Ken Paxton’s Office Sues Harris County Over Allegedly Racially Targeted Voter Ads, What the Lawsuit Claims and What the October 30 Agreement Means
The State of Texas, through the Office of the Attorney General led by Ken Paxton, has sued Harris County Clerk Teneshia Hudspeth and Communications Director Irene Nuñez. The State accuses the county of using public money to run Facebook and Instagram advertisements that selectively targeted certain racial and ethnic groups with voter information while not targeting others the same way.
The ads encouraged residents to take part in the November 3, 2026 general election. The State says Harris County used Meta’s advertising tools to aim the ads at audiences associated with African-American, Asian and Latino communities. Meta’s Ad Library, as cited in the State’s petition, shows an estimated $43,429 in spending over 30 days.
On October 30, 2026, the parties reached an interim agreement. The challenged audience-targeting settings are to be removed and not reactivated during the applicable election period. The Attorney General’s Office called this a legal victory. Harris County says its voter outreach was lawful and disputes the State’s characterization of the ads.
Ken Paxton is not personally the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the State of Texas. His office says he recused himself because he is a candidate on the November 2026 ballot, as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate against Democrat James Talarico.
No court has found that Harris County violated the Texas Constitution.
Texas v. Harris County Clerk Hudspeth: Quick Facts
| Case detail | Information |
| Plaintiff | State of Texas (Office of the Attorney General) |
| Attorney General | Ken Paxton (recused himself) |
| Defendant | Teneshia Hudspeth, Harris County Clerk (official capacity) |
| Additional defendant | Irene Nuñez, Director of Communications, Harris County Clerk’s Office (official capacity) |
| Court | District Court of Harris County, Texas |
| Filing date | October 29, 2026 |
| Cause number | Blank in the publicly posted petition |
| Judicial district | Not identified in the publicly posted petition |
| Ad message | “Plan. Check. Vote!” |
| Platforms | Facebook and Instagram (Meta Platforms, Inc.) |
| Election involved | November 3, 2026 general election |
| Main legal theory | Ultra vires government action and Texas constitutional violations |
| Relief sought | Temporary restraining order, temporary injunction and permanent injunction |
| October 30 development | Interim agreement to remove the challenged audience settings |
| Final judgment | None verified |
| Money damages sought | No |
| Class action / claim form | No |
The publicly posted petition leaves the cause-number and judicial-district fields blank. A case number should not be inferred from an incomplete caption.
Primary document: State of Texas Original Verified Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief, October 29, 2026
Why Is the Texas Attorney General’s Office Suing Harris County Over Voter Ads?
The dispute concerns voter-awareness ads bought by the Harris County Clerk’s Elections Department. The ads ran on Facebook and Instagram under the message “Plan. Check. Vote!” and pointed viewers to the Harris County Elections Department website and the Harris Votes mobile app for early-voting and Election Day information.
The State does not primarily dispute that a county election office may advertise to inform residents about voting. Its complaint is about the audience-selection settings that decided who saw the ads.
According to the petition, Harris County selected detailed-targeting interests associated with particular racial, ethnic, cultural and geographic groups. The State argues the county used those selections to boost participation among some groups without comparable outreach to others. Its position is that a government election office should give voting information without using racial or ethnic classifications to favor selected groups.
Harris County disagrees. It says its outreach was lawful, nonpartisan and meant to help qualified voters get election information. The court has not decided which side is right.
What Were the Harris County Facebook and Instagram Voter Ads?
The ads did not tell anyone to vote for a candidate or party. They were voter-information ads. The petition identifies ads that began running on two dates:
- September 23, 2026
- October 7, 2026
Some ads passed one million impressions, and others reached several hundred thousand. The State relied on Meta’s public Ad Library to review the audience settings.
How much did Harris County spend on the disputed ads?
| Measurement (from Meta’s Ad Library, as cited in the petition) | Estimated figure |
| Spending over the previous 30 days | $43,429 |
| Spending over the previous 7 days | $10,804 |
| Impressions from three ads launched September 23 | At least 2.7 million |
| Estimated spending on those three ads | 20,000–25,000 |
These are advertising-library estimates reproduced in the State’s petition. They are not a court-verified accounting of all county voter-outreach spending.
The petition also acknowledges that some settings were not disputed: limiting the audience to people in Harris County, targeting adults 18 and older, and showing the ads to users of both genders. The dispute centers on the additional detailed-targeting categories.
Which Targeting Categories Did Texas Challenge in the Harris County Case?
This is one of the most important factual points in the case. The petition lists numerous Meta detailed-targeting terms that the Harris County Elections Department selected. Examples include:
| Category | Examples listed in the petition |
| African and African-American interests | African culture, African art, African-American literature |
| Hispanic and Latino interests | Hispanic Kitchen, Latin Dance, Latin Music |
| Countries and regions (Latin America) | Mexico, Puerto Rico, Panama, Honduras, Peru |
| Asian regions | East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia |
| Asian countries | Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Philippines |
| Language interests | Spanish language, Spanish as a second language |
| Cities | Madrid, Barcelona, Bangkok |
The State argues these terms together narrowed the audience toward certain racial and ethnic communities.
A footnote in the State’s own petition adds an important qualification. Meta classified most of these terms as interests, not demographic classifications. Only “African-American history” and “African-American studies” were classified by Meta as demographic categories. Being interested in Latin music or Pakistani culture does not necessarily establish a person’s race or ethnicity, so whether these selections legally amount to government racial classifications is a contested question.
Readers should not confuse the State’s allegations with a finding that Harris County classified every ad recipient by race.
What Does the State of Texas Say Harris County Did Wrong?
Alleged unequal treatment in voter-information advertising
The State argues Harris County spent taxpayer money to deliver voter information to certain racial and ethnic groups without comparable targeting for others. It says public election services must be administered equally regardless of race, color, ethnicity or national origin.
Allegedly unauthorized use of county election powers (ultra vires)
The State argues Harris County officials exceeded the authority Texas law gives them. This is an ultra vires claim: a government officer cannot use a public position or public funds for an action the law does not authorize. The petition relies on the principle that Texas counties are political subdivisions with only the powers granted by the Texas Constitution or the Legislature.
Alleged violation of Texas constitutional protections
The State relies on the Texas Constitution’s equal-rights and free-suffrage provisions. It argues the challenged ad selections created racial classifications inconsistent with those protections, and it asks the court for an injunction stopping the county from continuing or repeating the practice.
This is not a ballot-manipulation lawsuit
The petition does not allege that Harris County changed vote totals, altered ballots, cancelled voter registrations or stopped anyone from voting. Its allegations concern audience-targeting settings on social-media voter-information ads. That matters when reading headlines that use phrases like “voter suppression,” which is language the Attorney General’s Office used in announcing the suit.
Who Is Being Sued in the Harris County Voter Ads Lawsuit?
Both defendants are sued in their official capacities, not as individuals facing money damages.
Teneshia Hudspeth is the Harris County Clerk. She is named because the State alleges her office authorized or carried out the challenged advertising.
Irene Nuñez is the Director of Communications at the Harris County Clerk’s Office. The petition identifies her as the listed contact for the English- and Spanish-language ads.
Why did Ken Paxton recuse himself?
The Attorney General’s Office announced that Paxton recused himself because he is on the November 2026 ballot. The State of Texas remains the plaintiff. His recusal does not mean the suit was filed by Paxton as a private candidate.
The petition was signed by officials and attorneys from the Attorney General’s Office, including First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, Deputy First Assistant Attorney General Ralph Molina, Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy Rob Farquharson, Special Litigation Division Chief Michael Cotton, and Special Counsel Zachary W. Berg, Steven Loomis and Jacob P. Dustin.
What Has Harris County Said About the Texas Attorney General’s Lawsuit?
Harris County rejects the claim that its outreach was unlawful. The County Clerk’s Office said its job is to provide accurate, timely and nonpartisan election information to qualified voters, and that it was confident its outreach was lawful. It said the audience-targeting settings had already been removed to avoid distractions as the election approached.
Interim Harris County Attorney Abbie Kamin criticized the suit as a political distraction. According to reporting, the county also said the Attorney General’s Office did not contact it before filing and that the timing, near the end of early voting, created an unnecessary distraction for election operations. Her office maintained that the county’s focus should stay on helping eligible voters take part.
Harris County did not admit that its advertising violated the Texas Constitution. The change concerned the challenged audience settings, not the county’s broader voter outreach, which the county says continued through multiple channels.
Sources: Texas Tribune and KPRC’s October 30 report.
The October 30, 2026 Interim Agreement Between Texas and Harris County
After the lawsuit was filed, Harris County removed the disputed audience-targeting settings. According to KPRC, the parties then reached an interim agreement that was read aloud at a court hearing on October 30. Under it:
- The challenged ads or audience settings are removed.
- Harris County will not reactivate the disputed targeting settings during the applicable election period.
- The immediate dispute over running the ads with those settings is addressed.
The Attorney General’s Office called the agreement a legal victory and a settlement. KPRC reported that it did not resolve the underlying lawsuit. Both descriptions are on the record, and the difference matters.
The October 30 agreement did not establish that Harris County violated the Texas Constitution, and it did not produce a final judgment or dismissal. The complete signed agreement and a separate written court order were not available in the records reviewed. It should be described as a limited interim resolution of the immediate advertising dispute, which runs at least through Election Day on November 3, 2026.
Texas Constitution, Election Code and Ultra Vires Law in the Ken Paxton Harris County Lawsuit
Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 3: Equal Rights
Section 3 provides that people have equal rights and that no one is entitled to exclusive separate public privileges except in consideration of public services. The State cites it to argue that county officials cannot deliver public election information through allegedly unequal racial classifications.
Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 3a: Equality Under the Law
Section 3a says equality under the law cannot be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. It is the most direct provision behind the State’s racial-discrimination argument.
Texas Constitution, Article VI, Section 4: Free Suffrage
This provision says the privilege of free suffrage is protected by laws regulating elections and prohibiting undue influence from power, bribery, tumult or other improper practice. The State invokes it as part of its argument that election administration must protect equal participation. Whether the challenged ads fall within the concerns this provision addresses is an open question.
Texas Election Code § 31.050: Harris County Clerk’s Election Role
Section 31.050 addresses the transfer of election-administration powers and duties in counties with populations above 3.5 million. Effective September 1, 2023, the county elections administrator’s powers and duties in such a county moved to the county tax assessor-collector and county clerk, subject to the statute’s exceptions. The State cites this provision to explain the Harris County Clerk’s authority and argues it does not authorize advertising based on racial or ethnic classifications.
Official law: Texas Election Code, Chapter 31
The ultra vires doctrine: City of El Paso v. Heinrich and State v. Hollins
Government entities in Texas are generally protected by governmental immunity, but an ultra vires suit against an official acting without legal authority is an established exception. In City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009), the Texas Supreme Court explained that such a suit must allege, and eventually prove, that an officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.
In State v. Hollins, 620 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2020), the Texas Supreme Court addressed Harris County’s then-clerk, Chris Hollins, and a plan to mail unsolicited mail-in ballot applications to voters who were not necessarily eligible to vote by mail. The court held the Election Code did not authorize that mailing and let the State’s ultra vires challenge go forward. Hollins supports the State’s ability to challenge unauthorized acts by county election officials, but it does not decide whether Harris County’s 2026 social-media ads were unlawful. The facts and the legal question differ.
Injunction law relevant to the State’s request
The State seeks injunctions, not money. Texas injunction practice is governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (including Rules 680 and 681 for restraining orders and temporary injunctions) and Chapter 65 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Texas Election Code § 273.081 separately allows injunctive relief against violations or threatened violations of the Election Code, although the petition as reviewed relies mainly on constitutional and ultra vires theories. Venue is addressed in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002(a)(1).
What Must Texas Prove to Win Against Harris County?
Under State v. Hollins and Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002), a party seeking a temporary injunction generally must show:
- a valid cause of action,
- a probable right to the relief requested, and
- a probable, imminent and irreparable injury before the case can be decided on the merits.
For its ultra vires theory, Texas must also show that the officials acted outside their legal authority or against the law. See also Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. 2017), on ultra vires claims against state officials.
The State argues that race-based classifications trigger strict scrutiny, under which a government racial classification generally must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The Supreme Court applied that standard under the federal Equal Protection Clause in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). The petition as reviewed rests on Texas constitutional provisions, not a federal equal-protection claim.
The key factual issue is whether the Meta interest categories counted as government racial classifications at all. The petition acknowledges Meta classified most of them as interests. Harris County could argue the ads were meant to reach residents with relevant cultural interests and that the State has not shown an unlawful racial classification. These questions are unresolved.
Is There a Federal Voting Rights Act Claim Against Harris County?
The publicly posted petition does not plead a conventional claim under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, in the allegations reviewed. It is also not a federal criminal voter-suppression prosecution. The State’s case rests on its claim that county officers exceeded their authority under Texas law. A voting-related subject does not automatically make every federal election statute apply.
Other Recent Texas Attorney General Litigation
The Harris County action comes during a busy period for the Attorney General’s Office. According to reporting, on October 23, 2026, the office sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in Collin County, alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the SCOPE Act over ChatGPT’s safety, reliability and protections for minors, and seeking civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation plus injunctive relief. That is a separate case with different parties, statutes and claims. Nothing in the OpenAI suit affects the Harris County lawsuit.
Is the Ken Paxton Harris County Lawsuit a Class Action?
No. This is an enforcement action by the State of Texas against two county officials in their official capacities. There is:
- no certified class,
- no consumer compensation group,
- no settlement fund for individual voters,
- no claim form or payment deadline.
Harris County voters do not need to register for the case to vote on November 3, 2026.
Related Election Lawsuits on AllAboutLawyer
These cases involve different parties, statutes and legal questions, and none is part of the Harris County lawsuit:
- Alaska Election Lawsuit 2026, DOJ Amends Complaint After Report on Peltola Campaign and Second Dan Sullivan
- Texas Mail-In Voting Lawsuit, 5th Circuit Restores SB 1’s ID and Assistance Requirements
- DOJ Lawsuit Against California Over Mail-In Ballots: Trump’s Jail Threat, California’s Response and the Laws at Issue
Frequently Asked Questions About the Ken Paxton Harris County Voter Ads Lawsuit
Why did Ken Paxton’s office sue Harris County?
The Texas Attorney General’s Office alleges Harris County used public money and Meta advertising tools to selectively target voter-information ads toward certain racial and ethnic groups while not targeting others the same way.
Who is being sued in the Harris County voter ads lawsuit?
The State of Texas sued Harris County Clerk Teneshia Hudspeth and Communications Director Irene Nuñez, both in their official capacities.
Is Ken Paxton personally the plaintiff in the Harris County lawsuit?
No. The State of Texas is the plaintiff. Paxton recused himself because he is a candidate on the November 2026 ballot.
What Harris County ads are involved?
Facebook and Instagram ads carrying the message “Plan. Check. Vote!” that encouraged people to get information about voting in the November 3 general election.
How much did Harris County spend on the disputed ads?
The State’s petition cites Meta Ad Library estimates of $43,429 over 30 days and $10,804 over seven days. Three ads launched September 23 reportedly generated at least 2.7 million impressions.
Which racial and ethnic groups were allegedly targeted?
The petition identifies interests associated with African-American, Asian and Latino or Latin American communities, such as African-American literature, Latin Music, Hispanic Kitchen, Pakistan, India and East Asia.
Were all the Meta targeting categories racial demographic classifications?
No. According to the petition’s own footnote, Meta classified most as interests. Only “African-American history” and “African-American studies” were classified as demographics.
Did Harris County admit wrongdoing?
No. The county maintains its outreach was lawful and nonpartisan. Removing the targeting settings was not an admission of constitutional liability.
What happened on October 30, 2026 in the Harris County case?
The parties reached an interim agreement to remove the challenged audience-targeting settings and not reactivate them during the applicable election period. The Attorney General’s Office called it a legal victory, while KPRC reported it did not resolve the underlying lawsuit.
Has a judge ruled that Harris County violated the Texas Constitution?
No final ruling establishing a violation has been verified. The interim agreement addressed the immediate advertising dispute, not the merits.
What is the case number in Texas v. Harris County Clerk Hudspeth?
The publicly posted October 29 petition leaves the cause-number and judicial-district fields blank, and a verified case number was not available in the primary filing reviewed.
Is there a payment or settlement fund for Harris County voters?
No. This is not a consumer class action, and there is no compensation fund or claim process.
What happens next in the Harris County voter ads lawsuit?
The November 3, 2026 election is the immediate event affecting the challenged settings. After that, the question is whether the State continues pursuing permanent injunctive relief and whether the parties reach a final resolution.
What Happens Next in Texas v. Harris County Clerk Hudspeth?
The interim agreement addresses the challenged ad settings through Election Day, but the State’s petition also asks for temporary and permanent injunctions, so broader questions remain:
- Whether Meta’s detailed-interest categories amounted to racial classifications when selected by a government election office.
- Whether Harris County had legal authority to use those settings.
- Whether the Texas Constitution prohibits the challenged practice.
- Whether the State can obtain a permanent injunction against similar targeting in the future.
As of October 31, 2026, no final merits judgment, permanent injunction or dismissal of the underlying lawsuit has been verified. The county’s removal of the settings does not establish that the State won every legal argument, and the State’s announcement of a legal victory does not mean a judge found the defendants violated the Texas Constitution. The next important development will be how the court handles the remaining claims after the November 3 election.
Sources and Legal References
Primary case documents
- State of Texas Original Verified Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief, October 29, 2026
- Texas Attorney General’s October 29 lawsuit announcement
- Texas Attorney General’s October 30 interim-agreement announcement
Reporting
- Texas Tribune: Texas AG’s office labels get-out-the-vote ads discriminatory for focus on Black, Latino and Asian voters, October 29, 2026
- KPRC: Harris County must remove demographic-based voter ads under new agreement, October 30, 2026
- Houston Chronicle: Ken Paxton’s office sues Harris County for ‘discriminatory’ get-out-the-vote ads
- Texas Public Radio: Texas AG’s office sues Harris County Clerk over allegedly discriminatory voter advertisements, October 29, 2026
Texas constitutional provisions, statutes and rules
- Texas Constitution, Article I (Bill of Rights), §§ 3 and 3a
- Texas Constitution, Article VI (Suffrage), § 4
- Texas Election Code § 31.050
- Texas Election Code § 273.081; Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 65 and § 15.002(a)(1); Tex. R. Civ. P. 680, 681
Cases
- State v. Hollins, 620 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2020)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009)
- Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. 2017)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002)
- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023)
Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal information website, not a law firm. This article is general information, not legal advice. Allegations in pending litigation have not been proven in court.
Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the State of Texas’s Original Verified Petition (October 29, 2026), the Texas Attorney General’s October 29 and October 30 announcements, the Texas Constitution and the Texas Election Code, as of October 31, 2026. Last Updated: October 31, 2026.
About the Author
Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher with 4+ years of experience covering class action settlements and consumer rights cases. He has researched and published coverage of 2,500+ settlements using verified court records, settlement administrator filings, and government sources. Learn more about Israr.