Changes

In 2015, shortly after Paxton was elected as AG and took over, Paxton was indicted on charges of violating state securities laws by not disclosing his complete role while soliciting other investors in a stock offering.

In 2015, shortly after Paxton was elected as AG and took over, Paxton was indicted on charges of violating state securities laws by not disclosing his complete role while soliciting other investors in a stock offering.

The trial has been repeatedly delayed by pre-trial motions, notably three separate changes of venue:

The trial has been repeatedly delayed by pre-trial motions, notably three separate changes of venue and one change in the presiding judge:

*The initial case was filed in Travis County (since Paxton was a state officer, and the law at the time required all such suits to be filed there; Travis County is the county in which Austin, the state capital, is located, and is notoriously liberal);

*The initial case was filed in Travis County (since Paxton was a state officer, and the law at the time required all such suits to be filed there; Travis County is the county in which Austin, the state capital, is located, and is notoriously liberal).

*An intervening change in the law required the suit to be refiled in Collin County (where Paxton resides; Collin County is more Republican-leaning though the influx of California liberals has made it more competitive politically);

*An intervening change in the law required the suit to be refiled in Collin County (where Paxton resides; Collin County is more Republican-leaning though the influx of California liberals has made it more competitive politically).

*The prosecution then successfully argued that it could not get a fair trial in Collin County due to Paxton's popularity among the residents; the judge agreed and changed venue to Harris County (another notoriously liberal county);

*The originally assigned judge in Collin County recused himself; a judge from neighboring Tarrant County (a fairly conservative county) was reassigned by agreement;

*Paxton's attorneys argued that the motion was improper, and on appeal the trial was returned to Collin County;

*The prosecution then successfully argued that it could not get a fair trial in Collin County due to Paxton's popularity among the residents; the judge agreed.  The judge offered three options for transfer: Dallas County (which the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure required absent agreement), Harris County (another notoriously liberal county), or Tarrant County (which had more space available than the others).  The parties agreed to move the trial to Harris County as most of the attorneys were based there, though Paxton's attorneys reserved the right to challenge the motion that granted the change of venue.

*In June 2023, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest court for criminal matters; all nine justices are elected statewide and all nine are Republicans) ruled that the trial should be moved to Harris County.

*Paxton's attorneys argued that the motion was improper (on the basis that the judge's assignment had expired and was not renewed), and on appeal the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals (not to be confused with the United States Fifth Court of Appeals) agreed, ruling that the trial should be returned to Collin County.

*The state appealed the decision to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest court for criminal matters; all nine justices are elected statewide and all nine are Republicans), which ruled in June 2023 that the judge had the authority to change venue, ruling that the trial should be moved to Harris County.

It was also well-known that political donors have been assisting in paying Paxton's legal fees during this trial; one donor made a $100,000 donation to a fund set up to assist Paxton in this issue.

It was also well-known that political donors have been assisting in paying Paxton's legal fees during this trial; one donor made a $100,000 donation to a fund set up to assist Paxton in this issue.