Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is now the state’s Republican nominee for US Senate, and the number that should matter most to voters is not his margin over John Cornyn. It is the turnout.
According to unofficial results from the Texas secretary of state, Paxton defeated Cornyn in the May 26 Republican primary runoff with 885,949 votes to Cornyn’s 501,725. That is 1,387,674 total votes in the race.
Compared to the March 3 primary, it is also a 36% drop in turnout.
Here’s the thing: Texas has roughly 18.7 million registered voters. That means about 7.4% of the electorate participated and Paxton won the nomination with less than 5% (4.7% to be more precise). This is the reality of partisan primaries and runoffs:
A tiny slice of the electorate decides who everyone gets to choose from in November.
Paxton’s victory is already being framed as a triumph of MAGA over the establishment. But the deeper story is that the MAGA “base” was a fraction of a fraction of the electorate.
Less than 1-in-13 registered Texas voters cast a ballot in the GOP Senate runoff. Fewer than 1-in-20 cast a vote for the winning candidate.
At the same time, the Texas GOP is fighting to shut millions of voters out of the primary process entirely—which would guarantee these types of low-turnout wins in future election cycles.
Shawn Griffiths
The party has sued the state in federal court, arguing that Texas’ open primary law violates its First Amendment rights because the system allows independents and Democrats to vote in Republican primaries—which can result in “party sabotage.”
State law does not require voter registration by party. When voters show up to vote in the primaries, they can freely choose between a Republican or Democratic ballot. They have to stick with that party for the remainder of the primary process (including runoffs).
The GOP’s lawsuit says it has adopted a rule requiring that “only registered Republicans” be allowed to vote in Republican primaries. However, unless the courts side with party leaders, their rules do not override state law.
The terms “crossover voting” and “party sabotage” are common when parties seek to shut primary doors. Hawaii Democrats made the same claim in 2012. In that case, the Ninth Circuit found that the party had "not developed any evidence” to meet the claimed burden to its rights.
The courts upheld the open primary rules. Similarly, in 2024, the Colorado GOP failed to convince a court that its constitutional rights were burdened by open primaries.
The Republican Party of Texas sees independent voter access in these critical taxpayer-funded and publicly administered elections as a potential threat. It claims that “strategic interference” distorts the party’s nomination process.
Notably, Paxton—the state’s attorney general—joined the GOP’s lawsuit. This left Secretary of State Jane Nelson to hire private attorneys to defend Texas law. Her office argued that such a change should be made by the Legislature, not imposed by a judge.
Shawn Griffiths
She also warned that a court-imposed rule change could confuse voters and burden election administrators.
Cornyn actually led Paxton in the March primary, 42% to 41%, but neither candidate reached a majority, sending the race to a runoff. Runoffs are notorious for shrinking the electorate considerably more. (The general rule is to cut primary turnout in half.)
In this case, the high-profile runoff with national media attention and a Paxton endorsement from President Donald Trump drew about 64% of the vote total from March. Still, it was a considerably smaller electorate—and that proved decisive.
Paxton not only beat Cornyn; he crushed him.
The lesson here is not about Paxton alone. It is about a system that gives party insiders and the most loyal primary voters outsized power over elections that affect everyone.
Texas taxpayers fund these elections. Texas election officials administer them. Texas voters live with the consequences in November. Yet the parties decide the rules, the ballot access barriers, and increasingly, who is allowed to participate.
Moving to closed primaries means:
- Forcing more than 18 million existing Texas voters to register a party affiliation with the state
- Forcing them to affiliate with a party to vote
- Shutting out millions of voters from elections they fund
- Increasing public costs because the state has to redesign the voter registration system
- Party leaders have more control over election outcomes and who votes
That is the direction the Texas GOP is saying in public and in court that it wants to go.
For independent voters, this fight is bigger than Texas. It is the same question playing out across the country: Are primaries public elections that should serve voters, or private party contests that taxpayers are forced to fund?
Do all voters have the right to a meaningful vote in all taxpayer-funded elections? Or is that right contingent on joining a party?
In Texas, the answer from the GOP is clear. The party does not just want low-turnout primaries. It wants to decide who is allowed through the door.