In re Steve Smith, 25-1107, December 22, 2025.
Original mandamus proceeding against the Republican Party of Texas chair
Synopsis
Direct answer: The Supreme Court of Texas denied mandamus, declining to resolve the facial constitutionality of TEX. ELEC. CODE § 172.021(g). The petition failed as an inappropriate, last‑minute vehicle—relator waited until the filing deadline, provided an incomplete record, and was unlikely to prevail on the merits because the signature requirement is at least plausibly a procedural ballot‑qualification rule rather than an additional constitutional disqualification.
Relevance to Family Law
Although this is an election‑law mandamus, the opinion reinforces durable principles that family‑law litigators encounter routinely: (1) mandamus relief is governed by equitable principles and requires prompt, well‑supported emergency presentation; (2) courts expect a complete record under Texas R. App. P. 52.7(a) before granting extraordinary relief; and (3) constitutional attacks on longstanding statutes should not be forced into last‑minute emergency proceedings. In divorce, custody, and property disputes—where emergency relief (temporary orders, stays, enforcement, or removal of pending matters) is often sought—practitioners must respect timing, preserve the record, seek narrow remedies where appropriate, and prepare a convincing showing of clear abuse of discretion to justify mandamus.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator filed an application on the final day of the filing period to appear on the 2026 Republican primary ballot for chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. The Election Code requires candidates to include fifty signatures “from each court of appeals district.” After a challenge, the Republican Party chair rejected the application for failing to include fifty valid signatures from each of the fifteen courts of appeals districts. Relator sought an original writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Texas asking the Court to declare §172.021(g) facially unconstitutional and to order placement on the ballot; he did not seek a declaration that his application met the statute or an opportunity to cure alleged defects. Relator also failed to supply a complete record supporting the petition.
Issues Decided
- Whether mandamus was an appropriate vehicle to adjudicate a facial constitutional challenge to TEX. ELEC. CODE §172.021(g) presented on the last day of the filing period.
- Whether §172.021(g)’s fifty‑signature requirement is facially unconstitutional as an additional eligibility disqualification beyond the Texas Constitution’s enumerated qualifications for office.
- Whether the relator satisfied the procedural and evidentiary prerequisites for extraordinary relief (complete record, likelihood of success, and demonstration of clear abuse of discretion).
Rules Applied
The Court applied the equitable principles that guide mandamus practice (citing In re Walker and Rivercenter Assocs.), the standard for mandamus relief requiring clear abuse of discretion (In re Dall. HERO), and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure § 52.7(a)’s requirement that the relator include every document material to the claim. The opinion referenced constitutional precepts prohibiting the Legislature from adding substantive eligibility requirements to offices enumerated in the Texas Constitution (State ex rel. Candler and Kilday), but treated the Election Code’s signature requirement in light of precedents recognizing a State’s authority to impose reasonable procedural ballot‑qualification measures (Anderson v. Celebrezze; Bullock v. Carter; Dickson v. Strickland).
Application
The Court explained its disposition around three points.
First, equitable considerations: Mandamus is not an equitable remedy per se but is controlled by equitable principles, and resort to mandamus for a facial constitutional challenge should not be reserved for last‑ditch, expedited filings that arise from the relator’s own delay. The relator’s failure to seek earlier resolution or to ask for a narrower remedy (such as an opportunity to cure) weighed heavily against relief.
Second, the merits: The Court declined to definitively resolve the constitutional question but explained why the relator was unlikely to prevail. The Court framed §172.021(g) plausibly as a procedural ballot‑placement requirement—akin to filing fees and other administrative prerequisites—rather than an extra constitutional disqualification that would bar a citizen from holding office irrespective of election procedures. That characterization weakened the facial‑invalidity argument.
Third, procedural sufficiency: The relator did not comply with Rule 52.7(a) by supplying the complete application and materials necessary for the Court to assess the record. The combination of an incomplete record and the relator’s failure to pursue less disruptive remedies made the petition an unsuitable vehicle for the Court to address the deep constitutional question posed.
Holding
The Court denied mandamus relief because the petition was an unsuitable emergency vehicle to decide the facial constitutionality of §172.021(g), given the relator’s delay, incomplete record, and weak likelihood of success. The Court expressly declined to decide whether §172.021(g) is facially unconstitutional, explaining that the signature requirement is at least plausibly a procedural requirement for ballot placement rather than an additional constitutional disqualification for holding office. Finally, the Court emphasized the relator’s procedural failings—late filing, failure to request an opportunity to cure, and failure to provide a complete record—as independent bases to deny extraordinary relief.
Practical Application
For family‑law practitioners, the decision is a cautionary primer on handling emergency appellate relief. When seeking mandamus to address interlocutory rulings in divorce, custody, or property matters, follow the Court’s signals: bring constitutional or high‑stakes challenges early; assemble and file a complete record; articulate narrow, practicable relief where feasible (seek cure, correction, or a stay rather than a broad facial declaration when appropriate); and be prepared to show a clear abuse of discretion with substantial legal and factual support. Courts are disinclined to grant emergency, sweeping remedies that could upend ongoing processes when the petitioner caused or contributed to the timing problem or failed to preserve the necessary record.
Checklists
Pre‑mandamus timing assessment
- Confirm whether the issue could and should have been raised earlier.
- Evaluate whether interim remedies (motions to reconsider, emergency hearings, or targeted injunctions) are available and preferable.
- If delay exists, prepare an explanation for the timeline and any extraordinary circumstances.
Record and appendix checklist
- Include every document material to the claim per Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a): orders, filings, correspondence, notices of deficiency, transcripts if any, and any party challenges.
- Produce evidence of notice or lack thereof (e.g., delivery receipts, emails).
- Attach statutory provisions and prior appellate rulings relied upon.
Framing the relief
- Prefer narrow, practical relief: request correction, opportunity to cure, or expedited trial‑court proceedings before seeking facial invalidation.
- If seeking constitutional relief, explain why mandamus is necessary and why the district or court of appeals cannot provide effective relief.
Merits preparation
- Be ready to distinguish procedural prerequisites from substantive eligibility requirements under applicable constitutional precedent.
- Anticipate policy arguments the court will use to justify procedural rules (orderly election/administration analogues in family law: court calendars, notice requirements, bond requirements).
Client counseling checklist
- Advise clients about the risks of last‑minute filings and the preference for early litigation of constitutional or jurisdictional claims.
- Prepare clients for the likelihood that an appellate court will deny emergency relief if the record is incomplete or the party contributed to the delay.
Citation
In re Steve Smith, No. 25-1107 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2025).
Full Opinion
The full opinion is available here: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461809/251107pc.pdf
Share this content: