In a per curium opinion, SCOTX has rejected former Justice Steven Wayne Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus seeking placement on the Republican Party primary ballot, despite failing to satisfy the statutory petition requirement.
In re Steve Smith (No. 25-1107; December 22, 2025) challenged the constitutionality of § 172.021(g), Election Code, which requires a Texas Supreme Court candidate’s application for a place on the ballot to include fifty signatures from each court of appeals district. Without reaching the substantive issue, the court determined that mandamus was “an unsuitable vehicle to resolve such a weighty question” absent an “unusual justification.” In short, there was nothing unusual in this case. A candidate could have gotten the signatures, but waited until the last day of the filing period to file his application. In the petition he argued that he needn’t secure any signatures, a position he could have taken early enough to “have allowed an orderly resolution without upending the rulesw governing primary elections in the midst of an election season.”
The Court further pointed out that even if the Court were to take up the constitutional question, it was unlikely that Smith could have prevailed. Smith contended that since the Texas Constitution establishes exclusive eligibility requirements to qualify as a Supreme Court justice, it doesn’t say anything about requirements for placement on the ballot. Under Smith’s reasoning, the filing fee would be an eligibility requirement, as would “any date restrictions until the ballots had to be printed.” Perhaps if a “legal requirement [] foreclosed a citizen’s ability to serve at all,” it would implicate the constitution, but that is not the case here. Finally, the legislature clearly had the authority to “enact statutory provisions governing the procedure a candidate must follow to be included on the primary election ballot.” The Court denied the petition.
This is clearly the right call. The purpose of the signature requirement is to demonstrate that a judicial candidate can show at least a modicum of potential support before landing on the ballot. Voters tend not to know much, if anything, about judicial candidates in the first place, so letting everybody who can come up with the filing fee throw their name in the hat would only make judicial elections more of a crapshoot than they already are. We should point out further that as of the 2024 election, the ballot application requires a candidate to disclose, among other things, their criminal and disciplinary history. As I recall, opponents of the legislation making that change likewise argued that it was unconstitutional for the same reason Smith asserted here. Clearly unimpressed, the legislature approved the change with only one dissenting vote. As the opinion observed, “[w]e therefore formally reserve any constitutional decision until a proper case comes, if one ever does.” In the meantime, just get the signatures like everyone else does and quit your complaining.
Chief Justice Blacklock was recused from this case.
