Texas AG Paxton Finally Has Time for Open Meetings, Sues Travis County for DA's Secret Security Spending

In a shocking display of not being completely useless, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the Travis County commissioners court for allegedly violating the Texas Open Meetings Act. The court secretly approved $115,000 to help District Attorney Jose Garza secure his home, because who needs public scrutiny when you're handing out six-figure checks?

The American-Statesman blew the lid off this shady business in August, revealing that Garza had privately asked commissioners for the funds. The commissioners acted on an agenda item so vague it could have been describing a bake sale. Paxton, along with Travis County residents Doug Keenan and Cleo Petricek, filed the suit last week, claiming the agenda "failed to give adequate notice to the public."

Legal experts say this case is unique, as Paxton usually isn't one to enforce the Texas Open Meetings Act. He's been too busy suing every progressive community under the sun. But hey, at least he's finally doing his job, right?

Paxton, always the politician, said in a news release, “After the Travis County DA’s pro-crime policies have created such dangerous conditions for Austin residents, it is especially ironic that he secretly sought taxpayer-funded security measures for his home.” Because God forbid a DA wants to feel safe in his own home.

County commissioners, in a joint statement, promised to continue protecting officials despite "deliberate attacks by state leadership." Politics aside, government transparency experts agree the suit has merit.

Here's what our beloved experts had to say:

Daxton “Chip” Stewart, an attorney and professor at Texas Christian University, said, “Imagine my surprise when the Texas Open Meetings Act...was the subject of an enforcement action by Attorney General Ken Paxton....It’s hard for a transparency advocate like me...not to get a little excited...Granted, it is rich for Paxton to file suit regarding an effort to ‘divert county funds to improve a private residence’ when he faced impeachment for alleged bribes to improve his own private residence last year...But Paxton’s hypocrisy is not the point.”

Thomas Leatherbury, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University, hopes Paxton's enforcement isn't just a political stunt: "Open government supporters applaud this lawsuit, [but] they may also ask whether the Attorney General would bring the same lawsuit against Republican lawmakers over a policy decision with which he agrees."

Jim Hemphill, an Austin-based First Amendment attorney, said, “This lawsuit implicates vital issues of government transparency and accountability...Hopefully the Attorney General’s Office will take an active role going forward in monitoring potential Open Meetings Act violations and enforcing the Act’s requirements when appropriate.”

Paul Watler, a Dallas attorney specializing in open meetings cases, explained, "In my opinion, if this case should reach the Texas Supreme Court, that Court would likely hold that the commissioners did have authority...but was required to provide greater specificity in the agenda notice."

John Bussian, a Texas media lawyer, praised the suit: "The Attorney General’s position in the suit against the county is well-founded. Especially in the way that it emphasizes the government transparency principles embedded in the Texas Constitution..."

So there you have it, folks. Paxton finally did something right, even if it's just to score political points. Now, let's see if he can keep it up. Don't hold your breath.