG Ken Paxton – ‘Life Is Short’

Ken Paxton is also accused of overriding his office’s previous decision to deny Paul’s lawyers copies of affidavits that would have shown unredacted information about why the search warrants were requested by law enforcement. Though he pressured one of his deputies to release the information to Paul’s lawyers, he was unsuccessful, the Tribune reported.

In addition, he told his office to intervene in a lawsuit against Paul from the Mitte Foundation, a nonprofit that had invested in Paul’s properties. Whistleblowers said that Ken Paxton’s intervention was “for the purpose of exerting pressure on the Mitte Foundation to settle on terms favorable to Nate Paul.”

Paul is also said to have asked Paxton to intervene in a public foreclosure case during the COVID-19 pandemic. A legal opinion initially said that it was fine for the foreclosure sales to go ahead as they did not violate COVID protocols. Despite being outspoken about keeping businesses open during the pandemic, Paxton allegedly had the opinion reworked to say that the sales were not allowed, as in-person gatherings were limited to 10 people at the time, the Tribune reported.

This Trump trick should have doomed the GOP long ago

Trump is an illegitimate president, but he’s not the first. The last Republican who was elected president without fraud or naked treason was Dwight D. Eisenhower. And it’s damn well past time that Democrats started telling the story.

But let’s start with Trump, and then go to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush.

The investigative reporter Greg Palast recently did the math, and it’s now irrefutable: the only reason Trump is in the White House is because over 4 million Americans were either denied their right to vote or their votes were discarded.

The US Elections Assistance Commission data tells the damning story: a staggering 4.7 million voters were wrongfully purged from voter rolls before the election. By August 2024, self-proclaimed “vigilante” vote fraud hunters had challenged the eligibility of 317,886 voters across multiple states. When Election Day arrived, the Georgia NAACP estimated challenges had exceeded 200,000 in Georgia alone.

This wasn’t just a few isolated incidents. It was a coordinated national strategy:

  • Over 2.1 million mail-in ballots disqualified for minor clerical errors
  • 585,000 in-person ballots thrown out
  • 1.2 million “provisional” (what I call “placebo”) ballots rejected without being counted
  • 3.2 million new voter registrations rejected or not processed in time

But here’s the kicker that the mainstream media doesn’t want to tell you: these rejections weren’t random. A state audit in Washington found Black voters were four times more likely than white voters to have their mail-in ballots rejected. And that pattern repeated nationwide. In Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia, analyses showed that officials flagged Black voters’ mail ballots at more than twice the rate of white voters’ ballots.

Georgia became the test kitchen for the new Jim Crow cooking, with Gov. Brian Kemp as head chef. First, they used what Palast calls “Poison Postcards”: sending official-looking mail to targeted voters. When people (especially young, poor, and minority voters) didn’t return these postcards that looked like junk mail, they were purged from voter rolls. In Georgia, the response rate to these cards was barely above 1%.

Then came the “vigilante” challenges. In 2020, my old friend Greg uncovered a scheme where Republican operatives challenged the voting eligibility of 180,000 Georgians. Deeper investigation revealed this tactic was based on a program first deployed by the Ku Klux Klan in 1946. For 2024, the Georgia legislature changed state law to make it nearly impossible for election officials to deny these challenges, and the program went nationwide.

By August 2024, True the Vote and similar organizations had signed up 40,000 volunteer “vigilantes” who challenged nearly a million Democratic voters. A documentary film shows one Republican official, Pam Reardon, who personally challenged over 32,000 voters. When asked if she had verified any of the challenges, she admitted on camera, “I can’t go through 32,000 people. I was handed the list by True the Vote.”

Republicans spent four years demonizing mail-in voting after the 2020 election, and it paid off. In Georgia, SB 202 slashed the number of ballot drop boxes by 75% — but only in Black-majority counties — and locked them away at night. These moves reduced mail-in and drop-box balloting (used by the majority of Democrats in 2020) by nearly 90%.

The attacks on mail ballots were particularly devastating because research consistently shows racial disparities in rejection rates. In North Carolina, multiple analyses found Black voters’ mail ballots were rejected at more than twice the rate of white voters’ ballots. In Texas, after new ID requirements were enacted, the rejection rate jumped from 1.7% to 12% during the March 2022 primary, with minority voters bearing the brunt.

Perhaps the cruelest trick was the “provisional” ballot, legalized by George W. Bush’s Help America Vote Act. If you showed up to vote and found you’d been challenged or purged, you were offered one of these ballots and told your registration would be checked. What they didn’t tell you is that unless you personally went to your county clerk’s office with ID and proof of address afterward, your ballot was likely trashed.

According to the US Elections Assistance Commission, in 2016, when 2.5 million provisional ballots were cast nationwide, a breathtaking 42.3% were never counted. And Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American voters — Democratic constituencies — were 300% more likely than white voters to be shunted to these “placebo” ballots.

When we apply the most conservative calculation to these numbers, the suppression factor in 2024 was at least 2.3% of the vote. That translates to approximately 3,565,000 votes that could have gone to Kamala Harris. With those ballots properly counted, she would have topped Trump’s official total by 1.2 million and won the popular vote as well as the Electoral College with 286 votes.

This isn’t speculative: it’s the cold, hard math based on documented evidence. And it’s exactly what Republican officials designed their laws to do. As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton proudly stated on Steve Bannon’s podcast after blocking Houston from sending mail ballots during COVID, “Had we not done that, Donald Trump would’ve lost the [Texas] election.”

This Republican tradition of stealing presidential elections through fraud or treason started in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson was desperately trying to end the Vietnam war. It had turned into both a personal and political nightmare for him and his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, who was running for President in the election that year against a “reinvented” Richard Nixon.

Johnson spent most of late 1967 and early 1968 working back-channels to North and South Vietnam, and by the summer of 1968 had a tentative agreement from both for what promised to be a lasting peace deal they’d both sign that fall.

But Richard Nixon knew that if he could block that peace deal, it would kill VP Hubert Humphrey’s chances of winning the 1968 election. So, Nixon sent envoys from his campaign to talk to South Vietnamese leaders to encourage them not to attend upcoming peace talks in Paris.

Nixon promised South Vietnam’s corrupt politicians that he’d give them a richer deal when he was President than LBJ could give them then (just like Reagan would later do with the Iranians).

The FBI had been wiretapping South Vietnam’s US agents and told LBJ about Nixon’s effort to prolong the Vietnam War. Thus, just three days before the 1968 election, Johnson phoned the Republican Senate leader, Everett Dirksen, (you can listen to the entire conversation here):

President Johnson: Some of our folks, including some of the old China lobby, are going to the Vietnamese embassy and saying please notify the [South Vietnamese] president that if he’ll hold out ’til November 2nd they could get a better deal. Now, I’m reading their hand. I don’t want to get this in the campaign. And they oughtn’t to be doin’ this, Everett. This is treason.
Sen. Dirksen: I know.

Those tapes were only released by the LBJ library in the past decade, and that’s Richard Nixon who Lyndon Johnson was accusing of treason.

At that point, for President Johnson, it was no longer about getting Humphrey elected. By then Nixon’s plan had already worked and Humphrey was being wiped out in the polls because the war was ongoing.

Instead, Johnson was desperately trying to salvage the peace talks to stop the death and carnage as soon as possible. He literally couldn’t sleep.

In a phone call to Nixon himself just before the election, LBJ begged him to stop sabotaging the peace process, noting that he was almost certainly going to win the election and inherit the war anyway. Instead, Nixon publicly said LBJ’s efforts were “in shambles.”

But South Vietnam had taken Nixon’s deal and boycotted the peace talks, the war continued, and Nixon won the White House thanks to it.

An additional 22,000 American soldiers and an additional million-plus Vietnamese died because of Nixon’s 1968 treason, and he left it to Jerry Ford to end the war and evacuate American soldiers.

Nixon was never held to account for that treason, and when the LBJ library released the tapes and documentation long after his and LBJ’s deaths it was barely noticed by the American press.

Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon, was never elected to the White House (he was appointed to replace VP Spiro Agnew, after Agnew was indicted for decades of taking bribes), and thus would never have been President had it not been for Richard Nixon’s treason. He pardoned Nixon.

The New York Times published a bombshell report — which sadly only became a one-day story — that former Texas Speaker of the House of Representatives and Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes has confirmed that he and former Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally told the Iranians in 1980s if they held onto the American hostages until after the election, they’d be rewarded by Reagan with weapons and spare parts.

During the Carter/Reagan election battle of 1980, then-President Jimmy Carter had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr to release the 52 hostages held by students at the American Embassy in Tehran.

Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as he explained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitor, successfully ran for President that summer on the popular position of releasing the hostages:

“I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign…. I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote…. Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking].”

Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr’s help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.

But behind Carter’s back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran’s radical faction — Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini — to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election. Khomeini needed spare parts for American weapons systems the Shah had purchased for Iran, and Reagan was happy to promise them.

This is the story that was finally confirmed with The New York Times’ reporting, so we now know how the deal was conveyed to the Ayatollah and by whom.

This was the second act of treason by a Republican wanting to become president.

The Reagan campaign’s secret negotiations with Khomeini — the so-called “October Surprise” — sabotaged President Carter’s and Iranian President Bani-Sadr’s attempts to free the hostages.

As President Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of 2013:

“After arriving in France [in 1981], I told a BBC reporter that I had left Iran to expose the symbiotic relationship between Khomeinism and Reaganism.“Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation, later known as the ‘October Surprise,’ which prevented the attempts by myself and then-US President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 US presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”

And Reagan’s treason — just like Nixon’s treason — worked perfectly.

The Iran hostage crisis continued and torpedoed Carter’s re-election hopes. And the same day Reagan took the oath of office — to the minute, as Reagan put his hand on the bible, by way of Iran’s acknowledging the deal — the American hostages in Iran were released.

Keeping his side of the deal, Reagan began selling the Iranians weapons and spare parts in 1981, and continued until he was busted for it in 1986, producing the so-called “Iran Contra” scandal.

But, like Nixon, Reagan was never held to account for the criminal and treasonous actions that brought him to office.

After Reagan, Bush senior was elected but, like Jerry Ford, Bush was really only President because he served as Vice President under Reagan. And, of course, the naked racism of his Willie Horton ads helped boost him into office.

The criminal investigation into Iran/Contra came to a head with independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh subpoenaing President George HW Bush after having already obtained convictions for Caspar Weinberger, Ollie North and others.

Bush’s attorney general, Bill Barr, suggested he pardon them all to kill the investigation, which Bush did.

The screaming headline across the New York Times front page on December 25, 1992, said it all:

“THE PARDONS; BUSH PARDONS 6 IN IRAN AFFAIR, ABORTING A WEINBERGER TRIAL; PROSECUTOR ASSAILS ‘COVER-UP’”

And if the October Surprise hadn’t hoodwinked voters in 1980, you can bet Bush senior would never have been elected in 1988. That’s four illegitimate Republican presidents.

Which brings us to George W. Bush, the man who was given the White House by five right-wing justices on the Supreme Court and his own brother’s crime against democracy.

In the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount — and thus handed Bush the presidency — Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion:

“The counting of votes … does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”

Apparently, denying the presidency to Al Gore, the guy who actually won the most votes in Florida and won the popular vote nationwide by over a half-million, did not constitute “irreparable harm” to Scalia or the media.

And apparently it wasn’t important that Scalia’s son worked for a law firm that was defending George W. Bush before the high court (with no Scalia recusal).

Just like it wasn’t important to mention that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife was paid to work on the Bush transition team — before the Supreme Court shut down the recount in Florida — and was busy accepting resumes from people who would serve in the Bush White House if her husband stopped the recount in Florida…which he did. (No Thomas recusal, either.)

More than a year after the election a consortium of newspapers including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and USA Today did their own recount of the vote in Florida — manually counting every vote in a process that took almost a year — and concluded that Al Gore did indeed win the presidency in 2000.

As the November 12, 2001 article in The New York Times read:

“If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won.”

That little bit of info was slipped into the seventeenth paragraph of the Times story so that it would attract as little attention as possible because the 9/11 attacks had happened just weeks earlier and journalists feared that burdening Americans with the plain truth that George W. Bush actually lost the election would further hurt a nation already in crisis.

To compound the crime, Bush could only have gotten as close to Gore in the election as he did because his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, had ordered his Secretary of State, Kathrine Harris, to purge at least 57,000 mostly-Black voters from the state’s voter rolls just before the election. Thousands of African Americans showed up to vote and were turned away from the polls in that election in Florida that Bush “won” by fewer than 600 votes.

So, for the third time in four decades, Republicans took the White House under illegitimate electoral circumstances. Even President Carter was shocked by the brazenness of that one and told me, on the air, that Bush had rigged the election in Florida. And Jeb Bush and the GOP were never held to account for that crime against democracy.*

To get re-elected in 2004, Bush used an old trick: become a “wartime president.” In 1999, when George W. Bush’s family decided he was going to run for president in the 2000 election, his parents hired Mickey Herskowitz to write the first draft of Bush’s autobiography, A Charge To Keep.

Although Bush had gone AWOL for about a year during the Vietnam war and was thus apparently no fan of combat, he’d concluded (from watching his father’s “little three-day war” with Iraq) that being a “wartime president” was the most consistently surefire way to get reelected and have a two-term presidency.

“I'll tell you, he was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” Herskowitz told reporter Russ Baker in 2004. “One of the things [Bush] said to me,” Herskowitz said, “is: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of (Kuwait) and he wasted it.
“[Bush] said, ‘If I have a chance to invade Iraq, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.’”

Bush lying us into that war was a moral act of treason against America that cost 900,000 Iraqi lives, over 4,000 American lives (on the battlefield: veterans are still committing suicide daily), and over $8 trillion added to the national debt.

In 2016, Trump ally Kris Kobach and Republican secretaries of state across the nation used Interstate Crosscheck to purge millions of legitimate voters — most people of color — from the voting rolls just in time for the Hillary Clinton/Trump election.

Meanwhile, Russian oligarchs and the Russian state, and possibly pro-Trump groups or nations in the Middle East, are alleged to have funded a widespread program to flood social media with pro-Trump, anti-Clinton messages from accounts posing as Americans, as documented by Robert Mueller’s investigation.

It was so blatant that it provoked the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment of their similar actions during the 2020 election (done while Trump was still president but released in March, 2021) pretty much declaring him a “Russian asset.”

It was a repeat, in many ways (albeit unsuccessful this time) of the Russian efforts in 2016. Then, you’ll remember, Republican campaign data on the 2016 election, including which people in swing states needed a little help via phony influencers on Facebook and other social media, was not only given to Konstantin Kilimnik by Paul Manafort, but Kilimnik transferred it to Russian intelligence.

Trump had recently been wounded politically by the “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment he’d made on the Access Hollywood videotape, and if the Stormy Daniels affair (just 4 months after Melania had given birth to Barron) had become public Hillary Clinton would have wiped the floor with him.

But he paid Stormy off to keep quiet, a check delivered by Michael Cohen who was then sentenced to three years in prison (and served one) for corruptly violating campaign finance and tax laws with that check to help Trump get into the White House.

Donald Trump still lost the national vote by nearly 3 million votes, but came to power in 2016 through the electoral college loophole designed to keep slavery safe in colonial America.

If the news about Stormy Daniels had gotten out in the weeks before the election (it didn’t come out for another two years), there never would have been a January 6; 400,000 Americans wouldn’t have died unnecessarily from Covid; Iran would still be in compliance with the nuclear deal; Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine; and our country wouldn’t have given the morbidly rich another $2 trillion in tax cuts while gutting the social safety net.

One can only wonder how much better off America would be if six Republican Presidents hadn’t stolen or inherited a stolen White House and used it to put rightwing cranks on the Supreme Court and other federal benches while cutting taxes on the morbidly rich (creating a $34 trillion national debt), destroying unions, and offshoring over 50,000 factories and 25 million good-paying union jobs.

America has ignored GOP crimes to seize and hold the White House long enough. The immunity Ford gave Nixon has echoed down through the decades, leading to a packed Supreme Court that gave new immunity to Trump and two unnecessary and illegal wars (not to mention tax cuts for billionaires that have gutted our middle class).

It’s time, at long last, to tell America the true story of Republican electoral crimes.

NOW READ: When the sleeping giant awakens, Trump will be toast

*For more detail, this is extensively documented and footnoted in my book The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America.

**This is covered in depth in my book The Hidden History of the War On Voting.

A TX woman is dead after the hospital said it would be a 'crime' to intervene in her miscarriage

Reporting Highlights

  • She Died After a Miscarriage: Doctors said it was “inevitable” that Josseli Barnica would miscarry. Yet they waited 40 hours for the fetal heartbeat to stop. She died of an infection three days later.
  • Two Texas Women Died: Barnica is one of at least two Texas women who died after doctors delayed treating miscarriages, ProPublica found.
  • Death Was “Preventable”: More than a dozen doctors who reviewed the case at ProPublica’s request said Barnica’s death was “preventable.” They called it “horrific,” “astounding” and “egregious.”

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

Josseli Barnica grieved the news as she lay in a Houston hospital bed on Sept. 3, 2021: The sibling she’d dreamt of giving her daughter would not survive this pregnancy.

The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”

For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria.

Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection.

Barnica is one of at least two Texas women who ProPublica found lost their lives after doctors delayed treating miscarriages, which fall into a gray area under the state’s strict abortion laws that prohibit doctors from ending the heartbeat of a fetus.

Neither had wanted an abortion, but that didn’t matter. Though proponents insist that the laws protect both the life of the fetus and the person carrying it, in practice, doctors have hesitated to provide care under threat of prosecution, prison time and professional ruin.

ProPublica is telling these women’s stories this week, starting with Barnica’s. Her death was “preventable,” according to more than a dozen medical experts who reviewed a summary of her hospital and autopsy records at ProPublica’s request; they called her case “horrific,” “astounding” and “egregious.”

The doctors involved in Barnica’s care at HCA Houston Healthcare Northwest did not respond to multiple requests for comment on her case. In a statement, HCA Healthcare said “our responsibility is to be in compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations” and said that physicians exercise their independent judgment. The company did not respond to a detailed list of questions about Barnica’s care.

Like all states, Texas has a committee of maternal health experts who review such deaths to recommend ways to prevent them, but the committee’s reports on individual cases are not public and members said they have not finished examining cases from 2021, the year Barnica died.

ProPublica is working to fill gaps in knowledge about the consequences of abortion bans. Reporters scoured death data, flagging Barnica’s case for its concerning cause of death: “sepsis” involving “products of conception.” We tracked down her family, obtained autopsy and hospital records and enlisted a range of experts to review a summary of her care that ProPublica created in consultation with two doctors.

Among those experts were more than a dozen OB-GYNs and maternal-fetal medicine specialists from across the country, including researchers at prestigious institutions, doctors who regularly handle miscarriages and experts who have served on state maternal mortality review committees or held posts at national professional medical organizations.

After reviewing the four-page summary, which included the timeline of care noted in hospital records, all agreed that requiring Barnica to wait to deliver until after there was no detectable fetal heartbeat violated professional medical standards because it could allow time for an aggressive infection to take hold. They said there was a good chance she would have survived if she was offered an intervention earlier.

“If this was Massachusetts or Ohio, she would have had that delivery within a couple hours,” said Dr. Susan Mann, a national patient safety expert in obstetric care who teaches at Harvard University.

Many noted a striking similarity to the case of Savita Halappavanar, a 31-year-old woman who died of septic shock in 2012 after providers in Ireland refused to empty her uterus while she was miscarrying at 17 weeks. When she begged for care, a midwife told her, “This is a Catholic country.” The resulting investigation and public outcry galvanized the country to change its strict ban on abortion.

But in the wake of deaths related to abortion access in the United States, leaders who support restricting the right have not called for any reforms.

Last month, ProPublica told the stories of two Georgia women, Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, whose deaths were deemed “preventable” by the state’s maternal mortality review committee after they were unable to access legal abortions and timely medical care amid an abortion ban.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp called the reporting “fear mongering.” Former President Donald Trump has not weighed in — except to joke that his Fox News town hall on women’s issues would get “better ratings” than a press call where Thurman’s family spoke about their pain.

Leaders in Texas, which has the nation’s oldest abortion ban, have witnessed the consequences of such restrictions longer than those in any other state.

In lawsuits, court petitions and news stories, dozens of women have said they faced dangers when they were denied abortions starting in 2021. One suffered sepsis like Barnica, but survived after three days in intensive care. She lost part of her fallopian tube. Lawmakers have made small concessions to clarify two exceptions for medical emergencies, but even in those cases, doctors risk up to 99 years in prison and fines of $100,000; they can argue in court that their actions were not a crime, much like defendants can claim self-defense after being charged with murder.

Amid the deluge of evidence of the harm, including research suggesting Texas’ legislation has increased infant and maternal deaths, some of the ban’s most prominent supporters have muted their public enthusiasm for it. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who once championed the fall of Roe v. Wade and said, “Pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness,” is now avoiding the topic amid a battle to keep his seat. And Gov. Greg Abbott, who said early last year that “we promised we would protect the life of every child with a heartbeat, and we did,” has not made similar statements since.

Both declined to comment to ProPublica, as did state Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose commitment to the ban remains steadfast as he fights for access to the out-of-state medical records of women who travel for abortions. Earlier this month, as the nation grappled with the first reported, preventable deaths related to abortion access, Paxton celebrated a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed Texas to ignore federal guidance requiring doctors to provide abortions that are needed to stabilize emergency patients.

“This is a major victory,” Paxton said.

“They Had to Wait Until There Was No Heartbeat”

To Barnica, an immigrant from Honduras, the American dream seemed within reach in her corner of Houston, a neighborhood filled with restaurants selling El Salvadoran pupusas and bakeries specializing in Mexican conchas. She found work installing drywall, saved money to support her mother back home and met her husband in 2019 at a community soccer game.

A year later, they welcomed a big-eyed baby girl whose every milestone they celebrated. “God bless my family,” Barnica wrote on social media, alongside a photo of the trio in matching red-and-black plaid. “Our first Christmas with our Princess. I love them.”

Barnica longed for a large family and was thrilled when she conceived again in 2021.

Trouble struck in the second trimester.

On Sept. 2, 2021, at 17 weeks and four days pregnant, she went to the hospital with cramps, according to her records. The next day, when the bleeding worsened, she returned. Within two hours of her arrival on Sept. 3, an ultrasound confirmed “bulging membranes in the vagina with the fetal head in the open cervix,” dilated at 8.9 cm, and that she had low amniotic fluid. The miscarriage was “in progress,” the radiologist wrote.

When Barnica’s husband arrived, she told him doctors couldn’t intervene until there was no heartbeat.

The next day, Dr. Shirley Lima, an OB on duty, diagnosed an “inevitable” miscarriage.

In Barnica’s chart, she noted that the fetal heartbeat was detected and wrote that she was providing Barnica with pain medication and “emotional support.”

In a state that hadn’t banned abortion, Barnica could have immediately been offered the options that major medical organizations, including international ones, say is the standard of evidence-based care: speeding up labor with medication or a dilation and evacuation procedure to empty the uterus.

“We know that the sooner you intervene in these situations, the better outcomes are,” said Dr. Steven Porter, an OB-GYN in Cleveland.

But Texas’ new abortion ban had just gone into effect. It required physicians to confirm the absence of a fetal heartbeat before intervening unless there was a “medical emergency,” which the law did not define. It required doctors to make written notes on the patient’s condition and the reason abortion was necessary.

The law did not account for the possibility of a future emergency, one that could develop in hours or days without intervention, doctors told ProPublica.

Barnica was technically still stable. But lying in the hospital with her cervix open wider than a baseball left her uterus exposed to bacteria and placed her at high risk of developing sepsis, experts told ProPublica. Infections can move fast and be hard to control once they take hold.

The scenario felt all too familiar for Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spung, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who used to work in Tennessee and reviewed a summary of Barnica’s records at ProPublica’s request.

Abortion bans put doctors in an impossible position, she said, forcing them to decide whether to risk malpractice or a felony charge. After her state enacted one of the strictest bans in the country, she also waited to offer interventions in cases like Barnica’s until the fetal heartbeat stopped or patients showed signs of infection, praying every time that nothing would go wrong. It’s why she ultimately moved to Colorado.

The doctors treating Barnica “absolutely didn’t do the right thing,” she said. But she understood why they would have felt “totally stuck,” especially if they worked at a hospital that hadn’t promised to defend them.

Even three years after Barnica’s death, HCA Healthcare, the hospital chain that treated Barnica, will not disclose whether it has a policy on how to treat miscarriages.

Some HCA shareholders have asked the company to prepare a report on the risks to the company related to the bans in states that restrict abortion, so patients would understand what services they could expect and doctors would know under what circumstances they would be protected. But the board of directors opposed the proposal, partly because it would create an “unnecessary expense and burdens with limited benefits to our stockholders.” The proposal was supported by 8% of shareholders who voted.

The company’s decision to abstain has repercussions far beyond Texas; the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chain has said it delivers more babies than any other health care provider in America, and 70% of its hospitals are in states where abortion is restricted.

As the hours passed in the Houston hospital, Barnica couldn’t find relief. On the phone with her aunt Rosa Elda Calix Barnica, she complained that doctors kept performing ultrasounds to check the fetal heartbeat but were not helping her end the miscarriage.

Around 4 a.m. on Sept. 5, 40 hours after Barnica had arrived, doctors could no longer detect any heart activity. Soon after, Lima delivered Barnica’s fetus, giving her medication to help speed up the labor.

Dr. Joel Ross, the OB-GYN who oversaw her care, discharged her after about eight more hours.

The bleeding continued, but when Barnica called the hospital, she was told that was expected. Her aunt grew alarmed two days later when the bleeding grew heavier.

Go back, she told her niece.

On the evening of Sept. 7, Barnica’s husband rushed her to the hospital as soon as he got off from work. But COVID-19 protocols meant only one visitor could be in the room with her, and they didn’t have a babysitter for their 1-year-old daughter.

So he left and tried to get some sleep.

“I fully expected her to come home,” he said.

But she never did. Her family planned two funerals, one in Houston and another in Honduras.

Nine days after her death, Barnica’s husband was processing his shock, learning how to be a single dad and struggling to raise funds to bury his wife and the son he had hoped to raise.

Meanwhile, Lima was pulling up Barnica’s medical chart to make an addition to her records.

The notes she added made one point abundantly clear: “When I was called for delivery,” she wrote, “the fetus no longer had detectable heart tones.”

“They Should Vote With Their Feet”

Texas has been on the forefront of fighting abortion access.

At the time of Barnica’s miscarriage in 2021, the Supreme Court had not yet overturned the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. But Texas lawmakers, intent on being the first to enact a ban with teeth, had already passed a harsh civil law using a novel legal strategy that circumvented Roe v. Wade: It prohibited doctors from performing an abortion after six weeks by giving members of the public incentives to sue doctors for $10,000 judgments. The bounty also applied to anyone who “aided and abetted” an abortion.

A year later, after the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling was handed down, an even stricter criminal law went into effect, threatening doctors with up to 99 years in prison and $100,000 in fines.

Soon after the ruling, the Biden administration issued federal guidance reminding doctors in hospital emergency rooms they have a duty to treat pregnant patients who need to be stabilized, including by providing abortions for miscarriages.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fought against that, arguing that following the guidance would force doctors to “commit crimes” under state law and make every hospital a “walk-in abortion clinic.” When a Dallas woman asked a court for approval to end her pregnancy because her fetus was not viable and she faced health risks if she carried it to term, Paxton fought to keep her pregnant. He argued her doctor hadn’t proved it was an emergency and threatened to prosecute anyone who helped her. “Nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result,” he wrote to the court.

No doctor in Texas, or the 20 other states that criminalize abortion, has been prosecuted for violating a state ban. But the possibility looms over their every decision, dozens of doctors in those states told ProPublica, forcing them to consider their own legal risks as they navigate their patient’s health emergencies. The lack of clarity has resulted in many patients being denied care.

In 2023, Texas lawmakers made a small concession to the outcry over the uncertainty the ban was creating in hospitals. They created a new exception for ectopic pregnancies, a potentially fatal condition where the embryo attaches outside the uterine cavity, and for cases where a patient’s membranes rupture prematurely before viability, which introduces a high risk of infection. Doctors can still face prosecution, but are allowed to make the case to a judge or jury that their actions were protected, not unlike self-defense arguments after homicides. Barnica’s condition would not have clearly fit this exception.

This year, after being directed to do so by the state Supreme Court, the Texas Medical Board released new guidance telling doctors that an emergency didn’t need to be “imminent” in order to intervene and advising them to provide extra documentation regarding risks.

But in a recent interview, the board’s president, Dr. Sherif Zaafran, acknowledged that these efforts only go so far and the group has no power over criminal law: “There’s nothing we can do to stop a prosecutor from filing charges against the physicians.”

Asked what he would tell Texas patients who are miscarrying and unable to get treatment, he said they should get a second opinion: “They should vote with their feet and go and seek guidance from somebody else.”

An immigrant from El Salvador who works 12-hour shifts, Barnica’s husband doesn’t follow American politics or the news. He had no inkling of the contentious national debate over how abortion bans are affecting maternal health care when ProPublica contacted him.

Now he is raising a 4-year-old daughter with the help of Barnica’s younger brother; every weekend, they take her to see her grandmother, who knows how to braid her hair in pigtails.

All around their home, he keeps photos of Barnica so that the little girl grows up knowing how much her mother loved her. He sees flashes of his wife when his daughter dances. She radiates the same delight.

When asked about Barnica, he can’t get out many words; his leg is restless, his eyes fixed on the floor. Barnica’s family calls him a model father.

He says he’s just doing his best.

Mariam Elba and Doris Burke contributed research. Lizzie Presser contributed reporting.

Did a demon attack Tucker Carlson or was it his ...

Don’t despair! I’ve been saying for months that I believe this election is going to be a blowout for both Harris and Democrats generally, although the $6 billion or so and efforts in kind that rightwing billionaires, Israel, Putin, and Musk have thrown in on behalf of Trump and the GOP will make it a challenge. Particularly in the Senate. Yesterday’s stats from Pennsylvania’s early voting, however, are encouraging: Of the 1.62 million ballots returned, roughly 918,000 came from registered Democrats, 530,000 from registered Republicans, and 178,000 came from independents. Those numbers — realizing this is initial data and Republicans are more likely to show up on or closer to election day — are pretty impressive! And they don’t begin to measure the Republican-registered women who are crossing over to vote for Harris and other Democrats. After surveys showed that many women didn’t realize their vote is secret and can never be revealed to their husbands, the Harris campaign has released an ad pointing just that out; it’s infuriating Republican men and the male commentators at Fox “News,” including Jesse Watters who says that if his current wife did this it would be “disloyal,” (like when she and he had an affair while he was married to his first wife). None of this positive news should cause any of us to take a breath and slow down: we need to get every voter out there to the polls and keep up the pressure. But I continue to be very optimistic that I won’t be entering one of Trump’s concentration camps this next year…

Last year Trump wanted General Milley put in front of a firing squad; now he’s saying that should happen to Liz Cheney. Do you still think he’s joking? At an event moderated by frozen fish heir Tucker Swanson Carlson, Trump said of former Congresswoman Liz Cheney: “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her. Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.” This is an explicit death threat, a violation of federal law 18 U.S. Code § 373: Solicitation to commit a crime of violence. Where’s Merrick Garland when you need him? Hiding in the White House bunker?

Crazy alert! Tucker says a demon attacked him while he was in bed with his wife and four dogs. While skeptical Republicans are trying to blame one of the dogs in the bed for the bloody claw marks Tuckums is telling us all about, I’m far more inclined to believe it was his wife, who’s probably voting for Kamala and knows her vote is secret…

Europe’s Greens ask professional grifter Jill Stein to pull out of US election to prevent a Trump victory. Noting that the American Green Party is not affiliated with the rest of the world’s Greens (but instead has become a giant scam), the Green Parties of Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine issued a joint statement saying: “We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House. Right now, the race for the White House is too close for comfort. We call on Jill Stein to withdraw from the race, and endorse Kamala Harris for the presidency of the United States.” Stein, of course, will do no such thing, even though she’s polling around 1 to 1.4 percent across all the battleground states. Instead, she’s happy to continue benefiting from rightwing billionaire money promoting her candidacy in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona. America really needs to get rid of the damn Electoral College and bring in instant runoff voting so a real Green Party can emerge here.

Texas Republicans Ted Cruz, Ken Paxton, and Greg Abbott just put another notch in their manly-man belts: An 18-year-old Texas woman died after being turned away from two hospitals for her miscarriage complications. This is the second Texas woman we know these men (and the six rightwing Catholics on the Supreme Court) murdered. As ProPublica wrote: “Nevaeh Crain was crying in pain, too weak to walk, blood staining her thighs. Feverish and vomiting the day of her baby shower, the 18-year-old had gone to two different emergency rooms within 12 hours, returning home each time worse than before. The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave. Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to ‘confirm fetal demise,’ a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care. By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were ‘blue and dusky.’ Her organs began failing. Hours later, she was dead.” Cruz, Paxton, and Abbott appear quite proud of themselves; this is the second dead Texas woman we know about, not to mention the 30,000-plus rape victims they’ve forced to carry their rapists’ babies to term and the thousands of women who’ll be scarred for life by their high-risk pregnancies. Meanwhile, in South Carolina Republicans are cheering the 22-day imprisonment of Amari Marsh, 23, a Black woman who miscarried before she even realized she was pregnant. Police arrested her and charged her with homicide, claiming that she didn’t do enough to prevent her miscarriage — which, again, happened before she even realized she was pregnant. When she got out of jail after more than three weeks, Marsh said, “When I was initially arrested, I thought it was a joke. I genuinely thought it was a joke because I had never been in trouble in my life. As I was sitting there, I couldn’t do nothing but cry.” John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Donald Trump are all so very, very proud of themselves. Just ask them.

WTF? Our National Archives are removing displays and information about MLK, Native Americans, the Holocaust, the Civil Rights movement, unions, birth control, and the American internment of Japanese during WWII because it may upset Republican legislators. When US Archivist Colleen Shogan was grilled by the Senate during her confirmation, neofascist Josh Hawley called her a Democratic “extremist” and warned her that he and other Republicans “would be watching closely for signs that she was pulling the independent agency to the left.” Looks like this effort to “work the refs” is succeeding. Most recently, a photo of Martin Luther King Jr. was replaced by a picture of Richard Nixon meeting Elvis Presley, pictures of the camps where we interred Japanese-ancestry US citizens were taken down, references to the coal industry causing environmental hazards were removed, and Shogan “also ordered the removal of labor-union pioneer Dolores Huerta and Minnie Spotted-Wolf, the first Native American woman to join the Marine Corps, from the photo booth, according to current and former employees and agency documents.” They even removed a picture of Republican President Jerry Ford’s wife Betty because she was wearing an Equal Rights Amendment button, and in the display of “patents that changed the world” the birth control pill was replaced with the bump stock that turns semi-automatic weapons into functionally fully-automatic machine guns. This “obeying fascists in advance” is beyond the pale, and hopefully now that it’s getting some publicity Shogan will reconsider bowing to the GOP’s white supremacist base.

Georgia official warns of Russian interference in this year’s election. Over on Elon Musk’s cesspool Xitter, a Russian-produced phony video purports to show Black Haitian immigrants showing off multiple fake IDs and claiming they voted in multiple Georgia counties on multiple occasions. It’s gone completely viral among rightwingers with a apparent big push from Xitter’s secret algorithm. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (pronounced “Raff-ens-purger,” and he’s purged over a million voters from Georgia’s rolls so far) called a press conference to say: “Earlier today, our office became aware of a video purporting to show a Haitian immigrant with multiple Georgia ID's claiming to have voted multiple times. This is false, and is an example of targeted disinformation we’ve seen this election. It is likely foreign interference attempting to sow discord and chaos on the eve of the election.” The feds have since confirmed it is from Russia. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is saying the quiet part out loud, echoing the sentiments of the racists who make up the base of the GOP. Speaking of the Black Haitian immigrants working legally in Springfield, Ohio, the former senior Trump aide said: “It’s not their fault. They live back 200 years ago. They just shouldn’t have been taken out of the jungle and placed in the middle of small town America. That’s ridiculous. Or big town America, for that matter.” Meanwhile, Rudy’s refusing to cooperate with efforts to transfer his assets to the two Black Georgia poll workers he defamed, even though he’s been ordered to do so by a court. This isn’t going to end well for New York’s former mayor.

NOW READ: A stupefying poll shows Harris breathing down Trump’s neck in Kansas. Here’s what that means.

@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.