Contrast ad about James Talarico and Ken Paxton

What the record shows. SB 2 (86th Legislature, 2019) is the property tax bill that requires voter approval before many cities, counties and other taxing units raise property tax revenue by more than 3.5% a year; before, voters had to petition for an election to roll back increases above 8%³. The Senate Research Center analysis likewise describes it as replacing the petition requirement with an automatic election above a lowered threshold⁵. The House passed SB 2 on third reading on May 1, 2019 (the date the mailer prints) by 109 yeas, 36 nays, 2 present not voting (Record 839). Talarico is listed among the nays¹. When the House adopted the conference committee report on May 25, 2019, the vote was 88 yeas, 50 nays (Record 1939), and Talarico is again listed among the nays². Gov. Abbott signed SB 2 on June 12, 2019³⁴. The journals do not print party labels, so no party split is stated here.

What the ad leaves out. He voted against SB 2 both times; no vote of his made increases easier. The bill the ad cites lowered the threshold that triggers a voter election, so the ad describes the effect of the bill, and of his vote, as the reverse of what the record shows. Voting no left the earlier rule in place (a voter petition was needed to force an election on increases above 8%). Supporters of the bill, including the governor, called it a limit on property tax growth, and local officials and Moody's said it could constrain local budgets³. The Tribune notes the 3.5% growth rate can be averaged over three years, and the Senate analysis lists provisions defining a 'de minimis rate' and an 'unused increment rate' and a different calculation for units in declared disaster areas³⁵; these let some units raise revenue past the base threshold without an election, but they are part of a bill he voted against, and the ad does not say it means them. We found no statement from him giving his reason.

What the record shows. H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) became Public Law 119-21 on July 4, 2025⁶. The House concurred in the Senate amendment 218 to 214 on July 3, 2025 and the Senate passed it 50 to 50 with the Vice President voting yea on July 1⁷⁸. Talarico was a Texas state representative, not a member of Congress, so he had no vote on it. The '$4 trillion tax hike' wording is the Senate Finance Committee's description of what it says would have happened if the 2017 tax cuts expired; its page says the bill 'prevents a more-than $4 trillion tax hike' and says expiration would mean a more-than $2.6 trillion tax hike on households earning under $400,000⁹. What Talarico has said: on Aug. 5, 2026 he proposed repealing the tax breaks for the top 1% of earners in the One Big Beautiful Bill and directing the money to a 'cost-of-living tax cut'¹⁰. In 2025 he criticized congressional Republicans for cutting taxes for donors and said they spent $3 trillion on tax cuts for rich people¹¹. His campaign platform calls for higher taxes on billionaires and corporations so taxes can be cut for working families and small businesses, and for expanding the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit¹¹.

What the ad leaves out. The record shows Talarico opposing H.R. 1 and proposing to repeal part of it, not asking for taxes on 90% of Americans to rise; we found no statement from him supporting the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts for middle-income households. The ad treats opposing the bill as 'supporting' the figure the bill's Republican backers say it avoided; the $4 trillion and 90% numbers are the majority party's framing of expiring current law, not a count of what Talarico proposed. The mailer's printed Texas Tribune source is open. The Senate Finance page we opened is undated and we could not confirm it is the 2/20/25 document the mailer prints; its Joint Committee on Taxation 2024 source was not matched to a specific document, and the 90% figure is unverified.

What the record shows. HJR 38 (86th Legislature, 2019) proposed a constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax: its text adds Section 24-a to Article VIII ("The legislature may not impose a tax on the net incomes of individuals...") and repeals Section 24²⁰. The text the House engrossed is the text that was later enrolled²⁰. On May 9, 2019 the House adopted it 100 yeas, 42 nays, 3 present not voting (Record 1243). Talarico is listed among the nays¹³. The Senate passed it 22 to 9 on May 20, 2019¹⁴. Texas voters approved the amendment on Nov. 5, 2019¹⁶. Before it, the Texas Constitution already required voters to approve an individual income tax in a statewide referendum, which the Legislature could call by a simple majority of each chamber¹⁷. The House committee analysis said the existing constitution limits but does not entirely prohibit such a tax¹². The Tribune's pre-election explainer described the proposition as raising the bar to two-thirds of each chamber¹⁷; the resolution text we read has no two-thirds clause, so we rely on the text. Either way it limited the Legislature's power to create an income tax.

What the ad leaves out. Talarico's vote was no on a ban. He did not vote for, sponsor or propose an income tax, and no bill creating one was before the House in the record we checked. A no vote left the existing rule in place, under which voters must approve any income tax. The ad also omits that the ban passed the House with 100 yeas and went on to win voter approval, and that opponents of the measure, including Sen. Nathan Johnson (D-Dallas), called it a "waste of time"¹⁷, and a Center for Public Policy Priorities analyst said voter control over an income tax already existed¹⁷.

What the record shows. This is a characterization, not a checkable fact; the three factual claims above are the basis for it. On the two state votes the mailer cites, Talarico voted against SB 2 (which tightened the property tax election trigger) and against a constitutional ban on an income tax, the reverse of how the mailer describes them; he had no vote on H.R. 1. His federal platform calls for higher taxes on billionaires, corporations and stock buybacks and lower taxes for working families¹¹.

What the ad leaves out. We did not search for every tax vote of his career. The 'never met a tax' line rests on the three claims above, two of which (SB 2 and HJR 38) run opposite to what the record shows and one of which concerns a bill he had no vote on.

What the record shows. The Tribune article of July 31, 2026 prints this sentence word for word. It says Paxton gave it in a statement that doubled as the opening message of a new digital ad he narrated¹⁸. The mailer's capitalization differs; the wording matches.

What the ad leaves out. The mailer prints it as a Tribune quote. It is Paxton's own campaign statement, which the Tribune reported, not the Tribune's assessment of him. The sentence before it in the article ('Washington has made it harder than ever to get ahead...') is not shown.

What the record shows. This is a proposal, not a checkable fact, so we checked only attribution. The Tribune reports Paxton proposed, on July 31, 2026, 'a $50,000 deduction for first-time homebuyers and a $50,000 deduction on down payments for people moving to a new primary residence'¹⁸. Attribution to Paxton is supported.

What the ad leaves out. The mailer calls the first item a 'tax break' and the second a 'tax deduction'; the Tribune describes both as deductions. The article states no income limits and no cost or funding source for the plan. It says enacting it would depend on Republicans keeping control of Congress and passing another major tax bill, or on bipartisan passage¹⁸. Paxton's own campaign site, as of October 5, 2026, does not list the plan¹⁹.

What the record shows. Plan attribution only. The Tribune reports a '$25,000 deduction for any out-of-pocket medical expense, including premiums, for individuals, with an additional $25,000 per dependent'¹⁸. Attribution to Paxton is supported.

What the ad leaves out. The mailer leaves out that the Tribune says the amount is $25,000 per individual plus $25,000 for each dependent, and that premiums count. The article also lists a fourth item the mailer omits, a $5,000 deduction for healthy lifestyle spending such as gym costs and GLP-1 medication¹⁸. No income limits or funding source are stated.

What the record shows. Plan attribution only. The Tribune reports Paxton wants to double the child tax credit, currently worth up to $2,200 per child, so the maximum would rise to $4,400, and to extend the Trump accounts pilot permanently (children born January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2028 are currently eligible for $1,000 in federal seed money)¹⁸. Attribution to Paxton is supported.

What the ad leaves out. The mailer gives no dollar figures; the Tribune says the doubled credit would be $4,400 per child, and notes Talarico's plan also expands the child tax credit¹⁸. The 'Trump Accounts' were created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025; the Tribune says Paxton aims to make permanent and expand two items from that act, the accounts and the child tax credit¹⁸. The article states no cost or funding source.

What the record shows. These are characterizations and promises, not checkable facts. The factual core, that Paxton is campaigning on an affordability plan, is supported: the Tribune reports he proposed tax deductions as the centerpiece of what he billed as his Senate campaign's economic agenda, and that affordability is a top voter concern in the race¹⁸. Whether the plan will 'make life affordable' or whether he is 'commonsense' is opinion and was not rated.

What the ad leaves out. The Tribune notes the plan would need action by Congress to take effect, and that Talarico has a competing plan focused on taxes on billionaires and corporations¹⁸. 'Restore' the American dream is a promise with no measure attached.