That may be, but the converse is true, too: The local DA’s prosecutorial discretion is a check on an overzealous AG or state government. Exactly in the same way we’ve recently relied on elected county sheriffs to resist unconstitutional gun laws.
The suggestion would be to amend the constitution if we want the AG to have that power, but I’m not sure that’s a great idea. So my suggestion is you may need to accept the fact that separation of powers and reliance on elected officials means some crimes go unpunished and you don’t always get what you want. It’s messy, but the alternative is worse.
But we’re only talking about criminal prosecutions here. Candidates still have a civil remedy for contesting election results.
Also, to be clear: The Stephens case that motivated Paxton to challenge the incumbents was a campaign finance case, not an election fraud case.
You mentioned the feds. Certainly, the feds can and do prosecute violation of federal election laws. But the feds generally don’t and shouldn’t control state elections.
As I recall, the process to amend the Texas Constitution is not as difficult as it is in many states.
Separation of powers has worked fairly well, in general. The balancing act to prevent accumulation of overwhelming power by one entity is a work in progress.
Texas has thrived with its system, rather unique in the USA.
Thank you for your erudite post and response.