This is Democracy: Episode 241 – Paxton’s Impeachment

[00:00:00] Intro: This is Democracy, a podcast about the people of the United States,

[00:00:11] Intro: a podcast about

[00:00:11] Intro: citizenship, about engaging with politics and the world around you. A podcast about educating yourself on today’s important issues and how to have a voice

[00:00:21] Intro: in what happens next.

[00:00:28] Jeremi: Welcome to our new episode of This is Democracy. This week we’re going to talk about one of those rare events. As historians, we, we don’t like to think anything is very rare. We think it repeats, but, uh, this is a rare event. Uh, the impeachment of the Attorney General in Texas. Uh, this is only the third time that, uh, an impeachment like this has occurred.

[00:00:47] Jeremi: It’s the first time an attorney general in Texas has been impeached. The two prior impeachments were ever. Governor in the early 20th century and then a judge in the 1970s. So this is a very rare occurrence. And we’re gonna talk today about why this happened in the second largest state in the union.

[00:01:05] Jeremi: What it means, what it means about our democratic process, uh, throughout our country today. Texas is often an area that, uh, receives a lot of attention because of its prominence within the Republican party. And this was an impeachment of a Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton by a Republican. House in Texas.

[00:01:22] Jeremi: So why did this occur? What does it tell us about our democracy and what does it tell us about the future of law and order in our society, in Texas, in the United States and, uh, around the world in many ways, uh, we’re fortunate to be joined today by a good friend, prominent public official, and really a leader in legal circles and in political circles in Texas.

[00:01:43] Jeremi: Someone who knows more about Texas politics than anyone I’ve ever met. Uh, this is Joe Jaworski. He is a third generation Texas trial attorney. That means he knows where all the bodies are buried. He’s also a former mayor of Galveston, Texas, where he, uh, really led the city to great acclaim. Uh, he served as a law clerk to the US Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit, and he’s now spent 30 plus years in private practice.

[00:02:09] Jeremi: This as a trial attorney, a mediator, a legal commentator. He’s someone who I know, uh, people all around the state and the country turn to, to understand Texas law and politics and turn to, to get things done in Texas Law and Politics. Uh, Joe, thank you so much for joining us today.

[00:02:25] Joe: Oh, Jeremy gracious introduction.

[00:02:27] Joe: Thank you so much. And hello to Zachary.

[00:02:29] Jeremi: Hello. Zachary is sitting here of course ready with his poem as always. Uh, what’s the title of your poem this week? Zachary

[00:02:36] Zachary: Musings on the Great Liars and one Smited Attorney General.

[00:02:42] Jeremi: I’m really excited to hear this one. I’m gonna, I’m gonna put my seatbelt on as you read this one.

[00:02:46] Jeremi: Go ahead.

[00:02:47] Zachary: The Reverend sends his hatred out to the vast stampede. His pipe dreams fast, becoming what The Lord’s decreed words so warped in this telling their holiness does fade the same old lions. Off in Prophets masquerade, the speaker sings the songs salutes the checkered flag. His wild fears elicit their pride from a rag truth twisted in the sentences.

[00:03:16] Zachary: The masses sway and curve the service of another. Becomes a reason not to serve the law Giver flashes his smile to the crowd. The laws he tells are truthfulness, pompous, loud, ice crooked. In this grimace, his face does seem to bend the bells of justice. Having rung, must, surely ring again. So Grue ye un yielding bundle of falsity, your triple chins of rolling viscosity.

[00:03:46] Zachary: Although we haven’t seen each lie turned upside down at last, we’ve thrown one lofty liar to the ground.

[00:03:56] Jeremi: Wow, Zachary, you’re really kicking a dead horse there, aren’t you? Perhaps.

[00:04:01] Joe: Perhaps. I’ll tell you, Jeremy, that’s so good. It’s gonna get banned soon.

[00:04:06] Jeremi: Exactly. Though I’m not sure there might be some Republicans who wanna promote that poem. What do you think, Joe?

[00:04:12] Joe: That’s right.

[00:04:15] Jeremi: Zachary, what’s your poem about?

[00:04:16] Zachary: Well, my poem was about, um, the, uh, the, the long line of demagogues in Texas politics, uh, of which Ken Paxton is only, is only one. Um, but also, uh, about how important it is, uh, even in a climate in which truth is often obscured, uh, for one person or one example, uh, where, uh, the truth is defended and where, where, where, where political courage, um, really does win.

[00:04:43] Zachary: At least temporarily. And even if, if this impeachment, uh, doesn’t exceed, doesn’t succeed when it goes to trial in the Texas state, uh, Senate, uh, later this year, at the very least, uh, this will show that, uh, lies and, uh, illegal behavior do have consequences mm-hmm. In this

[00:05:01] Joe: state.

[00:05:02] Jeremi: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Joe, what happened this weekend?

[00:05:06] Jeremi: I have to confess, as a historian and a political junkie like you and someone who follows things, I, I was still a little stunned how quickly we went to the impeachment of someone we had long known was, as Zachary said, a liar or demagogue, an incompetent attorney general. Uh, why did this

[00:05:24] Joe: happen now? It is remarkable.

[00:05:27] Joe: I have to just reflect on the timing. Uh, here’s a man who has been in office, uh, for over 20 years, uh, as a House of Representatives, uh, member as a senator, and then Attorney General who just won his. Third election as Attorney General. Why now? Um, two days before signing die. Um, Jeremy, I think it has to do, uh, with, you know, the cam, the, the straw that broke the camel’s back.

[00:05:55] Joe: I mean, uh, there were so many things said about Paxton, the great weight of it. You would think they could just pick any one. But I think the hubris, or as I’ve I’ve heard referred to chutzpah, uh, has, uh, Gotten a new dictionary definition, uh, and, and it has a picture of Ken Paxton walking into the House of Representatives with a 3.3 million bill that he fabricated as a way to settle a lawsuit so he wouldn’t have to tell the truth and said, here, you pay for it.

[00:06:29] Joe: And so I think that. That rubbed some people the wrong way. Uh, that was back in February, March, 2023. Uh, uh, a private, uh, decision was made to, uh, in ipa, a general investigation committee, which took, you know, a sober amount of time, two months. Uh, to do the hard work and finally produce their report. And what was interesting is Paxton must have gotten tipped off about it because that’s when he made the outrageous, uh, um, uh, You know, best defense was a good offense, accusation feeling was drunk and then all hell broke loose.

[00:07:10] Joe: Right,

[00:07:11] Jeremi: right. And and why do you think that this 3.3 million demand from the state, which, which as you say shows a lot of chutzpah? This was following a lawsuit in which he had fired. Uh, a number of the top state justice department officials because they disagreed with him and because they were upset that he was providing benefits, uh, illegal benefits to a developer in Austin, as well as who knows What else?

[00:07:36] Jeremi: Um, why was that the, the, the straw that broke the camel’s back? You’d think he had done so many other things. He’s already been indicted for other crimes. You, you know, at some level you would think this wasn’t out of character for him.

[00:07:49] Joe: Well, I, I mean, first off, take it from me. That was a full value settlement.

[00:07:54] Joe: And so it was just the hypocrisy that for a year and a half from the date, uh, these gentlemen, these conservative, loyal, uh, employees were fired, uh, and then had no recourse but to file a whistleblower lawsuit from day one. That lawsuit was filed. Ken Paxton couldn’t denigrate it enough. Uh, you know, it was a frivolous lawsuit.

[00:08:17] Joe: It, it had no merit, and he filed what’s known as a plea to the jurisdiction. And lawyers know that, that basically says to the court, don’t even look at the substance of this. This is defective on its face. Because you can’t sue the Office of Attorney General, uh, for a whistleblower infraction. Um, now that was denied by the trial court in Austin.

[00:08:41] Joe: Uh, it was appealed and his argument was again denied by the appellate court, and then he appealed it to the Texas Supreme Court, where it has sat for over a year. At a time appropriate and convenient to Ken Paxton. He, uh, uh, goes to mediation and essentially in less than a few hours, uh, agrees to a full value settlement.

[00:09:04] Joe: So I think that it was also not just, you know, here you pay it for my conduct, but it was also the fact that it was a full value settlement. I know 3.3 million compared to the, you know, billions in the budget. Uh, is peanuts. But I think that it finally struck some of the lawyers who perhaps are in the House of Representatives as just a masterpiece of hypocrisy.

[00:09:25] Jeremi: And, and do you see this as evidence that, um, there are. A critical mass of Republicans who in the house at least, who believe in the integrity of the Office of Attorney General, because in some ways, many of us observing this had had lost all hope. Right? It’s been clear for a long time that Ken Paxton has not been acting as an impartial, uh, law, uh, leader for the state, that he’s not been the highest legal official in the state.

[00:09:52] Jeremi: He’s actually been a partisan and a bully, and a demagogue, as Zach pointed out at his poem, uh, is this evidence of a change of heart among some Republicans?

[00:10:00] Joe: Well, it, it’s interesting because I’m looking at the list of, uh, the, the vote tally, uh, of, of who voted Aye for the resolution of impeachment and nay.

[00:10:10] Joe: And you’re right, there was, was it 61, uh, Republicans who, who voted, I think it was

[00:10:15] Jeremi: 60 Republicans and 61 Democrats, if I’m not mistaken, 60

[00:10:18] Joe: Republicans, 60 Republicans out of, uh, 86. And you know, that’s, Obviously, uh, more than two thirds. Not that you need that margin, but you know, I think that it, it goes to show that, uh, it’s a great argument for separation of powers, you know, in the Texas constitution.

[00:10:35] Joe: Everybody in the legislature was just happy to let Ken Paxton, you know, be the, the bully and the, and the, the boogieman, uh, because, you know, he certainly is not short on lawsuits to file and he kind of keeps the attention on him so the legislature can do their thing. Uh, but, uh, obviously, you know, while we look at this list of people, uh, that we associate with certain, uh, legislative bills that might be seen as repugnant by many.

[00:11:01] Joe: Uh, they came together, uh, and stood, uh, as a cohesive unit. Uh, and it was an overwhelming vote. Uh, you know, what was it, Jeremy? 1 21 to 23. And I think, I think even someone who was absent finally added their name to it. So I think it’s really gonna wind up being 1 22. That’s an overwhelming majority. Yeah.

[00:11:21] Joe: And it’s, it’s one of the most substantial and meaningful bipartisan acts. The Texas House has taken this session. As I

[00:11:33] Zachary: understand it, uh, there’s been a longstanding tension in the past 10 years or so between the Texas State House and the Texas State Senate. Um, could you maybe explain for our listeners in Texas, but also those outside the state, uh, how the system of impeachment, uh, works in Texas, um, and, and, and, and the sort of back and forth between the House and the Senate, um, that that led to this moment.

[00:11:55] Joe: Oh, thank you Zachary. Yeah, we certainly got a, a primer on, you know, federal impeachment, uh, during the Trump administration, and it’s similar, uh, to federal, but what’s some important differences? So you start obviously, uh, the house, you know, can draft resolution, uh, which it did in this case through a committee, a general investigation committee.

[00:12:17] Joe: And it came up with 20 counts, and they’re very, uh, salacious. Um, and, you know, it’s like a 20 count indictment that a grand jury in a criminal setting would, would issue. But here’s the difference. It’s not a criminal, uh, uh, hearing, uh, or a criminal proceeding. Uh, there is no, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

[00:12:38] Joe: This is a purely political. A product of our Texas constitution, and that is why the house acts as the grand jury. And then they prefer is the term of art, their impeachment articles to the Senate, which may have already happened. Zachary, literally as, as we sit here today, and I know the listeners will be hearing this after Sin Die, um, when the Senate recedes the articles, there’s certain timelines that have to obtain.

[00:13:06] Joe: Uh, and roughly 30 days is what I would expect. They will start their trial. So if the house presents like a grand jury, they’re sort of indicting. Uh, Mr. Paxton, the Senate is where we will have lawyers and witnesses and documents and evidence. It’ll be, it’ll be truly like a trial that, that, that we’re familiar with.

[00:13:28] Joe: The Senate has to either. Convict or acquit. And unlike the house which took the entire 20 uh, count articles of impeachment as one vote, they didn’t do 20 separate votes. That’s gonna be different in the Senate. They’re gonna do a vote on every single one of these, and he’s either gonna, you know, be acquitted or uh, convicted to convict.

[00:13:52] Joe: You need two thirds of the senators present. Now let me take a breath and see, you know, if we wanna keep going cuz there’s

[00:14:00] Jeremi: more. Well, yes and, and I would just want to bring out a couple of things, Joe, in your excellent summary here. First, Cindy DA. For those outside the state, that is when the Texas legislature is no longer in session.

[00:14:11] Jeremi: It meets approximately six months out of two years. That’s the end of session though, of course, will probably be a special session. So this gets infinitely complex, but as I understand it, Joe impeachment and the con, the trial for the impeached attorney general. That happens out of session, they do not have to be in session for that, correct?

[00:14:30] Joe: That’s correct. And you know, the session is gonna obviously end, um, you know, we’re reporting this, uh, on a Monday. It’ll, it’ll end tonight. And, and then whether there’s a special session for Governor Abbott’s, you know, role of, you know, or menu of, of items, that’s one thing. Uh, the governor needs to issue a proclamation to call the Senate into order to try Warren Kenneth Paxton.

[00:15:01] Joe: Oh, he

[00:15:01] Jeremi: has to. I did not know that. He has to issue a proclamation for that to happen.

[00:15:04] Joe: Yes, and if he does not within a certain amount of time, then the Lieutenant Governor can do it. If the li Lieutenant Governor does not do it within a certain amount of time, then the President Proteor. Of the Senate can do it.

[00:15:17] Joe: If he or she doesn’t do that, then a majority, not two-thirds, but a majority of the senators can petition that they do it. I mean, it’s gonna happen. The Constitution requires the

[00:15:29] Jeremi: trial. Now what’s interesting and different from uh, federal impeachment is, uh, in the federal case, uh, an impeached president or an impeached federal officer of any other level, uh, stays in office until, uh, a trial determination in the case of Texas.

[00:15:46] Jeremi: And in the case of Attorney General Ken Paxton, he is now suspended from office until the outcome of his trial in the Senate. Is that correct?

[00:15:54] Joe: That is correct. And, and that’s one of the unique differences that I was referring to. And how interesting. I mean, uh, the fact is the moment he was impeached, uh, 5:00 PM Friday, as I recall, uh, he was immediately suspended from office and, you know, it wouldn’t have been inappropriate for the Department of Public Safety to post guards at his office to make sure that he wasn’t trespassing.

[00:16:18] Jeremi: And he will be suspended until any determination is made in the trial. So what is, what is to happen if the Senate just sits on this for weeks and months? Is there, is there a time period when they must have the trial?

[00:16:32] Joe: I, I have not been able to find, you know, you know, in the event a majority don’t petition, you know, then something else happens.

[00:16:40] Joe: I mean, I, I think this is the third time this has happened and it, it came to pass in Paul Ferguson in 1917, and. Uh, you know, op Korea in 1975, uh, that, uh, you know, the Senate took it up. I, I think in, let’s look at Op Korea’s, uh, example. Uh, he was impeached, uh, in June and, uh, of 75 and the, the, uh, Texas Senate took up his impeachment.

[00:17:13] Joe: Trial on September 3rd, 1975. So, you know, there was 60 days or so between, uh, the articles being preferred to the Senate and the beginning, uh, of the, uh, Senate trial. And, and you know, Jeremy, what’s interesting is Op Corillo, as you pointed out, was a district judge. And so there was a simultaneous.

[00:17:37] Joe: Proceeding ongoing at the time of his impeachment trial in the Senate. That was, um, before the, uh, Texas State Judicial Qualifications Commission. And at one point, after several days, the senators adjourned for like months so that the judicial hearing could take precedence and, and be heard, which, you know, it was appropriate.

[00:18:00] Joe: And I’ve, I’ve read the record on that when that. Judicial commission completed its work. It was 30 days of testimony. They incorporated that into the Senate trial, which ended on January 23rd and itself, uh, with about 23 days of proceedings. But it took them from September 3rd to January 23rd to, uh, accomplish 23 days on the record.

[00:18:27] Joe: Right.

[00:18:27] Jeremi: So, so we could have quite a while in which, uh, Paxton is suspended from office and at the moment his deputy is serving, but the governor could also appoint an interim, is that correct? Well, that’s

[00:18:40] Joe: right. Uh, uh, he may And, uh, the constitution’s very clear that he may appoint a provisional attorney general, and, and Adam has not done that.

[00:18:49] Joe: I mean, it’s just, you know, there’s apparently, uh, Office of Attorney General Protocol that says, you know, when Ken Paxton’s out, you know, uh, his first assistant in this case, Brent Webster, uh, becomes the acting Attorney General. And interestingly, Brent Webster was, was hired on October 1st, 2020, the day, uh, the whistleblowers reported Paxton to the F B I.

[00:19:15] Joe: What do you think,

[00:19:16] Zachary: um, this means, uh, this particular impeachment, um, and the ongoing, uh, trial process in the Senate means for Texas politics moving forward and for the Office of Attorney General

[00:19:27] Joe: in particular? Well, Zachary, it, it’s, it is a moment we will never forget because I, I predict that. Ken Paxton, uh, will be remembered for a long time.

[00:19:40] Joe: Uh, he’s going to be, uh, if history and recent history, uh, is any indicator, uh, one of the most, uh, obnoxious, um, uh, you know, you know, fance, if you will, in an impeachment inquiry. I mean, during the house. Proceeding, which lasted all of four hours. Uh, he was texting and calling people apparently, uh, threatening retaliation, you know, in real time as senate as, uh, Rion Charles Garen pointed out.

[00:20:10] Joe: And I’m sure we’re gonna hear more about that. Um, so what I’m gonna tell you is that this Senate trial is where the Fisher in Texas Republican Party will be laid bare. It is Aine conflict of. Magnificent proportions and, and not to be overly political. I’m trying to be right down the middle here, but it, it just goes to show what happens when one team is in charge for too long.

[00:20:40] Jeremi: I think that’s right. I think that’s right. And it’s striking to me, Joe, I was reading earlier today that um, the, I guess the managers or prosecutors in the Senate of Paxton will be seven Republicans and five Democrats. So that means they’re gonna be seven Republicans. Uh, ostensibly Republicans are very high standing in the party who are gonna be leading the attack on the Republican Attorney General.

[00:21:04] Jeremi: Um, In the Senate. Um, that’s, that’s quite extraordinary. What could be better evidence of, as you say, an internent fight within the party? What is this fight really about? What, what is it that’s tearing the Republican party in Texas apart?

[00:21:17] Joe: You know, I mean, first off, before I answer that, let me tri this in by saying you’ve really got to admire, um, the House General Investigating Committee.

[00:21:25] Joe: Yes. And, and how thorough their work was and how, uh, you know, just direct and Frank, their presentation was. At the impeachment hearing, and I expect that to continue. Um,

[00:21:36] Jeremi: and Joe, as, just as an aside, both Zachary and I were commenting earlier, Andrew Mer, the, uh, Republican chair of the committee, and really the person who took the lead on this, who’s also the grandson of the, uh, great, uh, Texas Governor Koch Stevenson, uh, former.

[00:21:53] Jeremi: The, the other interesting thing about Andrew Murray, I just have to say is he has a extraordinary mustache. I mean, he really, which, which,

[00:22:00] Joe: you know, he, he wins the, the memorable quote of the day during the, the lead up to the impeachment hearing where he said, this information curls my mustache. Yes. And he thought that was brilliant, you know, um, but, uh, but yeah, look, you know, for all the partisanship and, you know, people have taken sides and, and they will never meet again.

[00:22:21] Joe: Uh, I will say as a, you know, traditional Democrat, I was very impressed, um, with, with, uh, representative Mer. And, you know, he, he made me proud, uh, to be a Texan because I think he handled the magnificent. Now to answer your question, uh, what, what does it really mean? Like why is this picture happening now?

[00:22:45] Joe: Uh, you know, I, I think as a lawyer, you know, we’re trained to find the proximate cause of, of an incident, you know, an act, an injury. And the truth is what you learn in law school is that there are numerous. Items that can constitute an approximate cause. It’s not a so cause. And so I, I would tell you that, you know, this is what happens when politics become decadent and, you know, when gerrymandering reaches its extension and money gets involved and, you know, culture war, uh, has finally, I think, reached, you know, an an epic moment where it’s burst open.

[00:23:28] Joe: And so I think that there’s two Republican parties in Texas right now, and you know, anyone in political history knows that happened to the Democrats too. Um, and, and it was laid bare, uh, in the Sharpstown scandal in the early seventies. And, you know, very competent leaders were ejected from office, uh, uh, who, who had great political futures, but because of the corruption that in involved Frank Sharp and the Sharpstown scandal.

[00:23:56] Joe: Political, um, careers were left in tatters. I think the same thing’s gonna happen here starting with Ken Paxton. Uh, you’ve got, uh, people who have done their duty constitutionally already being called rhinos, and we all know what that means, Republican and name only, but just the, the press ignorance that goes into calling someone who’s doing their constitutional duty.

[00:24:17] Joe: A rhino is everything you need to know what’s wrong, uh, in the, uh, nice and civil war in that Republican party.

[00:24:25] Jeremi: To me, Joe, it, it looks like a Texas analog for what’s happening at the national level. Do you see it that way? Yes. Yes.

[00:24:32] Joe: It’s, it’s run, it, it’s, it’s like not, it’s DNA probably in several states and there is an outsized effect, uh, the Trump effect, if you will.

[00:24:43] Joe: And I think the Republican party, uh, is having contractions down here and it’s really 24 presidential election. What

[00:24:53] Zachary: do you think we can, can learn then, um, for our national politics, uh, and moving into the 2024 election cycle from this moment? What, what lessons should be take?

[00:25:05] Joe: Uh, bipartisanship is alive and well, and it’s actually something that should be intentional, not accidental.

[00:25:13] Joe: Uh, and so, so I think that Texas. You know, for the last 30 years, uh, has been a red state in bond. I mean, all statewide offices have been held by. Republicans, you know, you can split hairs instead of whether 94 or 98 was the last year, but certainly 94 was the last time any statewide. I’m not. You’re all gone extinct and, and you know, that has a consequence.

[00:25:39] Joe: And um, I think the lesson here is that as Mr. Paxton is exited from the binder, It would not be such a bad thing to go back to. Compromise, uh, dialogue, discussion, best practices, and it’s, it’s done. Best politics, I think. Compromise, but controversial role. I mean, you can’t handle a trial without a plaintiff for a defendant or a prosecutor and a defendant.

[00:26:12] Joe: You can’t have a business transaction without two parties. And how can a growing state like Texas switch using the dates I stated you in 94, we had 18 million people in 2024. We’re gonna have a 31 minute people. How can a growing like significant state, like Texas get by with only one party and a political dynamic in a democracy?

[00:26:34] Joe: So I think that’s gonna be the lesson, is that it’s time to open the door for their own beliefs. And as

[00:26:40] Zachary: I understand it, the Texas House, which is the, the body which, which, which passed these articles of impeachment on Friday. Um, Institutionally has a lot of, of, of mechanisms to encourage bipartisanship, uh, built in, such as the, the, the method of electing the speaker.

[00:26:56] Zachary: Is that correct?

[00:26:58] Joe: Oh, it’s true. And, and that’s why I think Dave feeling, you know, gets a lot of, uh, you know, ne negative press from some people on the far right side of the Republican party. But, you know, he, he seems very confident in what he is doing. And, and that’s an exact perfect example that the speaker of the house is elected from within the membership, which of course involves Democrats and Republicans.

[00:27:21] Joe: Uh, because I think you need, you know, more than just the number that’s. Constitutes either, either caucus, right?

[00:27:28] Jeremi: Right. And, and there’s also a sharing of committee chairs and various other, uh, bipartisan mechanisms in place, uh, in the house that you don’t have in the Texas Senate and that you don’t have in the American Congress exa, uh, for, for example.

[00:27:41] Jeremi: Um, am I hearing you say, Joe, that your read on Texas politics and you have as good to read on it as anyone I know. Is that we’re moving not necessarily in a anti-Republican direction, but that we’re moving in a more bipartisan, moderate direction in our politics. I, I think

[00:27:57] Joe: so. And you know, there’s, there’s good talent in the Republican party, the state talent in the Democratic party.

[00:28:03] Joe: But what, what must be, uh, an essential component, whatever party you’re in, is that you respect the Texas Constitution, the American Constitution, because after all, that’s your oath of office. So, you know. Uh, you take an oath to, you know, honor your, your spouse when you get married and you know, it is frowned upon.

[00:28:22] Joe: You know when people have extramarital affairs and break that, you know, holy covenant, that you meant to your loved one. It’s, it should be the same in government. All of these people that get elected take an oath of office to chief. Texas Constitution and American Constitution, and there are people who follow that oath, scrupulously, and there clearly are those who do not.

[00:28:45] Joe: So the, the, the movement that I see Texas going and it’s a consequential state due to its size and numbering tone, electoral votes, is that, uh, we’ve reached the end round. Of this somewhat, uh, authoritarian dynamic, and it’s played out interestingly, and it’s going to play out in King P’S trial.

[00:29:09] Jeremi: So, so, Joe, the, the, the last question I want to ask you, we, we always close with a question moving forward, how this history helps us to, to, uh, better anticipate the future and to make better decisions for the sake of our democracy going forward.

[00:29:22] Jeremi: Uh, as you and I have talked about before, uh, there are all kinds of talented people who come into my office. I’m sure they come into your office. I’m sure Zachary meets them also, um, who, uh, care about public service. But for the last. 10 to 12 years, they’ve been discouraged from getting involved because it’s ugly.

[00:29:40] Jeremi: Uh, because moderate people get attacked because, um, you are forced to pick sides as you said. Um, if this is a moment when we’re breaking out of that, what should, um, those individuals who care about the constitution, who are, uh, really about democracy, not about party, how should they get involved? What kinds of offices should they run for and what should we be thinking about as voters?

[00:30:04] Joe: Right. No, I mean, I think you’re absolutely right. The, the, the, the spectrum of service is broad and, uh, you should all of us, you know, look at city council races, Google district races, uh, precinct chair. Opportunities within a particular party, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican. Um, some, some people, you know, can even serve on a municipal utility district or a water control board.

[00:30:34] Joe: Uh, you know, Robert’s rules of order is a beautiful thing and, and, you know, reason, debate and, you know, public service is a beautiful thing. It, it defines the American experience and you know, more to the point. It, it can’t just be one party that, that rules the wrist or, or one party denigrates. Uh, you know, large cities will, perhaps policies are different than they are in the Texas legislature.

[00:31:04] Joe: By condemning, you know, whole incubators of entrepreneurialism. Like, you know, there’s wonderful places where people lived work and, and have dreams and aspirations. And, and what I’d say to this one party system that, that hopefully we’re exiting, is the famous words. Jameson when he said Give the drum song.

[00:31:31] Jeremi: I, I knew you’d come back to your experience as a drummer. I knew you’d bring it in somehow, Joe.

[00:31:37] Joe: Well, I mean, I mean, there’s just so much talent out there. I mean, most people I think are, are, you know, they just think it’s a foreboding thing to do to, to get involved in, in, in public service. But it’s actually one of the, the highest, uh, orders, um, of yeah, of servant

[00:31:53] Jeremi: leadership.

[00:31:54] Jeremi: And, and I wanna just ask a follow on. I said that was my last question, but I have to ask this follow on. Um, if Ken Paxton is removed from office in 2024, there will then therefore be an election, a new election for the Attorney General of the state of Texas. At the same time, that will be electing a president and, uh, a junior senator from Texas as well.

[00:32:14] Jeremi: Um, This was unexpected, but now it looks like that’s a real possibility. What do you think are the characteristics that we should be looking for in the, in the framework you’ve described, which is so compelling? What are the characteristics we should be looking for? Uh, in a, in someone like a new Attorney general?

[00:32:30] Jeremi: Uh, uh,

[00:32:31] Joe: great question. I, I think it should be, you know, someone not from part of him, brown, maybe someone who has served in local office. Uh, someone who is trustworthy in their profession, you know, whether it’s law or something else who has a established career as opposed to being a full-time politician who has, you know, been in the system for a long time.

[00:32:57] Joe: Cuz this system is all going to have to stand up and vote. I mean, every member of the house and every member of the Senate is going to be on record. As to Mr. Warren, Kenton. So, you know, I think that there is an opportunity for the governor to appoint someone, uh, France, but I, I don’t, and that person, because who Iann is, is probably going to be the, a, the object of, of ire, uh, from the, the Paxton crowd that may have something to say about their longevity and the Republican primary.

[00:33:29] Joe: So I think the 24 election, as you mentioned is, is really where the people of Texas can have their say after this exceptional episode was resolved in the Senate.

[00:33:42] Jeremi: Zachary, what do you think? I mean, you’re watching this as, uh, as a young person who I know has been dismayed. I’ve heard you comment in many contexts about the, um, the hypocrisy of so many leaders in our country, in our estate, and, and particularly in the Attorney General’s office in Texas, where we had someone who.

[00:34:00] Jeremi: Clearly, uh, doesn’t care about the law yet. He’s the highest law enforcement officer in the state. Do you see us moving? Do you, moving in the direction Joe is describing, where people will start to look for competence and, um, bipartisanship and seriousness, or is this just a blip in a longer period of.

[00:34:18] Jeremi: Partisan nonsense. Uh, I’m not

[00:34:20] Zachary: sure that it’s not the latter, but I do think it, it should be inspiring for young people because the senators, sorry, the, the members of the house, uh, here in Texas who voted to impeach Ken Paxton are on the whole, some of the youngest and, and, and, and most, uh, Eloquent and engaged, uh, young political thinkers in our state.

[00:34:40] Zachary: And I think that this shows that, that a new generation of, of politicians and people who get involved in politics at a very local level, um, can have a big impact, um, on not just, uh, the politics of the state or their local communities, but on the national news cycle. Um, and I think that it also shows that, that there is a space for people who might not frame.

[00:35:02] Zachary: Um, their, their vision of, of what a society of laws and, and our democracy means in partisan terms, but who believe that that, that there is a necessity and a responsibility of every citizen to defend, uh, our democracy, our state, and our national constitutions. I think that this shows that there’s a space for those people in our

[00:35:19] Jeremi: politics as well.

[00:35:20] Jeremi: I agree. I have to say, I watched a, a good part of the hearings. I rarely watch the Texas House. It’s, it’s usually boring and, and upsetting. But I did watch this. And I think Zachary is spot on. I would guess you’d agree too, Joe. I mean, there were so many young members, uh, of the house and, uh, there are people who on most issues I would disagree with, but I had such high regard for the seriousness with which they approached this issue.

[00:35:48] Jeremi: Their courage. Many of them commented on the record about how they had been bullied by Ken Paxton, by Donald Trump. By Ted Cruz. Uh, these were people whose jobs were being threatened. They were threatened. The people were threatening to primary them, but yet they stood up for the right thing in this one moment.

[00:36:06] Jeremi: Uh, and even though I might disagree with them on their policy positions, it did appear this was a young generation, or at least a set of young people who, uh, care about the constitution. As you said, Joe, who care about integrity and uh, and I think that is inspiring. Uh, do you agree, Joe? I,

[00:36:22] Joe: I, I agree. Holy.

[00:36:24] Joe: And, and I watched every second of the, of the, of the hearing, and I was in a very, uh, happy mood. Not, not just because of the outcome, but but how the outcome was reached. It was, it was, um, something, as I said earlier, makes you proud to be a Texan. Uh, the, the Texas Constitution was in full regalia that afternoon.

[00:36:50] Jeremi: And, and I thought democratic process was, I I was thinking as, as all of our listeners know, uh, our inspirations for this podcast are Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. And I really was thinking of Lincoln’s, uh, better angels of our nature that Lincoln could look out and see, uh, some of the most horrible behavior.

[00:37:08] Jeremi: Before and during our civil war, but still also recognize that there was still a spark of goodness and potential in our democracy. And, and, and I think it was there with this as well. Um, and I think it’s something we need to build on, which is, which is why we devoted a whole episode to it. Uh, Joe Jaworski, you have shared with us, uh, learned insights.

[00:37:27] Jeremi: Your experience, uh, Your understanding of these issues. Uh, and we also know that you’re gonna be a main player in, um, the future of our state and our nation, and we’re, we’re really grateful that you joined us today, so thank you, Joe. Oh,

[00:37:42] Joe: gentlemen, thank you so much. I, I’m a fan of your show and I was proud to be a part of it today.

[00:37:47] Jeremi: Zachary, thank you for your, uh, insightful, humorous, satirical, uh, poem. You’re on a streak here of satirical poems and, uh, thank you, most of all, to our loyal listeners for joining us for this week of This is Democracy.

[00:38:09] Outro: This podcast is produced by the Liberal Arts I t S Development Studio and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and recorded by Harris Kini. Stay tuned for a new episode every week. You can find this is Democracy on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

[00:38:29] Outro: See you next time.