Paxton, Travis County agree on terms for transparency laws
The final agreement from the AG's office stemmed from the Commissioners Court authorizing the transfer of county funds for the security of Travis County District Attorney José Garza in November 2024.
In September 2024, Paxton sued the Commissioners Court with violating the Texas Open Meetings Act for 'secretly' discussing a measure to allocate money for security services for the personal residence of Garza.
RELATED | Travis County sues Paxton to avoid releasing records about DA security
'Government cannot be transparent if its elected leaders secretly vote on important matters that are required by Texas law to be discussed in open meeting,' Paxton said in a press release Wednesday.
Paxton continued, saying the judgment would ensure the Commissioners Court would 'abide by all government transparency laws.'
Travis County released the following statement regarding the agreement with Paxton:
'The Travis County Commissioners Court is pleased to reach agreement with the Texas Attorney General regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. This agreement acknowledges the Court's belief that they acted in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act for conducting executive closed sessions, and they agree to continue compliance as it has always done. This agreement balances public transparency with security concerns like those permitted for discussion in executive closed session, thereby protecting our employees and elected and appointed officials.'
Travis County Spokesperson Hector Nieto
RELATED | Travis County DA reveals threats against him, reasons for security requests
KXAN previously reported that the Commissioners Court, in total, authorized $115,000; however, only $64,000 of the approved amount was used to improve security at Garza's home.
KXAN also reported according to auditor records, 'this was the first time county funds were used for 'security services' for District Attorney José Garza's office since he took office in 2021.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
7 hours ago
- CBS News
Tarrant County commissioners to consider slashing voting locations
The Tarrant County Commissioners Court will meet Tuesday morning to approve polling locations for the special election coming up in November. The proposal under consideration would slash the number of locations where people can cast their ballots. In 2023, the last non-presidential election year, Tarrant County had 330 polling locations on Election Day. The proposal for 2025 calls for 214 locations, a 35% drop. Early voting locations are also being cut. In 2023, there were 44 locations across the county. This year, the proposal has 24 locations, a 45% drop. Additionally, there are zero proposed voting locations at college campuses in Tarrant County, compared to two in 2023. This comes the year after County Judge Tim O'Hare pushed for having no early voting on higher education campuses for the 2024 election. After a contentious meeting, the court ultimately voted against the plan. On ballot for the Nov. 4 election, voters will decide on amendments to the state constitution, including property tax cuts, and a handful of municipal elections. Residents of Senate District 9, which covers much of the northern and western parts of Tarrant County, will have a special election to fill the seat vacated by Kelly Hancock, who is now the state comptroller. CBS News Texas reached out to each of the commissioners for comment on the proposed voting locations but has not heard back.
12 hours ago
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law.
The Hill
19 hours ago
- The Hill
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law.
