Relator Steve Smith, a Texas lawyer since 1987 who represents himself, filed an application on December 8, 2025, the last day of the filing period, for a place on the March 3, 2026 Republican primary ballot for chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, and paid the filing fee; he says his ballot-access petition contained facially valid signatures of 50 registered voters in each court of appeals district.¹ Election Code Section 172.021(g) requires such a candidate to include a petition with 50 signatures "from each court of appeals district".² After the campaign of Chief Justice Blacklock challenged every signature on December 10, the chair of the Republican Party of Texas, Abraham George, rejected the application on Friday, December 12, because the petitions did not contain fifty valid signatures from each of the fifteen districts.³ Smith says the petition had no signatures collected in Red River County and that he filed additional signatures on December 15, including 17 from the Eighth Court of Appeals district.⁴ The chair says the Party also received reports that signatures were collected using a biography of a different Justice Smith, of the Tenth Court of Appeals.⁵

This is an original proceeding for writ of mandamus brought directly in this Court, with no court of appeals step; Smith invokes Texas Constitution article V, Section 3, and Election Code Sections 273.061(a) and 161.009.¹ He filed it December 12, 2025, the day the application was rejected, saying only state-law claims are asserted.² A week later he moved to require the chair to transfer his ballot-access petition to the clerk.³ The chair responded December 17, and Smith replied the same day.⁴ The Court decided the petition per curiam on December 22, 2025, without oral argument, with Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Busby not participating.⁵

Original petition for writ of mandamus in an emergency election posture; denied per curiam without oral argument on December 22, 2025, with Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Busby not participating.⁶

Smith frames one issue: whether he filed a valid application for a place on the official ballot.¹ His argument is that Section 172.021(g)'s signature requirement is an eligibility requirement the Legislature may not add to Article V, Section 2(b) of the Texas Constitution, and that the Party's petition review denied him due course of law.² The chair frames the issue as whether a candidate who files on the last day is exempt from the statutory obligation to include 50 valid signatures from each court of appeals district.³

Mandamus is a remedy "largely controlled by equitable principles," and the relator must show a clear abuse of discretion.¹ The relator also bears the burden of providing a sufficient record, including every document material to the claim for relief.²

Whether Section 172.021(g) adds an unconstitutional eligibility requirement.

Relator (Smith): Where the Constitution lists the qualifications for an office they are exclusive, and Article V, Section 2(b) lists the qualifications for chief justice, so statutory eligibility requirements for Supreme Court candidates are void; a requirement to have one's name on the ballot is a requirement to hold the office, citing Kilday and Candler.¹

Respondent (Republican Party of Texas chair): The Legislature cannot add qualifications to hold office, but it may enact reasonable procedural requirements, such as fees, signature requirements, and deadlines, that otherwise eligible candidates must follow to be placed on the ballot, and Smith's cases involved campaign-finance limits and a different procedural question; signature requirements keep frivolous candidates off the ballot.²

Whether Smith met the requirement and could cure.

Relator (Smith): His petition contained 50 valid signatures from each district, nobody has specified how it falls short, and the Party's petition review fell short of due course of law; he also filed additional signatures after the rejection and argues the Code does not bar supplementing a petition after the deadline.³

Respondent (chair): Smith does not contest the Party's determination that he lacked the signatures and supplies no evidence of them, as the party seeking relief has the burden of a sufficient record.⁴

Mootness and discretion.

Respondent (chair): The demand is moot because the chair's deadline to certify primary candidates had passed and ballot draws were under way, and the Court should decline in its discretion, in part because of reports that signatures were collected using another Justice's biography.⁵

Smith argued that the constitutional questions are of statewide importance, that time is of the essence, and that this Court should decide them rather than first seeking relief in a court of appeals.¹

None

Holding

On the narrow issue presented, Smith is not entitled to mandamus relief, and the Court formally reserved any constitutional decision on Section 172.021(g) "until a proper case comes, if one ever does".¹

Reasoning

An unsuitable vehicle. The Court need not resolve the statute's facial constitutionality to conclude the petition is an unsuitable vehicle, because a facial challenge to a longstanding statute should not be brought at the last possible minute without unusual justification, and Smith's only apparent justification was his own failure to secure enough valid signatures after waiting until the last day to file; the claim could have been brought long before.² Smith asked only for a declaration of facial unconstitutionality and an order adding his name regardless of whether he met the requirement, not for a declaration that he satisfied it or a chance to cure.³

Unlikely to succeed. Smith would be unlikely to show a clear abuse of discretion: the Legislature cannot add disqualifications to those in Article V, Section 2(b), but his argument assumes anything affecting ballot placement is an eligibility requirement, which would make even the filing fee one, and the signature requirement is at least plausibly a procedural requirement for orderly election administration, since ballot access is important but a state may require a preliminary showing of support.⁴ The chair's representative did deliver written notice of the reason for rejection, contrary to Smith's contention.⁵

No record. Smith did not provide his complete application and petition as Rule 52.7(a) requires, which underscores that the petition is poorly suited to generate a constitutional decision, and his December 18 motion to compel transfer of the petition is denied.⁶

Political parties' associational rights. Smith's claim and requested relief implicate other constitutional issues he does not acknowledge, including the associational rights of political parties, which the Court did not analyze.⁷

Disposition

Petition for writ of mandamus denied without oral argument, and Smith's December 18 motion denied.⁸

Vote Breakdown

Per curiam opinion, with Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Busby not participating.⁹