COLLIN COUNTY — The Collin County Democratic Party filed a complaint on Tuesday asking the Texas secretary of state to investigate whether Attorney General Ken Paxton committed election fraud by voting in the May primary runoff. The complaint centers on allegations that Paxton cast a ballot using a Collin County address where he no longer resides, potentially violating state election law.

According to reporting by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, Ken Paxton voted six times in the past two years while registered at an address in Collin County where he previously lived with his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton. Ken Paxton moved out of that Collin County home in June 2024 and has not returned, according to a divorce filing by his wife and a source close to the Paxton family. Reporting by the same outlets has linked him to a home in Denton County since February.

Three election officials told ProPublica and The Texas Tribune that Ken Paxton may have broken state election law, which requires voters to be registered where they live. Texas law does allow voters to temporarily cast ballots using an address where they do not reside if they intend to return, though the complaint contends Paxton lacks such intent. The Collin County Democratic Party’s filing noted that Paxton’s own office warned voters in February that “it is illegal to misrepresent your residence on election records.”

Mary Higbe, vice chair of the Collin County Democratic Party, sharply criticized the attorney general in written statements. “For someone who’s made a stand against voter fraud, it’s unconscionable (yet not surprising) that Paxton engages in this behavior,” Higbe wrote. She added, “I ask that he be held to the same standards he wishes to hold others to.” In a separate comment, she said, “But pointing out hypocrisy from the state’s top cop is necessary.”

The Texas Democratic Party issued a news release the day after the Collin County Democrats filed the complaint, accusing Ken Paxton of ignoring “bombshell voter fraud accusations.” Meanwhile, Madison Cercy, a spokesperson for Ken Paxton’s campaign, defended the attorney general. Cercy sent a statement to ProPublica and The Texas Tribune accusing the “political elite” and reporters of digging through the attorney general’s private life to “draw the most damning conclusion.” Cercy had previously stated to other news outlets that Ken Paxton “is a lawful, registered Texas voter in full compliance with the law.”

Ken Paxton did not answer questions from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune in early July about his voter registration and residency. He and the attorney general’s office also did not respond to questions about the complaint or how they would handle the case if referred by the secretary of state.

Alicia Pierce, spokesperson for Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson, outlined the process for handling such complaints. “Under the current system, the secretary of state conducts an ‘initial review and, if appropriate, refers it to the Office of the Attorney General,’” Pierce said. She added that state law requires the secretary of state to “promptly” refer complaints to the attorney general if “there is reasonable cause to suspect that criminal conduct occurred.”

Joaquin Gonzalez, a San Antonio election lawyer who previously led the voting rights program at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said an independent review is essential given the conflict of interest. “The ethical and sort of best practice would be for the attorney general’s office to hire an independent special investigator to look into the complaint,” Gonzalez said.

The complaint raises questions about enforcement consistency in Texas election law, particularly given Ken Paxton’s prominent role in pursuing voter fraud cases as the state’s top legal officer. The situation presents a potential conflict of interest, as any criminal investigation stemming from the secretary of state’s review would ultimately fall to Paxton’s own office unless an independent entity is appointed.

Collin County, a suburban area north of Dallas, has been central to Paxton’s political identity, and his voter registration there has implications for local representation and ballot eligibility. With the next statewide elections approaching, the outcome of this complaint could influence public trust in election integrity measures and the impartiality of their enforcement.