Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to block Harris County’s guaranteed basic income program, Uplift Harris, has been denied by a judge, allowing the program to move forward. The program aims to provide $500 per month to low-income families in Harris County, with around 1,900 participants already selected to receive the funding.
Paxton filed a lawsuit against the county, claiming that the program violates the state Constitution’s ban on gifting public funds. He argued that the selection of recipients is “inherently arbitrary” and called the program “a socialist experiment.” However, Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee argued that the program is designed to lift people out of poverty and is similar to the stimulus checks issued by former President Donald Trump.
The judge’s decision to deny Paxton’s request for a temporary restraining order is seen as a victory for Harris County residents. Menefee stated that helping families in need is a proper use of government funds and criticized politicians in Austin for trying to block their efforts.
The Uplift Harris program received over 82,500 applications, highlighting the demand for financial assistance in the county. To qualify for the program, recipients must live below 200% of the federal poverty line or be part of the ACCESS Harris County program. The selection process involved a two-stage lottery system, with around 6,000 eligible applicants selected for the first stage.
Although the program can now proceed, county officials anticipate an appeal from the state, which could potentially reach the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will be asked to make a decision promptly since the county is scheduled to disburse Uplift Harris funds on April 24.
The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for the implementation of guaranteed basic income programs in other parts of Texas and across the country. Supporters argue that these programs can help alleviate poverty and provide much-needed support to low-income families. However, opponents, like Paxton, fear that it sets a precedent for government overreach and can lead to the misallocation of public funds.
As the case continues to unfold, it will be interesting to see how the courts navigate the tension between providing financial assistance to those in need and upholding constitutional limitations on the distribution of public funds. Regardless of the final outcome, the Uplift Harris program has sparked a broader conversation about income inequality and the role of government in addressing economic disparities.
