Texas — Civic Intelligence Unit

How Ratings Are Determined

Every candidate is evaluated against the same published standards, using publicly verifiable evidence.

The evidenceVotes and legislation, public statements and documented actions, and findings by courts, election authorities or ethics bodies.
The standardConduct, not ideology. Intent is not inferred, and silence is never scored as a violation.
The sourcesEvery assessment is documented, with full sources listed at the bottom of each scorecard.

How to Read This

Colors reflect constitutional accountability based on publicly verifiable conduct. They are not endorsements or predictions of election outcomes. Ratings reflect the severity, pattern, and context of conduct.

Green — Clear constitutional compliance / restraint

Amber — Mixed, limited, or under-articulated record

Red — Clear or repeated constitutional breach

Texas · U.S. Senate

TX Constitutional Accountability Scorecard — Summary Table

Contest & Candidate	Use of Force	Rule of Law	Election Integrity
U.S. Senate
James Talarico (D)
Ken Paxton (R)

U.S. Senate — Candidate Assessments

James Talarico

Democratic Candidate — U.S. Senate

Use of Force: AmberRule of Law: GreenElection Integrity: Amber

1. Use of Force — Amber

AMBER

What the Record Shows

Publicly opposed U.S. military action against Iran, warning against “another forever war” and emphasizing the humanitarian consequences and risks to American service members.
In opposing U.S. intervention in Venezuela, went further constitutionally, characterizing the action as illegal and arguing that Congress was failing to exercise its checking role over presidential military action.
Following controversial ICE enforcement actions, supported congressional investigation and oversight, prosecution of agents who abuse their authority, identification requirements for agents, and warrant requirements for arrests.
Has called for replacing the current structure of ICE with an agency focused on public safety while continuing enforcement against cartels, human traffickers and gang members.

Why Amber

Talarico has articulated meaningful restraints on military and law-enforcement power and affirmative mechanisms for congressional oversight and individual accountability.

His Venezuela position provides some evidence of recognizing Congress's checking role over presidential military action, strengthening the record beyond purely humanitarian objections.

His record nevertheless contains less developed discussion of the broader constitutional framework governing presidential military authority, congressional authorization, and the legitimate exercise of federal coercive power.

2. Rule of Law & Oversight — Green

GREEN

What the Record Shows

In May 2023, voted with a bipartisan 121–23 Texas House majority, including 60 Republicans and 61 Democrats, to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton following a House investigation into allegations including bribery, abuse of office, obstruction and retaliation.
When asked during the 2026 Democratic Senate primary whether he would support another impeachment of President Trump, declined to prejudge the matter, saying he would “pore through the evidence,” treat the proceeding seriously, and perform his duty as a senator.
Has advocated broader institutional safeguards including congressional stock-trading restrictions, Supreme Court ethics requirements and recusals, increased governmental oversight, and opposition to government efforts to ignore court rulings or dismantle checks and balances.
His platform proposes restricting broad presidential pardon power, arguing that it has been abused by presidents “on both sides of the aisle.”
Has publicly criticized political and donor influence within the Democratic Party as well as Republican institutions, providing additional evidence that his stated accountability principles are not confined solely to political opponents.

Why Green

Talarico has both articulated and demonstrated support for institutional accountability, most notably through his participation in the bipartisan Paxton impeachment, an actual exercise of legislative oversight rather than simply a stated position.

His evidence-based approach to potential impeachment, support for court compliance, checks and balances and institutional ethics, and willingness to criticize political influence within his own party demonstrate a broader commitment to these principles.

Overall, his record demonstrates constitutional compliance where tested and a consistent commitment to broader institutional checks and accountability, with no identified pattern of contrary constitutional conduct..

3. Election Integrity — Amber

AMBER

What the Record Shows

Participated in the 2021 Texas House quorum break opposing legislation that imposed additional voting requirements and restrictions, and later participated in the 2025 quorum break opposing mid-decade congressional redistricting.
Supports restoring Voting Rights Act protections, expanding lawful voter access and establishing independent redistricting commissions to prohibit partisan gerrymandering nationwide.
His public arguments concerning “free and fair elections” have focused on voting access, representation and election rules rather than unsupported allegations that certified election results were fraudulent.
His legislative record includes efforts to make election information more accessible and proposals for an independent citizen redistricting commission.
Continued voting from his parents’ address after purchasing a nearby home in the same county and legislative district. Reporting found this may have violated Texas voting law, although no intentional voter fraud has been established.

Why Amber

Talarico has a substantial affirmative record supporting lawful voter access, Voting Rights Act protections, fair representation and restraints on partisan gerrymandering.

His voter-registration history presents a legitimate compliance issue, although no intentional voter fraud has been established.

The available record otherwise contains no identified conduct challenging certified election outcomes or undermining lawful election administration..

Ken Paxton

Republican Candidate — U.S. Senate

Use of Force: RedRule of Law: RedElection Integrity: Red

1. Use of Force — Red

RED

What the Record Shows

As Texas Attorney General, defended Texas National Guard/DPS border operations, litigated to prevent federal agents from cutting Texas-installed concertina wire, and rejected federal demands concerning access to Shelby Park.
Separately used Attorney General enforcement authority against ActBlue, a Democratic fundraising organization supporting candidates including his Senate opponent, James Talarico.
In June 2026, a federal court granted ActBlue a preliminary injunction, finding it likely to succeed on its claims that Paxton's enforcement action retaliated against protected political fundraising and sought to suppress support for Talarico. The court blocked continuation of the state action; Paxton disputes the ruling and has appealed.

Why Red

Paxton's record extends beyond support for aggressive law-enforcement policies to the use of Attorney General enforcement authority against protected political activity.

In the ActBlue case, a federal court preliminarily found that his enforcement action was retaliatory and intended to suppress fundraising for his political opponent.

While the ruling is not a final adjudication, it provides substantial judicially grounded evidence of misuse of government authority.

2. Rule of Law & Oversight — Red

RED

What the Record Shows

In 2020, senior officials in Paxton's office reported alleged misuse of office to federal law enforcement; four subsequently alleged they were fired in retaliation and sued under the Texas Whistleblower Act.
A Republican-led Texas House investigation culminated in a bipartisan 121–23 vote to impeach Paxton on allegations including bribery, abuse of office, obstruction and retaliation. The Texas Senate subsequently acquitted him on all 16 articles it considered.
In 2025, a Texas district court found that Paxton's office had violated the Texas Whistleblower Act by retaliating against the former officials; Paxton subsequently dropped his appeal.
Separately, in 2026 a federal court preliminarily found that Paxton's enforcement action against ActBlue was retaliatory and intended to suppress protected political fundraising. Paxton appealed the ruling.

Why Red

Paxton’s record involves repeated scrutiny over the use of official authority and retaliation, including reports by senior officials, bipartisan impeachment, a judicial finding that his office violated the Texas Whistleblower Act, and a separate preliminary federal finding of retaliation in the ActBlue case.

The Texas Senate’s acquittal remains significant contrary evidence, but the subsequent judicial findings establish that the constitutional-accountability concerns extend beyond the impeachment allegations alone.

3. Election Integrity — Red

RED

What the Record Shows

Acting as Texas Attorney General, brought Texas v. Pennsylvania challenging the certified 2020 presidential results in four states and seeking relief that could have prevented those states from using their existing results to appoint electors. The Supreme Court denied the case for lack of Texas standing without reaching the underlying allegations on their merits.
Following January 6, promoted unsupported claims that Antifa had infiltrated the Capitol attack; contemporary fact-checking found no evidence supporting those claims.
Has continued using the Attorney General’s office to investigate alleged illegal voting. Separately, reporting found that Paxton may have violated Texas residency requirements by voting in six elections from a Collin County address while evidence linked him to a residence in neighboring Denton County. Paxton maintains he is lawfully registered; no voter-fraud finding has been made.

Why Red

Texas v. Pennsylvania is the central evidence because Paxton used his official authority as Attorney General to challenge the certified 2020 presidential election results in four other states and sought relief that could have prevented those results from determining their presidential electors. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and did not adjudicate the underlying allegations.

Paxton subsequently promoted the unsupported claim that Antifa had been confirmed as responsible for the January 6 Capitol attack and has continued to use his office to investigate alleged illegal and noncitizen voting.

How Ratings Are Determined

How to Read This

TX Constitutional Accountability Scorecard — Summary Table

U.S. Senate — Candidate Assessments

James Talarico

1. Use of Force — Amber

2. Rule of Law & Oversight — Green

3. Election Integrity — Amber

Ken Paxton

1. Use of Force — Red

2. Rule of Law & Oversight — Red

3. Election Integrity — Red

Sources

James Talarico

Ken Paxton