The Supreme Court of Texas denied a mandamus petition filed by Steve Smith, a candidate seeking to appear on the 2026 Republican primary ballot for chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Smith's application was rejected by the Republican Party of Texas for failing to meet statutory signature requirements, prompting him to challenge the constitutionality of the Election Code.
Smith filed his application on the last day of the filing period for the 2026 Republican primary. Under Texas Election Code Section 172.021(g), candidates for chief justice must include fifty signatures from each of the state's fifteen courts of appeals districts with their application. After receiving a challenge to Smith's application, the chair of the Republican Party of Texas rejected it on Dec. 12, determining that it did not contain fifty valid signatures from each of the fifteen courts of appeals districts.
Rather than seeking to cure any deficiencies in his application or arguing that he had satisfied the statutory requirements, Smith filed an original proceeding with the Supreme Court of Texas. His petition claimed entitlement to mandamus relief on the ground that the Election Code's signature requirement violates the Texas Constitution. Smith requested that the court declare Section 172.021(g) facially unconstitutional and order the Republican Party chair to add his name to the ballot regardless of whether he met the statutory requirements.
The Supreme Court of Texas issued a per curiam opinion denying the mandamus petition. Chief Justice Nathan Hecht and Justice Rebeca Huddle did not participate in the decision, with the court noting that Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Busby also did not participate.
In its brief opinion, the court declined to formally resolve the facial constitutionality of Section 172.021(g), stating that the mandamus petition was "an unsuitable vehicle to resolve such a weighty question." The court noted that Smith had created an emergency posture of his own making and based his constitutional challenge on what the court characterized as "threadbare and extremely expedited briefing."
The court emphasized that mandamus relief requires a showing of clear entitlement to the requested remedy. While noting that mandamus is not technically an equitable remedy, the court stated that "its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles." The court concluded that Smith had not demonstrated entitlement to mandamus relief for multiple reasons.
The signature requirement at issue in Smith's case has been part of Texas election law for candidates seeking statewide judicial office. The requirement is designed to ensure that candidates demonstrate support across the state's fifteen courts of appeals districts, which correspond to different geographical regions of Texas. This geographic distribution requirement aims to prevent candidates from relying solely on support concentrated in particular metropolitan areas.
Smith's challenge raised questions about whether the signature requirement creates an undue burden on ballot access or violates constitutional principles of equal protection. However, by declining to address the constitutional question, the court left those issues unresolved for future litigation that might present the question in a more suitable procedural posture.
The denial of Smith's petition means he will not appear on the 2026 Republican primary ballot for chief justice unless he pursues other legal avenues or administrative remedies. The Republican Party of Texas's rejection of his application stands, and the statutory signature requirements remain in effect for future candidates.
The case highlights the intersection of election law, constitutional interpretation, and procedural requirements for extraordinary relief. Courts generally prefer to address constitutional questions in cases with full factual development and adequate briefing, rather than in emergency proceedings with expedited timelines.
The Supreme Court of Texas's decision also reflects the high bar for mandamus relief in Texas courts. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires petitioners to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought and the absence of adequate remedies at law. The court's emphasis on equitable principles suggests that Smith's last-minute filing strategy and failure to attempt compliance with existing requirements weighed against granting relief.
Looking ahead, the constitutional questions raised by Smith's petition may resurface in future election cycles or in different procedural contexts. Other candidates facing similar signature requirements could potentially challenge the law through different legal mechanisms or with more comprehensive constitutional arguments.
The decision leaves intact the current framework for ballot access requirements for Texas Supreme Court candidates, including the geographic distribution requirements embedded in the signature collection process. Future candidates will need to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, including obtaining the required number of valid signatures from each court of appeals district, to secure ballot placement for statewide judicial races.