In the second of two mandamus proceedings, the Texas Supreme Court has rejected a last-ditch effort by Supreme Court candidate David Rogers to land a spot on the GOP primary ballot. The court earlier denied a similar petition for writ of mandamus by former SCOTX Justice Stephen Wayne Smith, who sought to challenge Chief Justice Blacklock.
Roughly the same facts presented themselves in In re David Rogers (No. 26-0010; January 13, 2026) as in the Smith case. After the Republican Party rejected Rogers’ ballot application for insufficient signatures on his petition, he brought suit in district court. The parties (obviously) disagreed on the validity of Rogers’ signatures, and the trial court denied Rogers’ motion for temporary injunctive relief (in other words, the trial court didn’t think Rogers had a very high probability of success in his lawsuit). Instead of appealing the denial in the ordinary course, Rogers changed tactics and sought mandamus relief from SCOTX. But, as the per curiam court pointed out, neither the trial court nor anyone else has resolved a material factual dispute, and the Party’s rejection of Rogers’ bare allegation that he cured the deficiency by submitting additional signatures after the deadline didn’t in any way indicate a violation of a ministerial duty or clear abuse of discretion.
Even so, the statute forbids acceptance of an amended application of the filing deadline, whether valid or not. As the court observed, “[s]uch an argument would treat every initial application as only a rough draft” (a felicitious turn of phrase). If Rogers hadn’t waited until the waning hours before the deadline, the court went on, he would never have faced the problem in the first place. With some generosity toward Rogers, however, the court noted that it is incumbent on party officials to promptly give the ballot applicant clear and specific reasons for a deficiency in the application, as required by statute. But here there was no indication of an exceptional circumstance that might warrant relief.
