Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.
This story was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton failed to offer “any plausible proof” that Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is violating the law, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
Paxton had filed a lawsuit in state court accusing Jolt of submitting “unlawful voter registration applications,” specifying in a press release that the group was “attempting to register illegals, who are all criminals.” The suit, which seeks to revoke Jolt’s nonprofit charter through a legal mechanism known as a quo warranto petition, was put on ice by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, who said in his ruling that Paxton appears to be operating in bad faith.
The attorney general’s case against Jolt “supposes absolutely no wrongdoing,” and indicates that the attorney general may be “harassing [Jolt] and fishing for reasons to investigate its organization.”
This is not the first legal back-and-forth between Jolt and Paxton’s office. Last year, the organization successfully sued to stop the state’s investigation into its voter registration efforts. In the new suit, Jolt’s lawyers argue Paxton’s efforts to shut it down are retaliation. The attorney general’s office has also in recent years targeted other organizations aiding Latinos and migrants, such as the effort to investigate and shut down El Paso-based Annunciation House.
“For over a year, we have faced a relentless campaign of harassment designed to completely crush our organization and silence our community,” Jolt Executive Director Jackie Bastard said in a statement. “Judge Pitman’s finding that AG Paxton acted in bad faith confirms what we have known all along: this was never about election integrity, it was about political retaliation.”
The background: Case spurred by Maria Bartiromo’s debunked claims
In August 2024, Fox News host Maria Bartiromo said on X that a friend had seen organizations registering migrants to vote outside state driver’s license facilities in Fort Worth and Weatherford. But local officials, including the Parker County Republican chair, said there was no evidence backing the post.
Bartiromo’s debunked claims still prompted an attorney general investigation into organizations including Jolt.
Jolt then sued for a temporary restraining order, saying that Paxton’s probe would harm the organization as well as put its workers and volunteers at risk. In October 2024, both sides agreed to pause their legal fight and Jolt was allowed to continue its work, while the courts addressed a different lawsuit involving the tool used by Paxton to investigate the group. The attorney general’s office now said in its recent court filing that it has agreed to not issue another subpoena, instead opting to launch a new lawsuit.
In addition, Paxton announced earlier this year that his office is investigating cases of “potential noncitizens” casting more than 200 ballots in 2020 and 2022, which would be around one-thousandth of 1% of the votes cast during these periods.
Meanwhile, Texas counties are looking into more than 2,700 registered voters who were flagged as “potential noncitizens.” At least six of them have been confirmed to be U.S. citizens.
Voters also recently approved a constitutional amendment adding language to the state’s constitution saying that a person who is not a U.S. citizen cannot vote in Texas. Noncitizen voting was already illegal prior to this update.
Why Texas sued: Paxton claims ‘unlawful motive’
Following Bartiromo’s claims, the attorney general’s office sent an undercover agent to a DMV location near San Antonio to investigate by attempting to register a fake daughter — who wasn’t physically with him — to vote, according to Paxton’s Oct. 23 court filing. It said a Jolt volunteer deputy registrar still instructed the agent on how to register his daughter, despite her absence.
Paxton’s filing didn’t provide evidence of Jolt registering noncitizens to vote. Instead, it said the group’s decision to hold voter registration drives near DMV locations “illuminates its unlawful motive.”
“This is because U.S. citizens can already register to vote at any DMV with proof of citizenship,” the court document said. “Thus, there is no need for a VDR at such locations.”
In November, Paxton filed a quo warranto suit in Tarrant County, seeking to revoke the group’s charter and shut it down. Paxton claimed a “substantial part of the events” underlying the case took place there; Jolt requested that the suit be moved to Harris County.
“JOLT is a radical, partisan operation that has, and continues to, knowingly attempt to corrupt our voter rolls and weaken the voice of lawful Texas voters,” Paxton said in a news release at the time. “I will make sure they face the full force of the law.”
Jolt points to provision of election code
In response to Paxton’s suit seeking to shut them down, Jolt leaders filed a federal lawsuit asking a judge to stop Paxton’s case in state court because it infringes on their rights under the First Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.
In particular, Jolt said in a court filing that its volunteer didn’t do anything wrong because Texas’ election code does allow for a person to appoint their parent as “an agent” to “complete and sign a registration application” for them. The parent must also be a qualified voter or must have submitted a registration application and be eligible to vote, according to the code.
Pitman, an Austin-based judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, agreed, saying Paxton’s office did not produce evidence of any wrongdoing. He took the unusual step for a federal judge of intervening to stop a state court proceeding, which he said was warranted because Paxton was acting in bad faith.
“The court does not come to this conclusion lightly,” Pitman wrote. “Given multiple opportunities to assert his good faith by pointing to any credible evidence of illegal activity or even general wrongdoing … Defendant could not.”
