Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened to sue two large, Democratic-leaning counties should they proceed with their plan to mail voter registration forms to eligible voters who are currently unregistered.

Bexar and Harris counties have proposed using third-party vendors to mail the forms. Though the plan is to only send them to people who are eligible to be registered, Paxton said that the forms could fall in the hands of those who are ineligible to vote, which would “encourage” them to register illegally, according to KSAT-TV.

“At worst, it may induce the commission of a crime by encourage individuals who are ineligible to vote to provide false information on the form,” Paxton said, according to KENS-TV. “Either way, it is illegal, and if you move forward with this proposal, I will use all available legal means to stop you.”

READ MORE: Angela Paxton Voted Against Being Barred From Voting in Husband’s Impeachment Trial

Bexar and Harris counties both have high Latino populations, with nearly 20% of all Texan Latinos living in Harris County, according to The Hill. Paxton has faced accusations of specifically trying to suppress the Latino vote. Following raids on the homes of Latino voting activists, the League of United Latin American Citizens called for an inquiry into alleged civil rights violations, according to USA Today.

At least six LULAC volunteers had their homes raided by police, and had voter registration materials seized, along with phones, computers and other electronic devices, USA Today reported. Paxton said the search warrants were “part of an ongoing election integrity investigation” into “allegations of election fraud and vote harvesting that occurred during the 2022 elections.”

LULAC says one of the people raided was Lidia Martinez, an 87-year-old member of the organization. On August 20, her home was raided, and she was interrogated for hours, according to LULAC.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2022 elections in Texas or elsewhere in the United States. Paxton’s most recent probe, despite the raids, has led to no charges thus far, according to the Texas Tribune.

Paxton has been conducting similar raids and probes into election fraud as far back as 2018, the Washington Post reports.

“The goal isn’t to get a conviction,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, who has defended Texans against election-fraud claims, told the Post. “It’s to set up a climate of fear around voting. He uses these witch hunts to gain attention and money.”

Last year, Paxton was impeached by the state House on 20 separate articles of impeachment. The Texas Senate, which skews Republican 19 to 12, voted to acquit him. The impeachment charges mostly centered around allegations Paxton used his position to help a campaign donor under investigation by the FBI for fraud.

Nearly half of former President Donald Trump supporters do not think the results of the November election will be fairly reported, according to a new poll.

A USA Today/Suffolk poll reported that 42% of Trump supporters said they were “not confident” the count will be accurate.

Even though 56% of those likely to vote for Trump expressed some confidence of a fair election, the vast majority of those, 45%, say they’re only “somewhat confident.” Only 11% said they were “very confident” the election will be fair. More than a quarter of MAGA voters say they likely wouldn’t accept the outcome if Trump loses.

Supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris are more confident in the fairness of the election. Just 2% expressed doubt in the accuracy of election results. Another 68% of likely Harris voters said they were “very confident” in the fairness, with 29% who were only “somewhat confident.”

READ MORE: Trump Ally’s Stunning Request: ‘If This Election Doesn’t Go Our Way the Next Day We Fight’

The USA Today/Suffolk poll has a margin of error of 3.1%, and polled 1,000 people via telephone between August 25-28.

Trump has been seeding doubts among his followers about the fairness of the election. He’s said he’ll commit to the election results only “if everything’s honest.” He’s said the same thing in the 2016 and 2020 elections, which he didn’t. In 2016, when he won, he accepted the results. But in 2020, he famously didn’t, and his followers rioted in the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021 in an attempt to stop the election certification.

Trump continues to say the 2020 election was “rigged,” even as recently as last week. Trump and his lawyer, Alina Habba, posted a New York Post headline to Trump’s social network Truth Social. The Post reported that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor COVID misinformation and that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said the platform should not have suppressed the reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

“This is exactly what this administration (WHICH INCLUDES KAMALA) has done to our country. Censorship is what happens in communist countries not this republic. They have gagged my client, his lawyers in and out of courtrooms and his team. Now, we once again have proof that they are gagging our media and censoring America. Kamala is hiding because she can’t answer for her actions. Still have doubts? TRUMP 2024 Make America Free Again,” Habba wrote.

“This is what everyone’s been waiting for — THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS RIGGED!” Trump added.

There have been substantiated allegations of impropriety in the 2020 election. But Trump himself has been blamed in those instances, facing accusations of election interference.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that politicians may accept a gratuity after making an official act, and that laws against bribery do not apply.

In the case, Snyder v. U.S., former Portage, Indiana mayor James Snyder gave Great Lakes Peterbilt two contracts with the city, purchasing five garbage trucks for $1.1 million in 2013. The following year, Peterbilt paid Synder $13,000. Though the DOJ and FBI said the payment was likely a gratuity for the contract, Snyder said the money was merely payment for his consulting services.

A federal jury disagreed, convicting him of violating a 1984 law that banned gratuities to state and local officials. The law mirrors a statute barring federal officials from taking either bribes — defined as a payment or gift before an official act — or gratuities — defined as a gift after such an act.

READ MORE: Clarence Thomas Accepted Millions in Gifts – Far More Than All Other Justices Combined

Snyder was sentenced to 21 months in prison. He appealed, arguing that the specific law only applied to bribes, not gratuities. Though the Seventh Circuit upheld the conviction, the Supreme Court reversed it, agreeing with Snyder.

The Supreme Court ruling was 6-3, along ideological lines. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the Court’s opinion, arguing that though local governments may regulate the gifts public officials can accept, the federal statute does not, leaving it to the states to determine what gratuities are legal.

“Gratuities after the official act are not the same as bribes before the official act. After all, unlike gratuities, bribes can corrupt the official act—meaning that the official takes the act for private gain, not for the public good. That said, gratuities can sometimes also raise ethical and appearance concerns. For that reason, Congress, States, and local governments have long regulated gratuities to public officials,” Kavanaugh wrote, adding that “different governments draw lines in different places.”

Kavanaugh also argued that a 1986 amendment to the 1984 law updated it to mirror the prohibition against bribery only. In this particular case, Indiana state law prohibits bribery of local officials, but has no such rule on gratuities.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, arguing that the original law used “expansive, unqualified language.” She criticized the reading of the law that banned bribery but not gratuities.

“Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love,” Jackson wrote, citing that the text of the law “expressly targets officials who ‘corruptly’ solicit, accept, or agree to accept payments ‘intending to be influenced or rewarded.'”

“The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog,” she added.

The decision comes in the wake of controversy over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepting a number of gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow without declaring them until earlier this month.