Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is continuing to fight Harris County’s guaranteed income initiative even after officials scaled it back to more closely resemble existing state and federal public assistance programs.
Under the revamped program, what had been a monthly no-strings-attached stipend of $500 now will be limited to the purchase of food, housing and utilities with a pre-loaded debit card issued by the county.
Paxton has appealed a state district judge’s ruling from last week that said the county could proceed with what is now dubbed the Community Prosperity Program.
The retooled program, which is funded through $20.5 million federal pandemic relief money, is scheduled to run for 18 months. It will provide the stipends to about 1,900 randomly selected households that live below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. An individual below that threshold would make under $29,160 a year; a family of four would be under $60,000.
Officials said the first round of payments would be sent to recipients in January, but that timeframe is up in the air as the case winds its way through the legal system.
Paxton sued to block the original program known as Uplift Harris in April, saying it violated the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on granting “public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual … whatsoever.” He also said the county’s use of a lottery to choose recipients violated the state constitution’s equal rights provision.
The case made its way to the Texas Supreme Court, which sided with Paxton,blocking the county from sending out payments to recipients. The state’s highest court did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit in June, but signaled it was unlikely to rule in the county’s favor.
RELATED: Texas Supreme Court continues to block Harris County’s guaranteed income program
Refusing to give up on the guaranteed income idea as a potential path out of poverty, county officials took into account the Supreme Court’s ruling and revamped the program to have stricter limits on how participants could spend the money and how the money was distributed.
County officials are under the gun to launch the program because it is funded through federal pandemic relief money that must be allocated by the end of the year.
Paxton sued again, contending the program still would violate the constitutional ban on giving away public funds and has no demonstrable public purpose. The county also must retain control of the funds to ensure their proper use and the county must receive a return benefit, the attorney general’s lawsuit argues.
The county disagreed in its response to the suit, saying it modeled its new program to more closely resemble existing state and federal programs that provide public assistance, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Food and Nutrition Service.
The preloaded debit cards also would allow officials to track where and how the money is being spent by using merchant category codes, county officials said. The cards do not allow for cash withdrawals.
“The Community Prosperity Program is not a ‘gratuitous handout program’ nor is it a ‘no strings attached $500 monthly cash payment’ as the State claims, because there are significant limitations placed on what recipients can purchase,” the county said in its response to the lawsuit.
County Attorney Christian Menefee said in an interview that even though the Community Prosperity Program mirrors existing public assistance programs, Paxton is targeting the county in an effort to keep a Republican “stronghold” in Texas.
“They want to try to fight us and keep us in the news. They want to try to hurt families in Harris County in hopes that people will become disenchanted, disenchanted with the process, and not want to go cast their ballot,” he said.
EARLIER: Other cities and counties have tried guaranteed income programs. Ken Paxton didn’t sue them.
Jon. R Taylor, chair of the political science and geography departments at the University of Texas at San Antonio, said even though the county’s revamped program closely mirrors existing state and federal public assistance programs, it will continue to be litigated because state leaders do not agree with guaranteed income programs.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s following federal law or any sort of guidelines that are out there,” he said. “This is simply an ideological opposition to universal basic income programs.”
Though the case now heads to Texas’ 14th Court of Appeals, it likely will make its way back to the state’s highest court, where Taylor said the outlook for the county is “pretty bleak.”
The state Supreme Court, like the rest of the Texas government, has been solely Republican for more than two decades.
Taylor also said he believes Republican lawmakers may introduce legislation to ban guaranteed income programs altogether.
Earlier this year, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick released a list of interim charges for the Texas Senate to consider ahead of the 2025 legislative session. Included was a call to examine how local governments are spending federal funds, specifically naming Harris County’s guaranteed income pilot.
Randall H. Erben, an adjunct professor at The University of Texas School of Law, said he thinks the county’s revamp of its program helps its case, but does not erase it as a legal battle in which Paxton believes it violates the state constitution.
“I think the changes get them closer to passing the Supreme Court test, but that doesn’t mean that the Attorney General won’t litigate,” he said.
Guaranteed income, sometimes referred to as universal basic income, has been discussed for decades as a possible solution to help lower poverty levels. The idea has risen in popularity in recent years, particularly during the coronavirus pandemic.
Nearly 60 cities and counties across the country, including Austin and San Antonio, have launched similar programs. Neither of those two Texas cities — nor any others across the United States — have faced litigation.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
