Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton may have violated the very election laws his office cautioned about after records reveal he voted in six elections in the past two years using a Collin County address where he reportedly no longer resides. This discovery follows Paxton’s public announcement of a tip line for the public to report people or groups suspected of voter fraud.
Three election lawyers told the news organizations that Paxton may have violated the same Texas laws his office cautioned about in its news release. In Texas, voting in an election when the voter is ineligible is a second-degree felony that carries a potential 20-year prison sentence and a fine of up to $10,000.
The Residency Gap: Collin County vs. Denton County
State Sen. Angela Paxton said in a 2025 divorce filing that Paxton, whom she accused of adultery, moved out of their Collin County home a year earlier. Despite this, Paxton continues to list the home’s address in the northern Dallas suburb on his voter registration. A source close to the Paxtons said the attorney general has not moved back into the home since leaving.
It is unclear where Paxton has lived for the past two years, but reporting by ProPublica and the Tribune has linked him to a home in neighboring Denton County since February. In mid-February, a trust bought a 5,000-square-foot home listed for $2.4 million in a gated community in Denton County. The address for a blind trust shared by Ken and Angela Paxton was changed to the Denton County home a week after the property was purchased.
The evidence isn’t just on paper. A reporter placed a letter for Paxton in the mailbox of that Denton home, and an envelope addressed to Warren Paxton, the attorney general’s given name, was visible. Furthermore, a June podcast appearance with Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick showed Paxton seated before a fireplace and mantle that appeared to match real estate listings for the Denton property. Despite this, Paxton voted in both the March Republican primary and the May runoff using his Collin County registration.
A Double Standard in Voter Prosecution
In February, Paxton announced the creation of a tip line to report suspected voter fraud, warning that “it is illegal to misrepresent your residence on election records.” 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. County prosecutors, acting on behalf of Paxton, later dismissed the charges.
Legal experts suggest Paxton’s current situation is problematic because his job is to enforce election laws. David Becker, director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, notes that the chief law enforcement officer of Texas should be the one most intimately familiar with residency laws. “I think there would be questions raised about a residence where someone does not live, does not spend the night and can in no way have the intent to continue to reside,” Becker stated.
While state law allows voters to remain registered if their absence is temporary and they intend to return—a provision commonly used by college students and military service members—the split from his wife could make it difficult to argue that he intended to return to the home they own and where she continues to reside. As lawyer Beth Stevens observed, when actions suggest a full move, the “intend to return” claim enters questionable territory.
The Political Fallout and the Talarico Contrast
Paxton’s campaign has dismissed these findings, with spokesperson Madison Cercy asserting that Paxton has been “a national leader on election integrity, with a long record of defending Texas elections.” Cercy said that “attempting to insinuate otherwise and tear him down with a baseless, lie-filled tabloid story is not real reporting.”
State privacy laws allow some politicians and law enforcement officials to shield their voter registration information from public view. Paxton does not do so. Talarico does. Talarico’s campaign said he lives and is registered at the north Austin home he purchased in 2022. ProPublica and the Tribune were not able to independently confirm this.
Ekow Yankah, a law professor at the University of Michigan, suggests this situation highlights that intentional illegal voting is rare. He notes that if technical violations are this common, it challenges the narrative that such cases are attributable to “nefarious criminal intent.”
The Legal Loophole and the Prosecution Paradox
Prosecutors rarely bring cases challenging individual voters’ residency claims because they are hard to prove, the election lawyers said. Courts must consider multiple factors, such as where a voter sleeps or stores personal belongings, and prove that a voter “knowingly” or “intentionally” broke the law.
But for a man who has made “election integrity” his priority, the legal situation is a political concern. Joshua Blank, research director of the Texas Politics Project, argues that the AG should avoid even the appearance that he is not following the law. When the person tasked with enforcing the rules exhibits troubles in engaging with the voting process themselves, it raises serious questions.
The question now isn’t just about where Ken Paxton sleeps, but whether the laws he uses to target others apply to him.
