Texas lawmaker files resolution to reform impeachment process after voting against AG Paxton’s impeachment.
A Texas House Member Proposes Constitutional Amendment to Reform Impeachment Process
A Texas House member who voted against the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a resolution to reform the impeachment process.
State Rep. Travis Clardy (R) on Thursday filed a proposed constitutional amendment that would ensure elected officials facing impeachment are afforded due process.
“House Joint Resolution 8 amend Article XV, Section 1, and Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and will establish a clear and concise framework recognizing the importance of due process and uphold the fundamental rights of any officer facing impeachment consistent with the Constitution and the rule of law,” according to a news release.
Related Stories
-
Texas AG Ken Paxton to File Criminal Doxing Charges Against House Impeachment Managers
10/10/2023
-
House Republicans, Democrats Clash Over Evidence for Biden Impeachment, Purpose of Inquiry
9/28/2023
The six-term lawmaker requested Gov. Greg Abbott expand the scope of the current special session to include amending the impeachment process.
Mr. Paxton, who was acquitted on 16 articles, applauded the lawmaker on social media for filing the legislation. Four other articles held in abeyance were dismissed.
“Thank you Travis Clardy, this should never happen to anyone in Texas ever again. Strong work, Rep. Clardy,” he wrote on X.
Mr. Clardy was one of only 23 House Republicans who opposed the rushed impeachment of the state’s top lawyer based on unsworn testimony in the final days of the regular legislative session.
“This is an important issue,” Mr. Clardy said following the House impeachment vote in late May. “This is a constitutional office held by a gentleman who has been elected in a contested primary and contested general election just a few months ago. Duly elected by the people of Texas. And I think this deserved a great deal more attention to scrutiny than we were allowed to give it in the limited time we had.”
Widespread Criticism
The House impeachment process drew widespread criticism from Republican lawmakers, including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who presided over the Senate trial and remained silent until after Mr. Paxton’s acquittal on Sept. 16.
Mr. Patrick let loose during a speech after the trial, calling out the House over its “flawed process” and urging lawmakers to make changes to the constitution.
“In the next regular session, we must amend the Texas Constitution on the issue of impeachment because the way the constitution is written allowed this flawed process to happen this year,” he said.
The Senate leader criticized the House, led by Republican Speaker Dade Phelan, for not placing witnesses under oath, not providing adequate time for House members to review the articles, and suspending the attorney without pay. Mr. Patrick noted that former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump did not have to step down from their duties.
“An impeachment like this should never happen again in the House like it happened this year,” Mr. Patrick said at the end of his speech.
Mr. Clardy’s legislation addresses many of the same issues in its five key provisions.
“We have a duty to protect the rights of every individual, even during the most difficult circumstances,” Mr. Clardy said in a statement. “This legislation reinforces our commitment to fairness, due process, and upholding the principles upon which our great state was founded.”
The first provision would require the House to conduct “thorough and even-handed” investigations on all articles of impeachment.
The second provision would require all witness testimony considered by the House must be “provided under oath and subject to cross-examination”
The third provision would guarantee that any officer being investigated for impeachment, and their lawyer, be “granted the opportunity to be present during all hearings” before the House or committee.
The fourth provision would require members of the House to be given a minimum of 14 days to review all records relating to impeachment articles before voting.
Finally, the final provision partially addresses Mr. Patrick’s argument regarding suspension without pay.
It would place an officer on temporary suspension when they are impeached, but it would allow them to continue receiving their regular compensation until the matter is resolved.
“Hopefully, nobody ever feels the need to impeach anybody, regardless of who and when and what party they belong to,” Mr. Clardy told The Dallas Morning News. “But if they do, they’ll find there’s provisions that were put in place that give some guardrails to how the process should work.”
What are the concerns raised by opponents of the amendment regarding the potential hindrance of swift addressing of serious allegations if additional due process rights are granted to elected officials?
Rticles against Paxton, and rushing the impeachment process without proper due diligence.
Supporters of the constitutional amendment argue that elected officials facing impeachment should be granted the same due process rights as any other citizen. They believe that the impeachment process should not be treated as a political tool, but rather as a serious and fair procedure that upholds the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Opponents of the amendment, on the other hand, argue that the current impeachment process is sufficient and that granting additional due process rights to elected officials could hinder the swift addressing of serious allegations. They believe that the impeachment process should remain a political process, allowing the elected representatives to hold their colleagues accountable without unnecessary legal protections.
The filing of this proposed constitutional amendment comes in the wake of the impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton, which drew widespread criticism for its rushed and flawed proceedings. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presided over the Senate trial, expressed his dissatisfaction with the impeachment process and called for changes to be made to the Texas Constitution.
The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to establish a clear and concise framework that recognizes the importance of due process and upholds the fundamental rights of any officer facing impeachment. State Rep. Travis Clardy, who filed the resolution, believes that the impeachment process should be subject to greater scrutiny and attention, especially when it involves elected officials who have been duly elected by the people of Texas.
It remains to be seen how this proposed constitutional amendment will be received and debated in the Texas House and Senate. As elected officials grapple with the question of how best to reform the impeachment process, it is important to strike a balance between providing adequate due process rights and ensuring that the procedures remain fair, effective, and efficient.
Conclusion
The proposal of a constitutional amendment to reform the impeachment process in Texas reflects concerns over the rushed and flawed proceedings that took place during the recent impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton. State Rep. Travis Clardy’s resolution seeks to establish a clear and concise framework that recognizes the importance of due process and upholds the fundamental rights of any officer facing impeachment. The debate over this amendment will shed light on the tensions between providing adequate due process rights and maintaining an effective and efficient impeachment process. Ultimately, the outcome of this proposal will have significant implications for the future of impeachment proceedings in Texas and the protection of constitutional rights for elected officials.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
