This is the first in a four-part series of surveys featuring candidates in the Republican and Democratic primaries for U.S. Senate and attorney general. See all of our resources for voting in the Texas primaries here.
For the first time in more than a decade, Texans will pick their next attorney general from a field of candidates that doesn’t include incumbent Republican Ken Paxton, who is giving up the office to run for the U.S. Senate.
On the Democratic side, three candidates are seeking the nomination in the March 3 primary, a contest that will be settled in a May runoff if nobody clears 50% of the vote. The winner will take on the Republican nominee in November. No Democrat has won statewide office since 1994, so whoever wins the primary will be entering the general as the underdog.
Whoever wins this seat will take over one of the largest and most powerful attorney general’s offices in the country. The agency handles legal affairs that impact everyday Texans’ lives, like enforcing child support judgments, stopping waste and fraud in government programs and investigating deceptive charities, unscrupulous businesses and fraudulent billing. It also defends state agencies and statutes against legal challenges and puts out opinions interpreting state law.
Under Paxton, the office has prioritized headline-grabbing conservative litigation. He has brought a deluge of lawsuits against the federal government, nonprofits and private companies, testing novel legal theories in friendly courtrooms across the state and establishing the agency as a leader in the conservative legal movement.
The next attorney general will get to decide what the agency’s priority should be. To help primary voters distinguish between the three Democratic hopefuls, we asked each of them to share their views on the office’s major issues. See where they stand, and how they differ.
Tony Box
Private attorney
💰 Campaign finance:
- Total raised: $137,602
- Total spent: $87,897
- Cash on hand: $27,548
💰 Major donors this cycle:
- VoteVets, national group that supports Democratic veteran candidates
- Irene Jones, Tennessee-based events management consultant
- Hold the Line PAC, national group supporting new Democratic candidates
🏢 Experience:
- Attorney in private practice in Dallas
- Previously worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in Missouri
- Spent more than a decade as a special agent in the FBI, including on a SWAT team
- An army veteran, Box deployed to Iraq and worked as a civilian fraud investigator and anti-corruption contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan
📣 Endorsements:
- VoteVets, national group that supports Democratic veteran candidates
Joe Jaworski
Private mediator and lawyer
💰 Campaign finance:
- Total raised: $219,882
- Total spent: $166,693
- Cash on hand: $249,986
💰 Major donors this cycle:
- Jeffrey Westphal, Philadelphia-based philanthropist
- John Weldon Granger, Houston lawyer, and the JonesGranger law firm
- Lyndon Olson, former Texas legislator and ambassador to Sweden under President Bill Clinton
🏢 Experience:
- Mediator and lawyer in private practice
- Former mayor of Galveston after Hurricane Ike, leading the city through extensive disaster recovery
- Unsuccessful run in the Democratic primary for attorney general in 2022
📣 Endorsements:
- Houston state Rep. Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus
- State Rep. Ann Johnson (D-Houston), Rep. Ron Reynolds (D-Missouri City), Rep. Jon Rosenthal (D-Houston), and others
- University Democrats, Coalition of Democratic Allies and the Houston Progressive Caucus
💰 Campaign finance:
Nathan Johnson
State Senator, Dallas County
- Total raised: $652,819
- Total spent: $349,080
- Cash on hand: $757,681
💰 Major donors this cycle:
- Daniel Cocanougher, Dallas private equity investor and Dragon Ball Z producer
- Evelyn Rose, Dallas donor
- Garrett Boone, founder of The Container Store
🏢 Experience:
- Served in the Texas Senate since 2019, representing part of Dallas County
- Litigator and mediator with Thompson Coburn, a Dallas-based law firm
📣 Endorsements:
- U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Dallas) and U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Fort Worth)
- State Sens. Sarah Eckhardt (D-Austin), Borris Miles (D-Houston), Royce West (D-Dallas) and José Menéndez (D-San Antonio), and other state legislators
- Dallas District Attorney John Creuzot and Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis
Q&A
Editor’s note: These responses have been lightly edited for clarity and length. Minor changes have been made, when necessary, to correct grammatical or spelling errors and ensure the text conforms with Tribune style.
What do you believe should be the agency’s top priority?
Box
Restoring integrity and accountability to an office that has been turned into a laughingstock. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of Texas, and the office should be protecting consumers, cracking down on fraud, and partnering with law enforcement — not defending illegal power grabs or serving corrupt politicians. My top priority will be conducting a top-to-bottom review of all lawsuits and actions taken by the office. The ones that are valid will remain, and the ones that are frivolous will be dropped. Texans deserve an Attorney General who upholds the Constitution and fights for them, not one who serves themselves and their cronies.
Jaworski
Affordability – I will create and staff within the OAG a Division of Affordability focused on using the law to help young adult Texans afford the American Dream (graduating debt free, getting a good job that pays good wages, home ownership or affordable rent and starting a family).
Elections – I will create and staff within the OAG a Division of Elections and Voter Encouragement to enforce the law that seeks to register every high school senior pursuant to Election Code section 13.046d and to reverse decades of voter suppression wrought by GOP/Tea Party/MAGA Texas politicians.
Corruption – I will create and staff within the OAG a Division of Ethics and Integrity which will investigate, and with local District Attorneys will take punitive action to respond to, credible complaints of fraud, corruption and crime within Texas Government. The Texas AG DEI will also advocate for constitutional amendments and laws that will provide for term limits, campaign contribution limits, independent redistricting commissions and citizen initiated legislation by petition.
Johnson
My top priority will be to rebuild the OAG – in talent, purpose, culture, and ethic, and to re-commit the agency to serving the public interest instead of a partisan faction’s personal and political aims. The OAG has too many essential functions to reasonably rank them, but generally speaking, the office should confront a set of major problems that are getting worse by the day: (1) uncompetitive markets that drive up prices and encourage deceptive practices, that drive down quality and stifle innovation, and that sap the bargaining power of consumers and workers; (2) problematic levels of influence of commercial power over public policy, the natural outgrowth of which is corruption; (3) loss of respect for the rule of law, constitutional order, and democratic institutions at a state and national level, and (4) an antagonistic relationship with local district attorneys that impairs their ability to keep the public safe.
Would you aim to keep most current employees of the agency or clean house?
Box
It depends. For the more political hires and appointments, probably not. But I believe there are likely many public servants in the AG’s office who are committed to the Texas Constitution and upholding the law. I would hope there are more of the latter than the former. I’ve worked with Democrats and Republicans throughout my career — when I was in the FBI and as a federal prosecutor, no one knew what party anyone was and we didn’t give a hoot. What we cared about was doing the job. I’ll evaluate employees based on their competence, integrity, and commitment to serving Texans, not their politics.
Jaworski
The agency has over 4,000 employees, and many are non-partisan, valued state workers. As Attorney General-elect, I will reach out to each to determine their willingness and capabilities to serve going forward. My incoming Chief of Staff and I will identify within a week of the November 3, 2026 midterm election the numerous political apparatchiks installed by Paxton, and more likely than not, they will leave on their own, but if they don’t we will make it clear within legal parameters their last day is Paxton’s last day.
Johnson
Anyone working for Paxton in pursuit of a partisan ideological agenda will need to look for work somewhere else; I expect that will mean the exit of most, perhaps all, of the top echelon. That does not mean I will administer partisan ideological purity tests – I will not. Disagreement is okay, agendas are not. Moreover, I am certain that many of the OAG’s 4,000 employees are not especially ideological, and have institutional knowledge, professional expertise, and a personal commitment to public service that will be essential for the office to operate effectively. I will invite them to re-apply. The proportion that stays or goes depends on what we find when we get there.
What would be the relationship between the OAG and the Trump administration under your leadership?
Box
I’ll work with any administration when it serves the interests of Texans and uphold the Constitution, but I won’t bend the knee to anyone in Washington, D.C. I’ve spent my entire career fighting corruption and standing up to powerful people who abuse their positions — that won’t change as Attorney General. My loyalty is to the people of Texas and the rule of law, not to any politician or party. When the federal government overreaches or violates Texans’ rights, I’ll push back. When cooperation serves Texas, I’ll cooperate. The question will always be: what’s best for the people of Texas?
Jaworski
It would be hostile, and within the rules of decorum for federal and state litigation. Over the course of my thirty five year legal career trying cases in courts across the country, I’ve dealt with people like Trump and his minions, and there is only one way to deal with them: nose to nose and ten toes down.
Johnson
Rough. Were I attorney general in 2025, I would already have sued the Trump administration many times for violating the law and the Constitution and harming Texans in the process. Texas has been deprived of money and sovereign power by the blind subservience of the current OAG to Washington.
But the relationship would not be antagonistic out of spite, nor for partisan theatrics. While I won’t hesitate to sue the Trump administration (or any other), I’ll work in partnership wherever it benefits the state and is consistent with the law and the scope of my authority. This approach – working without regard to partisan affiliation or political pressures while adhering to principle – is what has allowed me to pass 135 bills as a Democrat in the Texas Senate while still advancing Democratic values through my own legislation and consistent opposition to the current Republican bent toward expansive, regressive government.
What, if anything, would you carry forward from Attorney General Ken Paxton’s time in the office?
Box
I plan to conduct a top-to-bottom review of everything Ken Paxton has done — all of his lawsuits, press releases, and performative politics. We’re going to look at what needs to stay, especially in terms of lawsuits, and what needs to be discarded. To the extent that lawsuits are justified, constitutional, and in the best interest of the state, they will remain. But I do anticipate that some will need to be discarded. The standard will be: is this serving Texans, or is this serving Ken Paxton’s political and financial interests?
Jaworski
The credibility of the Office of Attorney General has withered and the Agency has been corrupted under Paxton’s tenure. There is absolutely nothing to carry forward from his years in office. Perhaps we can have a small museum dedicated to Paxton’s ruinous years in office within the William P. Clements State Office Building so future generations of school children who come to Austin as part of their Texas History field trip can understand how corruption in government is corrosive to the Rule of Law and American values.
Johnson
Antitrust enforcement and consumer protection. But I’d enhance it, and I would rely less on outside counsel (see below). Some people in Paxton’s OAG have taken seriously the responsibility to act as a check on the unlawful practices and market-distorting concentration of commercial power. Very recently, the Texas OAG has succeeded in altering behavior by hotels that had been unlawfully charging junk fees. It should be recognized that this kind of litigation can itself spur helpful legislation. (I personally have filed legislation to combat junk fees in other industries.) Paxton has been criticized, however, for pursuing these worthy aims with a bias against, ironically, smaller businesses. I would recruit a top flight team of attorneys and policy experts and combine resources and expertise with other AGs around the country (irrespective of political party) to elevate this aspect of the OAG responsibilities, without bias.
Do you believe the state has to cooperate with court rulings, from state or federal courts, that you believe were wrongly decided?
Box
Yes. The rule of law means respecting court decisions even when you disagree with them. As a former federal prosecutor and Judge Advocate General officer, I understand that our system depends on compliance with court rulings. If I believe a ruling is wrong, the appropriate response is to appeal it through the legal system, not to ignore it. Ken Paxton has embarrassed Texas by treating the law as optional when it doesn’t suit his political interests. That’s not leadership — it’s corruption. The Attorney General must uphold the Constitution and respect the judicial process, period.
Jaworski
Yes they do. It’s called the Rule of Law. A creative, talented, ethical lawyer understands that. Political hacks … not so much.
Johnson
Part of the reason I’m running for this office is to reverse the accelerating disintegration of respect for the rule of law and separation of powers under the leadership of scofflaws like Ken Paxton and Donald Trump, and at times even under former-AG-now-Gov. Greg Abbott. In the instances where I believe that a case was wrongly decided (it will happen!), I will on behalf of the state appeal the ruling, and where appropriate seek a stay of (a pause on) the lower court ruling. But absent a stay, the state should honor the rule of law by complying with judicial rulings.
Do you believe the attorney general’s office should be given more independent criminal prosecutorial authority?
Box
I believe the Attorney General’s office should be given more independent criminal prosecutorial authority in certain areas. For example, in areas related to prosecuting fraudsters. However, this additional independent authority should be constitutional. I believe that the purported authority to prosecute voter fraud is ill-advised and unconstitutional, as clearly articulated by the courts.
Jaworski
No. The Texas Attorney General, with some clearly defined statutory exceptions, is a civil law authority, and it needs to stay that way. On those limited occasions when criminal justice matters arise, a Texas Attorney General who is doing his job will make sure to have solid relationships with local District Attorneys across the state to advance any agenda involving criminal justice. That not just me saying that – it’s what the Texas Constitution requires. Of course, what I’ve just described can happen only when a democrat is elected as our next attorney general because republicans have irretrievably abandoned their once-solid support for local decision making authority.
Johnson
It’s important to recognize that under current law, the Legislature cannot, merely by passing a bill, grant to the attorney general prosecutorial authority that the Texas Constitution expressly assigns to district attorneys. So we have to consider whether expansion of authority requires a constitutional amendment rather than the typical Republican tack of ramming another hollow talking point through the Legislature.
The next question is whether now is the right time to expand AG powers. Some other states grant more criminal authority to the OAG. But Ken Paxton’s grotesquely partisan weaponization of AG powers, at a time when Donald Trump brazenly weaponizes the Department of Justice, should give us pause.
A better approach would be to use current AG powers and resources more effectively to support investigations and prosecutions by district and county attorneys, where, not incidentally, the Constitution places prosecutorial authority subject to election by the voters.
Paxton has refused to represent state agencies in certain lawsuits — at least 75 times in a recent two-year period — forcing agencies to hire outside counsel. Does the OAG have a responsibility to defend all state agencies in-house?
Box
As Attorney General, my role will be to focus on what’s constitutional. As I’ve said before, if a law is constitutional I will defend it, and if it is not, I will not. Accordingly, I would not defend unconstitutional policies advanced by state agencies. However, it appears that many of Paxton’s decisions to represent or not represent agencies are driven by his personal affiliations and the interests of his political cronies — which shouldn’t surprise anyone by now.
Jaworski
Yes, with the limited exception of those matters where the Texas Attorney General (who, by historical practice, is a licensed Texas lawyer, even if that’s not a constitutional requirement) adheres, as he must, to Rule 3.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:
“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless the lawyer reasonably believes that there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous.”
Johnson
The state Constitution and Texas Government Code section 402.021 explicitly assign to the AG the duty to represent the state in the Texas Supreme Court and all (lower) courts of appeal. Representing the state includes representing state agencies. Historically, attorneys general have declined on occasion to represent an agency, but the practice is suspect. If the AG does decline representation (perhaps due to a conflict), the AG must approve of outside counsel for the agency. The AG cannot simply leave the agency without representation.
I will fulfill the duties of the office in accordance with the oath I will take, which includes the discretionary exercise of my independent legal judgment in presenting the position of the state in any dispute with an agency.
Would you defend laws passed by the Legislature or executive actions by Gov. Greg Abbott if you disagreed with them ideologically?
Box
I’m not going to defend unconstitutional laws. I’ve sworn an oath to the Constitution over and over again since I was 18 years old, and that continues today. The dividing line isn’t my personal ideology — it’s whether a law is constitutional. If a law is constitutional and legally defensible, I’ll defend it regardless of my personal views. But I won’t waste taxpayer dollars defending laws that are clearly unconstitutional, like the racially gerrymandered maps that are very much at the top of my list for review. The question is: does this serve the Constitution and the people of Texas?
Jaworski
I would not defend laws and executive actions that I reasonably believe are unconstitutional or the product of corruption in government. There are many such examples – the 89th Legislature’s Ten Commandments Law, Greg Abbott’s sending the Texas National Guard to Chicago, the voucher bill passed by the second special session of the 89th Legislature are a few recent examples. There are many more.
Johnson
I believe in carrying out the responsibilities of the office, which includes defending laws I may dislike. Representing the state, however, does not necessarily mean or require adopting a statutory interpretation favored by the governor or by the Legislature. And it certainly does not mean or require taking the position that an unconstitutional law is not unconstitutional, nor that a statutory conflict among laws or even within a law must be resolved in a partisan manner that pleases Republican leadership.
Paxton has relied on outside counsel for lawsuits against Big Tech and pharmaceutical companies, among other cases. Would you continue that practice?
Box
I am not fundamentally opposed to the use of outside counsel. Outside counsel can bring many advantages, such as specific expertise on highly technical matters and additional capacity to allow state employees to remain focused on the most impactful work. The key question is: are we getting value for taxpayers and achieving results for Texans? I’ll evaluate each case on its merits.
Jaworski
I would not continue “that practice.” Paxton has chased off national level class talent from the Texas OAG with his notorious conduct, and he has a habit of hiring competent law firms, awarding handsome contingent fees contracts and then, curiously, OAG staff then wind up working at these firms. I would draft and recruit excellent trial attorneys to serve Texas and replenish the consumer protection and other divisions (new and existing) so we can try our own cases, win verdicts, collect judgments – all without having to pay 40% on everything we win. I can imagine there will be occasion to hire great lawyers, but on those occasions, I will – unlike Paxton – scrupulously adhere to the rules pertaining to the retention of outside counsel set forth in Texas Government Code section 2254.103(d).
Johnson
Not at the same level. There may and likely will be instances where a particular firm or group of attorneys has expertise that is worth engaging. But I will recruit (and retain!) top-flight lawyers and expert staff at the OAG, and the need to outsource or reinforce in-house capabilities will be exceptional, not routine. Taxpayers will not have to pay $3,780/hour for excellent and effective legal representation against Trump’s ballroom contributors or any other corporate behemoth.
In massive cases that require massive resources, AGs from multiple states frequently combine forces successfully. Also, the terms of representation must not incentivize a quick eye-popping settlement (Big Tech/pharmaceutical money is so vast in scale that it can be as hard to fathom as astronomical measures) over meaningful change in market behavior. A big settlement number gets headlines, but consumers are protected when the harmful behavior stops.
Do you agree with Paxton’s current interpretation of open records law, and if not, what would you change about the handling of public records?
Box
Paxton’s interpretation of open records law seems to depend on the circumstances and the players. In other words, it depends on his whims and what’s favorable for himself and the individuals whom he wants to protect. My approach will be transparent and consistent with Texas law. The handling of requests will be modeled on the federal Freedom of Information Act, unless doing so conflicts with Texas law.
Jaworski
I do not agree with Ken Paxton’s “hide the records from public scrutiny” default approach. As Attorney General, I will embrace a level of transparency that will be historical in Texas government, and when interpreting the Texas Open Records and Open Meetings Acts, I will honor the intent of the Government in the Sunshine Act movement that followed the Watergate scandal.
Johnson
Paxton appears to have a history of interpreting open records laws narrowly when he or other Republican leaders want to hide information from public view, and broadly when he wants information to advance his right-wing narrative. The “transparency” in his approach to public information access is one-way.
I would apply the law consistently and without bias, and work within the bounds of the law to ensure public access to public information. As a state senator, I have filed seven bills aimed at making government offices more responsive to public information requests (and passed one of them).
Texans need the truth. Help us report it.
Independent Texas reporting needs your support. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based journalism for Texans, by Texans — and our community of members, the readers who donate, make our work possible, Help us bring you and millions of others in-depth news and information. Will you support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation of any amount?
Support Independent Texas News
Become a member. Join today.
Choose an amount or learn more about membership.
