Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has halted several school districts from using taxpayer money to promote ballot measures that would raise taxes, marking another chapter in his ongoing battle against what he calls “illegal electioneering” by educational institutions.
Paxton’s office recently investigated and sent warning letters to four districts — Garland, Judson, Liberty Hill, and Northwest ISDs — after finding they had potentially violated state election laws by promoting Proposition A, a measure related to school funding and potential tax increases.
“School districts should focus on teaching children reading, writing, and arithmetic instead of unlawfully using taxpayer funds to meddle in elections that will raise taxes even higher,” Paxton said in a statement that underscored his position.
Drawing the Line Between Education and Advocacy
The four districts promptly removed the materials in question and agreed to comply with state law after receiving the attorney general’s notices. Texas law explicitly prohibits school boards from using “state or local funds or other resources of the district to electioneer for or against any candidate, measure, or political party” — a restriction that also extends to spending on political advertising.
Paxton didn’t mince words about his view of the districts’ role: “ISDs are educational entities, not lobbying firms. Illegal electioneering must come to an end, and any school district engaging in such conduct can expect to hear from my office,” he warned.
What exactly crossed the line? According to the letters, the districts had used taxpayer resources to promote Proposition A, which the state requires districts to put to voters regarding operational funding levels and potential additional revenue. The attorney general’s office determined that using district resources to encourage support for these measures constituted illegal electioneering.
Part of a Broader Legal Campaign
This isn’t Paxton’s first move against school districts over alleged electioneering. In early 2024, he took the unusual step of suing seven different school districts, claiming they had improperly tried to influence the March 5 legislative elections, particularly around the contentious issue of school vouchers.
Those lawsuits alleged that principals and superintendents had used district resources to encourage colleagues to vote against candidates who supported private school choice policies — actions Paxton’s office claimed violated the same state laws prohibiting electioneering by school districts.
The legal actions have already had significant impact. State courts have granted injunctions against the Denton and Castleberry districts and issued a restraining order against Frisco ISD, effectively barring them from distributing more information about specific candidates or policies affecting public schools, as reported by Education Week.
Walking a Tightrope
For school administrators, the situation creates a delicate balance. Where’s the line between informing communities about funding measures that affect their schools and improperly advocating for specific electoral outcomes?
The letters to the four districts regarding Proposition A suggest that Paxton’s office is taking a broad view of what constitutes “electioneering,” particularly when tax measures are involved. School leaders must now navigate carefully between their desire to communicate with stakeholders and the legal restrictions on how they can discuss matters that appear on ballots.
The crackdown comes amid broader tensions between the state’s Republican leadership and public education advocates over issues ranging from school funding to voucher programs. Critics might see Paxton’s actions as politically motivated, while supporters view them as necessary enforcement of laws designed to prevent taxpayer-funded political activity.
As these legal battles continue to unfold, one thing seems certain: Texas school districts are on notice that their communications about ballot propositions — especially those affecting taxes and funding — will face intense scrutiny from the attorney general’s office.
