Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton may have violated state election laws by voting in six elections in the past two years using an address where he did not live, according to records obtained by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. This occurs despite Paxton’s own office establishing a public tip line to report suspected voter fraud and issuing warnings that misrepresenting residency on election records is illegal.
Ken Paxton’s Voter Registration and Residency Conflict
Records obtained by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune indicate that Ken Paxton remained registered to vote in Collin County while appearing to live in neighboring Denton County. State Sen. Angela Paxton stated in a 2025 divorce filing that Paxton moved out of their Collin County home a year earlier. A source close to the Paxtons said the attorney general has not moved back into the home since leaving.
Reporting links Paxton to a 5,000-square-foot home in a gated Denton County community purchased in mid-February by a trust. While the trust’s ownership wasn’t initially disclosed, the address for a blind trust shared by Ken and Angela Paxton was changed to this Denton County property one week after the purchase. Evidence supporting his residency there includes:
- An envelope addressed to “Warren Paxton” (the attorney general’s given name) spotted in the home’s mailbox in June.
- Video from a June podcast appearance with Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick showing a fireplace and mantle nearly identical to the home’s real estate listings.
- A resident of the gated community who reported spotting Paxton on the premises.
Despite these links to Denton County, voter rolls show Paxton is not registered there. He voted in Collin County twice since February: once in the March Republican primary and once in the May runoff.
Texas Election Law and Potential Penalties
Under Texas law, voting in an election when the voter is ineligible is a second-degree felony. This offense carries a potential penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Three election lawyers told ProPublica and The Texas Tribune that Paxton may have violated the same Texas laws his office cautioned about in its news release.
However, legal experts note that prosecuting residency cases is difficult. David Becker, director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, stated that a residence where someone does not sleep or spend the night raises “red flags” regarding the intent to reside. Election lawyer Beth Stevens noted that while temporary absences (like those of students or military members) are permitted, “fully moving” while claiming an intent to return enters “questionable territory.”
Contrast in Enforcement and Public Response
The allegations highlight a contrast between Paxton’s public enforcement record and his personal conduct. In 2018, the attorney general’s voter fraud unit arrested nine people on suspicion of using residential addresses where they did not live to vote in a municipal election in Edinburg. Those charges were later dismissed by county prosecutors.
When asked for clarification on June 3, 15, and 25, Paxton’s campaign did not provide specifics. Campaign spokesperson Madison Cercy issued a statement calling the reports “baseless, lie-filled tabloid story” and asserted that Paxton has been “a national leader on election integrity, with a long record of defending Texas elections.”
The situation has also become a point of contention in his Senate race. Democratic State Rep. James Talarico has used reports of Paxton’s personal life—including Daily Mail reporting on an alleged affair with Tracy Duhon—to characterize the attorney general as out of touch. While Paxton’s registration is public, Talarico does not do so, using state privacy laws to shield his own registration information, though his campaign maintains he is registered at his home in north Austin.
Legal Perspectives on Official Accountability
Joshua Blank, research director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, argues that as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, Paxton should avoid even the appearance of non-compliance. “When our elected officials who are tasked with passing and enforcing these laws exhibit troubles in engaging with the voting process themselves, that raises serious questions,” Blank said.
Ekow Yankah, a law professor at the University of Michigan, suggested the situation demonstrates that “technical violations of the law” are often ordinary, arguing against the “nefarious criminal intent” often attributed to individual voters in fraud investigations.