Why is Texas aiming to eliminate guaranteed income while supporting the funding of school vouchers?

The lawsuit against the state’s largest county highlights the divide between Texas’ two parties on how taxpayer dollars should be spent.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit to block Harris County’s guaranteed income pilot program. But what about school vouchers?

Earlier this month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit to shut down Harris County’s guaranteed income program, arguing that the Texas Constitution prohibits counties or cities from “granting public money or things of value in aid of or to any individual.”

On Thursday, Paxton’s office and County Attorney Christian Menefee are scheduled to meet for a hearing to review the temporary injunction request before Harris County’s 165th Civil Court Judge Ursula Hall. Participants were supposed to receive their first installment of payments on April 24, but everything is on hold pending a court-approved legal decision.

The guaranteed income program, known as Uplift Harris, aims to provide $500 a month to 1,928 families to alleviate poverty. This support is intended to help residents cover expenses such as transportation, housing, food, and other necessities, with no conditions attached.

Paxton’s lawsuit to terminate Uplift Harris, which he labels a “welfare scheme” and a “socialist experiment,” coincides with Texas advocating for a contentious education savings account program, commonly known as school vouchers. These accounts utilize taxpayer money to assist parents in paying for their children’s private school tuition.

So, what distinguishes these two publicly funded state programs?

Southern Methodist University political science professor Calvin Jillson suggests that Paxton’s lawsuit is “undoubtedly political.”

“If it primarily functions like a lottery, it’s likely harder to justify,” Jillson told Chron. “There are numerous programs where public funds are directed to private individuals, and the critical issue is whether these programs are designed to withstand judicial review. Sometimes they are, and other times they are invalidated.”