Texas AG Ken Paxton sues Houston guaranteed income program that will see impoverished households given $500-a-month for 18 months
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Harris County, where Houston is located, over its guaranteed income program aimed at helping thousands of impoverished households in the county.
Paxton claims the program, called “Uplift Harris,” which will give families in need $500 a month for 18 months, violates the Texas Constitution.
In February, more than 1,900 eligible individuals and families were selected from ten of the poorest zip codes in the province, with the first payment due in late April.
With the attorney general calling the program illegal, the program could be shut down just weeks before the first payment is due.
County leaders have since criticized Paxton, describing his decision as “surprising, shocking and disheartening.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Harris County, where Houston is located, over its guaranteed income program aimed at helping thousands of impoverished households in the county
Paxton claims the program, called “Uplift Harris,” which will provide families in need with $500 a month for 18 months, violates the Texas Constitution.
The controversial program, approved by county commissioners last year, awarded $20.5 million from American Rescue Plan funds and selected registered individuals by lottery.
Paxton condemned the program in his lawsuit, stating that the funds were specifically intended to be used for COVID-19 relief initiatives.
“There’s no such thing as free money, especially in Texas. The Texas Constitution expressly prohibits the giving away of public resources for the benefit of individuals – a common sense protection to prevent favoritism and ensure that public resources benefit all citizens,” Paxton’s lawsuit said. .
The lawsuit also views the program as a “socialist experiment by Lina Hidalgo and progressive Democrats.”
District leaders have since taken to social media to express their disappointment, as they are expected to issue a press release about the lawsuit on Wednesday.
Commissioner Rodney Ellis wrote of X: “This is not about constitutionality. This is about perpetuating a system that favors billionaires and starves working families.
Attorney Christian D. Menefee agreed, writing, “This is nothing more than an attack on local government and an attempt to grab headlines.”
“I will vigorously defend the province and this program in court,” he added, saying the province will continue with the program until a court order blocks it.
He told KHOU11:’It’s incredibly surprising, shocking and disheartening. More than 1,900 families here in Harris County would receive $500 per month to help them deal with economic challenges here in our county.
“But instead, now, because of the actions of a bunch of politicians in Austin, these people are being put on hold,” he added.
Attorney Christian D. Menefee said, “This is nothing more than an attack on local government and an attempt to grab headlines.”
More than 82,000 applications were submitted for the program, and the lottery system eventually narrowed the number to 1,928, Menefee said.
A 2023 Kinder poll shows that more than 775 percent of respondents support the idea of a universal basic income for low-income working adults.
But the program faced backlash from conservatives after it was approved last June.
Sen. Paul Bettencourt celebrated Paxton’s term Tuesday when he called the guaranteed income program “lottery socialism” in an X post.
“I’m calling it ‘Lottery Socialism’ and I’m glad to see that the OAG is taking this so seriously that they are not just responding to my request for advice, but actually filing charges against Harris County’s ‘Uplift’ program!” wrote he.
‘AG is right; “This violates the ‘gift cause’ of the Texas Constitution and uses an arbitrary lottery rather than rational classification,” he added.
In a statement announcing the filling, Paxton said the lottery-based award violates the state constitution “because the selection of recipients is inherently random.”
“Taxpayer money should be rightfully spent and used to further the public good, not simply redistributed without accountability or reasonable expectation of public benefit,” he said.