Texas AG Race Takes Center Stage,Three Senators Face Vote on Bill Expanding Office Power
Potential Successors Must Decide on Legislation That Would Significantly Broaden the Attorney General's Authority
Three Texas state senators currently running to replace Attorney General Ken Paxton in 2026 face a pivotal moment as they prepare to vote on legislation that would dramatically expand the very office they seek to control. The bill, which comes before the state legislature during ongoing special session hearings, would grant the attorney general's office new powers to prosecute election fraud cases without local district attorney approval—a capability that has been a cornerstone of Paxton's political agenda and his challenges to Democratic-controlled jurisdictions.
The timing creates an unprecedented political dynamic where candidates for attorney general must publicly position themselves on expanding the office's prosecutorial reach while actively campaigning for the position, potentially shaping both their electoral prospects and the future scope of Texas's top law enforcement role.
The Power Expansion at Stake
The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 1026, represents a significant shift in Texas election law enforcement. Under current legal precedent established by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2022, the attorney general's office cannot independently pursue criminal cases in trial courts without a local prosecutor's request. This limitation has frustrated Paxton, who has long sought broader autonomy over election-related prosecutions.
The new bill would mandate that the Texas attorney general's office "shall" prosecute election-related crimes if local action has not commenced within six months, changing the language from the current permissive "may" to the mandatory "shall". This revision would effectively override local prosecutorial discretion in election fraud cases, allowing the state's top law enforcement official to intervene directly in counties that decline to pursue such charges.
"Election law is of utmost statewide significance," said state Senator Bryan Hughes, the bill's sponsor, during committee hearings. "This bill aims to restore the authority that the attorney general has held for many years in these matters".
Political Stakes for AG Candidates
The three senators running for attorney general in 2026 find themselves in a complex political position. Each must balance their support for expanded law enforcement powers—popular among Republican primary voters—against potential concerns about overreach and the precedent of state intervention in local prosecutorial decisions.
The legislation's passage would significantly alter the office they're seeking to control, potentially making it one of the most powerful prosecutorial positions in the country. For these candidates, voting against the bill could be seen as opposing tougher election integrity measures, while supporting it might raise questions about checks and balances in the justice system.
Critics have raised concerns that the expanded powers could be used to intimidate voters and local election officials. "That on its own is a concern. It's part of a broader effort to exert control over local prosecutors as well as election offices," said Ashley Harris, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas.
"Election law is of utmost statewide significance. This bill aims to restore the authority that the attorney general has held for many years in these matters."
— State Senator Bryan Hughes, sponsor of SB 1026
Context of Paxton's Election Enforcement Record
The debate occurs against the backdrop of Paxton's aggressive pursuit of election-related prosecutions throughout his tenure. Since taking office in 2015, Paxton has established an election integrity unit that has launched over 300 investigations into suspected voter crimes in a state with more than 18 million registered voters, though only a few convictions have been secured.
Paxton's office recently announced new indictments against nine individuals in Frio County for alleged vote harvesting, demonstrating his continued focus on election-related prosecutions. The attorney general has also pursued high-profile cases, including raids on Latino voting rights activists that drew sharp criticism from civil rights organizations.
"Let me be crystal clear: the integrity of our elections is the bedrock of our democratic process, and any elected official trying to cheat the system will have to answer for it," Paxton declared in his recent announcement of the Frio County indictments.
Legislative Opposition and Concerns
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights advocates have strongly opposed the proposed expansion of the attorney general's powers. They argue that the legislation represents partisan overreach designed to suppress minority voting and circumvent local prosecutorial discretion.
The opposition has particular concerns about the potential for selective enforcement, given Paxton's track record of targeting Democratic-controlled counties. In recent years, his office has initiated lawsuits against Bexar and Harris counties—two of Texas's largest Democratic strongholds—over voter registration initiatives.
"Who can say whether political considerations or other issues in any specific county might influence prosecution?" Hughes questioned during committee hearings, defending the need for state-level intervention.
"That on its own is a concern. It's part of a broader effort to exert control over local prosecutors as well as election offices."
— Ashley Harris, ACLU of Texas staff attorney
Broader Pattern of AG Power Expansion
The election fraud bill is part of a broader trend of legislation expanding the Texas attorney general's authority. Governor Greg Abbott recently signed into law several measures that enhance the office's power, including the authority to assert legislative privilege on behalf of the state during legal proceedings and defend local prosecutors in federal court.
These expansions come as Paxton positions himself for a potential U.S. Senate run in 2026, challenging incumbent Senator John Cornyn. His aggressive stance on election integrity has made him popular among conservative voters both in Texas and nationally, potentially influencing how the three senatorial candidates approach the current vote.
"Let me be crystal clear: the integrity of our elections is the bedrock of our democratic process, and any elected official trying to cheat the system will have to answer for it."
— Attorney General Ken Paxton
Legal and Constitutional Questions
Legal experts have raised questions about the constitutional implications of mandatory prosecution requirements. Geoff Barr, who oversees election integrity at the Attorney General's Office, suggested during hearings that the office would retain some discretion even under the new "shall" language.
"If I believe I cannot substantiate the case, or if the evidence is lacking, I would contend that this 'shall' does not obligate me to pursue prosecution against my ethical responsibilities," Barr stated during the Senate Committee on State Affairs hearing.
The legislation would clearly grant Paxton's office the authority that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals previously denied, potentially setting up future constitutional challenges over the separation of powers and prosecutorial independence.
National Implications and Future Outlook
The outcome of this vote will likely influence election law enforcement policies beyond Texas borders. As one of the most populous states in the nation, Texas often serves as a testing ground for policies that other Republican-controlled states eventually adopt.
The three senatorial candidates' positions on this legislation will also provide early insights into how they would approach the attorney general's role, particularly regarding the balance between state and local authority in criminal prosecutions. Their votes could become significant campaign talking points as they seek to distinguish themselves in what promises to be a competitive Republican primary.
As the special session continues and the vote approaches, all eyes will be on these three senators who must navigate the complex intersection of their current legislative duties and their future political ambitions. The decision they make could fundamentally reshape the Texas attorney general's office and set the tone for election law enforcement across the state for years to come.