How They DifferPaxton · Talarico 2026
A no bullshit non-partisan comparison of political candidates
Aggregate score
Paxton 2.7Talarico 6.1 T +3.4
Lochner / classical-liberal traditioneconomic substantive due process, 1897–1937 portrait
Scoring · Jurists

Lochner / classical-liberal tradition
economic substantive due process, 1897–1937

Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

The Lochner classical-liberal framework (1897–1937) — economic liberty as substantive due process, freedom of contract, property rights, and skepticism of progressive economic regulation, exemplified by Field, Peckham, and Sutherland62 — aligns with Paxton's economic-deregulation, anti-ESG litigation, opposition to labor regulation, and property-rights orientation but is also skeptical of state-power expansion for cultural-conservative ends (the Ten Commandments mandate, AG-power moral regulation), while Talarico's $15 minimum wage, corporate tax increases, stock-buyback tax, and antitrust expansion are the precise pattern the framework was built to limit; the narrow P+1 reflects Lochner's preference for Paxton's substantive economics tempered by trouble over his institutional-process record.

Paxton
4
Talarico
3
Margin
P +1
Issue
Paxton
Talarico
Economic liberty / freedom of contract
Helps
Hurts
Paxton: Helps · Talarico: Hurts
Lochner read the Fourteenth Amendment to protect 'liberty of contract' against progressive economic regulation; Paxton's economic-deregulation and anti-labor-regulation record1 aligns substantively, while Talarico's $15 minimum wage2 is the precise wage-and-hour regulation Lochner struck down.
Property rights / anti-ESG
Helps
Hurts
Paxton: Helps · Talarico: Hurts
The Field/Peckham/Sutherland classical-liberal framework treated property rights as foundational; Paxton's anti-ESG litigation1 defends investor property rights against regulatory mandates, while Talarico's corporate tax increases and stock-buyback tax2 are framed as restrictions on capital deployment Lochner would scrutinize.
Antitrust expansion
Helps
Hurts
Paxton: Helps · Talarico: Hurts
The Lochner framework was skeptical of antitrust expansion as interference with freedom of contract; Talarico's antitrust-expansion framing2 is the regulatory pattern Lochner was built to limit, while Paxton's selective, narrow antitrust enforcement leaves freedom of contract largely intact on the Lochner side of this row.
State-power expansion for cultural-conservative ends
Hurts
—
Paxton: Hurts · Talarico: —
Lochner-era classical liberalism was skeptical of state-power expansion across the board, including for cultural-conservative regulation; Paxton's Ten Commandments mandate and use of AG power for moral regulation1 is exactly the state-power expansion Lochner constrained. Talarico's record on cultural state-power expansion is not a factor on this row.
Officer-of-the-court / process integrity
Hurts
Helps
Paxton: Hurts · Talarico: Helps
The Lochner-era classical-liberal tradition treated officer-of-the-court integrity as separable from substantive doctrine; Paxton's forum-shopping and impeachment-for-abuse-of-office leave even sympathetic classical-liberal commentators troubled, while Talarico's anti-corruption package codifies the process-integrity norm even where his substantive economics cuts against the doctrine.

Sources

  1. Ken Paxton for U.S. Senate, official campaign issues page, accessed May 2026. (full list)
  2. Talarico for Texas, official campaign issues pages (taxes, education, healthcare, immigration, social media/AI, freedom-family-faith, public-safety-justice, corruption-democracy, labor-business), accessed May 2026. (full list)
  3. The Lochner-era Supreme Court (1897-1937); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905); Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923); the 'Four Horsemen' — Sutherland, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler; Bernard Siegan, 'Economic Liberties and the Constitution' (1980); David Bernstein, 'Rehabilitating Lochner' (2011). (full list)

Others in this cluster