The AG’s Taxpayer-Funded Sectarian Email

On September 2, 2025, Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office issued a taxpayer-funded statewide email urging schools to institute daily prayer and Bible reading—and even recommended the Lord’s Prayer (King James Version, specifically) for students. This isn’t civic communication; it’s state-sponsored sectarian advocacy.

- Engel v. Vitale (1962): Government may not compose or endorse prayers in public schools.
- Abington School District v. Schempp (1963): Mandatory Bible readings in schools are unconstitutional.

“No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities.”

– Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

What Senate Bill 11 Actually Says

The statute at issue is Senate Bill 11 (2025), now codified in the Education Code as §25.0823. It “requires” school boards and charter schools to hold a recorded vote on adopting daily prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious texts, within six (6) months of September 1, 2025. The penalty for not holding a record vote? There is no penalty included in the statute.

Here’s the heart of the statute:

Sec. 25.0823(a): “The board of trustees of a school district … may by record vote on a resolution … adopt a policy requiring every campus … to provide students and employees with an opportunity to participate in a period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text on each school day.”

The law even prescribes the resolution’s wording:

Sec. 25.0823(a-1):
“The (insert name of school district …) shall adopt a policy requiring every campus … to provide a period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text as provided by Section 25.0823, Education Code.”

The statute imposes conditions: parental/employee consent forms, waiver of legal claims—including waivers of Establishment Clause rights—and allows districts to structure prayer periods outside instructional time.

This is not voluntary student prayer (which is already protected).

This is state-orchestrated prayer, barred by SCOTUS precedent:

• Lee v. Weisman (1992): Even subtle coercion in school prayer violates the Constitution.

• Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000): Student-led prayer at football games, under school policy, still unconstitutional.

But the constitutional problem is plain: the state is mandating school boards to take up and vote on a resolution to institutionalize prayer and the reading of religious texts, a practice SCOTUS has consistently struck down when school-directed.

“Government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.”

– Lee v. Weisman (1992)

The Door Opens to Every Religion—and Every Dispute

As mentioned above, SB 11 doesn’t just authorize prayer—it forces every school board to take a recorded vote on adopting sectarian devotional exercises. If a district votes “yes,” the law says:

“The … school shall adopt a policy requiring every campus … to provide a period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text as provided by Section 25.0823, Education Code.”

That phrase—“or other religious text”—means this isn’t limited to the Bible. By statute, a district could just as easily adopt the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, or even texts from fringe groups claiming religious status.

Even within Christianity, there is no single “Bible.” Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians use different canons. Evangelicals split between the KJV, ESV, NIV, and others. Which one does the State of Texas endorse? Any choice is an establishment of one sect over another, something the Constitution forbids.

SCOTUS Guidance

• Larson v. Valente (1982): The government cannot favor one denomination over another—“the clearest command of the Establishment Clause.”

• Epperson v. Arkansas (1968): The State may not tailor public education to the principles of any religious sect.

SB 11 creates the very sectarian conflict the Constitution was written to avoid.

Our Lawsuit Against Proxy Voting in the Texas House

We filed suit against the Texas House of Representatives for its unconstitutional practice of proxy voting and falsifying House Journals.

• On May 27, 2023, Rep. Cole Hefner was absent (attending his daughter’s graduation via state aircraft) but recorded as present and voting in the Paxton impeachment.

• On March 28, 2025, the House Journal omitted the initial roll call showing a quorum was present, when in fact no such thing was true.

Our petition seeks mandamus, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment.

Relevant precedent:

• United States v. Ballin (1892): Quorum means a majority physically present.

• Christoffel v. United States (1949): “Presence” means actual, physical presence.

• Powell v. McCormack (1969): Legislatures cannot override constitutional requirements through internal rules.

Yet Paxton’s office responded to our case by asserting sovereign immunity from Constitutional ministerial duties.

“No House may by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.”

– United States v. Ballin(1892)

Running for Senate, Waging Lawsuits, Embracing Hypocrisy

• Senate Campaign: On April 8, 2025, Paxton announced his bid for U.S. Senate, challenging incumbent John Cornyn in the 2026 Republican primary. Polls show a tight race. Cornyn emphasizes character; Paxton leans into MAGA conservatives.

• Runaway Lawsuit: On August 8, 2025, Paxton sued to declare 13 absentee House members’ seats vacant, accusing them of abandoning their offices to break quorum. The Governor had filed a similar case just days earlier. Critics say only the House itself can expel members, not the judiciary. Michelle Smith, Paxton’s mysterious mouthpiece, says the Texas House is the AG’s “client,” and is suing on the Speaker’s behalf. However, there isn’t any “ex relator” language on any of the lawsuits indicating that the AG is suing for the Speaker.

• Double Standard: Against Congress, Paxton sued for illegal proxy voting. In Texas, he claims immunity in return. Meanwhile, he pushes Christian messaging in public schools—and at the same time, his wife filed for divorce citing “biblical grounds.”

Hypocrisy & Abuse of Power

The contradictions are glaring:

• Against Washington: Paxton sued Congress for illegal proxy voting.

• In Texas: He claims immunity when Texans sue the House for the same violations.

• On Religion: He defends school prayer mandates and spends public money promoting the Lord’s Prayer.

• In Private Life: He invokes “biblical grounds” in his divorce while using his office to advance sectarianism with taxpayer funds.

1. This is not principle. It is partisan convenience.

Constitutional Accountability Matters

This is about the integrity of government in Texas:

• Constitutional Violations: SB 11 violates both U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

• Misuse of Public Funds: Taxpayer dollars are being spent to advance sectarian opinions via official elected capacity: No dollars for sectarian advocacy (Everson, 1947).

• Defending Liberty: No school-directed prayers (Engel, Schempp, Santa Fe).

• Upholding Representation: No proxy voting that falsifies the quorum (Ballin, Christoffel).

• Ending Hypocrisy: State leaders cannot preach constitutional purity in Washington while breaking the Constitution at home.

• Legislative Fraud: Proxy voting strips Texans of direct representation and likewise violates both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions.

• Erosion of Trust: The double standard—condemning Congress while defending the same practices at home—undermines public confidence.