David Rogers sought a place on the 2026 Republican primary ballot for Justice of the Supreme Court and presented his ballot application to Republican Party of Texas chair Abraham George on the afternoon of December 8, only a few hours before the statutory deadline, and on December 12 the chair rejected it as deficient.¹ A Supreme Court candidate must file a petition with at least 50 valid signatures from each court of appeals district, and the chair said Rogers fell short in district 8, where he submitted 59 signatures, at least 16 of which the chair says are invalid.² Rogers says all his signatures were valid, that the claimed shortage rested on a circulator's notarization on one of six pages, and that he submitted 15 more signatures as soon as the party office opened after learning of the claimed shortage.³ The chair accepted the application of Justice Brett Busby for the same office.⁴

Rogers sued the party in Travis County district court for a declaration that he must be included in the candidates the party certifies to the Secretary of State, and the trial court denied temporary injunctive relief after the parties vigorously contested the signatures' validity.¹ Rogers did not appeal that denial or seek emergency relief in the court of appeals, and a week later he petitioned this Court for mandamus.² The Court denied the petition in a per curiam opinion on January 13, 2026, with Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Busby not participating.³

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus under Tex. Elec. Code section 273.061(a); per curiam opinion issued January 13, 2026.⁴

• The chair:¹ whether Rogers has shown a clear entitlement to the ballot when he has not shown he submitted the required number of valid signatures, and whether mandamus should be denied in the Court's discretion because of concerns that signatures were collected under false pretenses.
• Rogers:² whether the chair wrongly refused to accept an application that complied with the Election Code, which gave the chair a ministerial duty to submit his name to the Secretary of State, or whether his post-deadline signatures cured any shortage.

Mandamus under Election Code section 273.061(a) lies for violation of a ministerial duty or a clear abuse of discretion, but it is an extraordinary remedy that the Court traditionally does not issue when the claim depends on genuinely disputed material facts.¹

Whether Rogers' application complied with the Election Code.

David Rogers (Relator): His application met every requirement, the Election Code does not allow the chair to discard a petition page over a trivial notarization defect, and the chair has a ministerial duty to certify him, so the Court must let voters decide between the candidates.¹

Abraham George, Party Chair (Respondent): Rogers has not established a clear legal right because he submitted only 59 signatures from district 8 and at least 16 are invalid, including signers who were not registered voters, one registered outside the district, incorrect voter identification numbers and signatures not in the signers' own handwriting, leaving 43, seven short.² The chair also asks the Court to exercise its discretion to deny relief because of concerns that signatures were collected on false pretenses.³

Brett Busby (Real Party in Interest): The chair was required to review the application to see whether it complies with the requirements and had a mandatory duty to reject it because it lacks 50 valid signatures from each district.⁴

Whether a late amended application cures any defect.

David Rogers (Relator): Even if he had been short, the 15 additional signatures submitted after the shortage was identified constitute a cure under this Court's precedent.⁵

Rogers argued that the chair must be compelled to do his duty so that voters and not a party functionary decide between the candidates.¹

None noted

Holding

Mandamus was denied because Rogers' claim depends on a genuinely disputed material fact, the validity of his signatures, which the only court to weigh in decided against him, and because he cannot show that denying him a post-deadline opportunity to cure was a violation of a ministerial duty or a clear abuse of discretion.¹

Reasoning

Precedent strongly favors ballot access, but the parties vigorously dispute whether the signatures are valid, and since Rogers abandoned his trial-court proceedings after temporary relief was denied, it would be improper for this Court to be the first to decide the factual dispute in his favor.² The opportunity to cure application defects extends to early filings that allow time for corrections after the chair's review, and Rogers filed only hours before the deadline, so the chair could review the application only after the period closed, and the law has forbidden acceptance of an amended application filed after the filing deadline since 2019.³ The Court added that election officials owe candidates and voters transparency and the utmost alacrity, and that a stated "reason" for rejection that lacks the specificity needed for rapid review may not satisfy section 172.0222(g), though that concern was not dispositive on this record.⁴

Disposition

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.⁵

Mandamus requires a ministerial duty or clear abuse of discretion, is not issued when relief depends on resolving genuinely disputed facts, and in election cases demands unusual dispatch from the parties.¹

Per curiam opinion, with Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Busby not participating.¹