# In re Rose Supreme Court of Texas, No. 26-0916 **In re Rose, No. 26-0916 (Tex. Sept. 11, 2026). Holding: A commissioners court's power to redraw precinct lines "from time to time" does not include the power to change the lines applicable to an election after the election has begun, and a primary and the corresponding general election are one election for this purpose.** Practice areas: election law, texas constitution ## Key issues - A commissioners court's constitutional and statutory power to redraw precinct lines "from time to time" does not include the power to change the lines applicable to an election after that election has already begun. - A primary election and its corresponding general election are one election for this purpose, so a county cannot switch to new precinct boundaries between the two. ## Factual History Galveston County has four commissioner precincts and four justice-of-the-peace precincts, and the March 3, 2026 primary was held under a 2021 commissioner map and a 2013 JP and constable map for two commissioner seats (precincts 2 and 4) and three JP seats (precincts 1, 2 and 3), with every candidate unopposed (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 17-18; Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Respondent), PDF p. 14). On June 29, 2026, almost four months after the primary, the commissioners court adopted a single new map for commissioner, JP and constable precincts, effective immediately, and the County has said it will use it for the November general election (Opinion, PDF p. 3). Under it, JP Kathleen McCumber of precinct four will finish her term in precinct three, and Billy Williams, who ran unopposed in the precinct-three Democratic primary, will run in the general election for precinct four (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Respondent), PDF pp. 15-16). Relator Derreck Rose says he moved from Commissioners Precinct 1, which is not on the ballot, to Precinct 4, which is, so he could not vote in or consider running in the primary for his new precinct (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 14). The County says the redistricting aims at legal compliance and better Republican performance and that no voter or candidate was excluded from any primary (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Respondent), PDF pp. 12-13, 15). ## Procedural History Relators filed an emergency petition in this Court on August 5, 2026, which the Court denied on August 14 without prejudice and without regard to the merits, directing them to file in a lower court (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 23). They filed in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals the same day, and it denied the petition on August 20, concluding they had not shown that no disputed facts exist and that the duty they seek to compel is clear (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 23). This third petition followed under Election Code section 273.061, and the County calls it Relators' third mandamus proceeding, filed without any factual development in a trial court (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Respondent), PDF pp. 12, 17-18). ## Issues Presented - Relators (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 9): whether it violates equal protection to change precinct boundaries between the primary and general election after the candidate-filing deadline; whether the Election Code forbids holding a general election for new precincts for which no primary was held; and whether delaying some voters' next chance to vote, with no governmental purpose that can be achieved before the next cycle, violates equal protection. - The County (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Respondent), PDF pp. 12-13): whether Relators have met the mandamus standards, whether the redistricting complies with equal protection, and whether the Constitution and Election Code authorize it. ## Legal Arguments **Whether mandamus is available.** **Relators (Rose, Green, and Merchant):** The law imposes clear obligations to provide equal access to primary elections and hold general elections matching the primary's boundaries, there are no disputed facts, and relief is urgently needed but timely (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 12). **Galveston County (Respondents):** Mandamus requires a clear ministerial duty and does not lie on disputed facts, original mandamus under section 273.061 is reserved for rare cases, and Relators waited over a month after the map was adopted before seeking relief (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Respondent), PDF pp. 19-24). **Equal protection.** **Relators (Rose, Green, and Merchant):** Voters and candidates have a right to participate in primaries on an equal basis, and redistricting after the primary denied some voters and candidates any chance to vote or run in the primary for their new precinct, including Rose, while others face a two-year delay in voting with no offsetting government interest (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 10-12). In reply, they say the 2026 map violates equal protection by denying voters the opportunity to vote in or run in the primary for the offices on the November ballot (Reply to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Relator), PDF pp. 9-14). **Galveston County (Respondents):** Relators cite no authority prohibiting different precinct boundaries in primary and general elections, a Ninth Circuit decision rejected a similar argument in *Tucson*, the alleged injury is a change in constituency, not a denial of voting rights, and staggered-term delays have been upheld (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Respondent), PDF pp. 24-27, 38). **The Election Code and Constitution.** **Relators (Rose, Green, and Merchant):** The Election Code requires general-election candidates to be nominated by primary, so a general election for new precincts with no corresponding primary violates the Code (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 11). **Galveston County (Respondents):** Section 172.001 governs nomination methods, not precinct boundaries, the Constitution authorizes redivision "from time to time" and *Williams v. Castleman* recognized that power, and section 42.033(c) does not bar post-primary changes (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Respondent), PDF pp. 12, 28-35). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Relators argued that the impending November election made urgent relief necessary and that if the County's action is not stopped, any county could redraw its maps on the eve of an election, making primaries an empty exercise (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 12-13). ## Practice Area Tags election-law, texas-constitution ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Original proceeding for writ of mandamus under Election Code section 273.061; decided without oral argument under Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c); per curiam opinion issued September 11, 2026 (Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 8). ## Amicus Involvement None noted ## Holding A commissioners court's power to redraw precinct lines "from time to time" does not include the power to change the lines applicable to an election after the election has begun, and a primary and the corresponding general election are one election for this purpose (Opinion, PDF pp. 2-3). The Court did not decide a commissioners court's authority to revise precinct lines before a primary or after a general election (Opinion, PDF p. 7). ## Standard of Review The Court asked whether the County had lawful authority to implement the new map, a question of law with no disputed facts, in a mandamus proceeding that may issue to compel any duty imposed by law in connection with an election or to correct a clear abuse of discretion (Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 4). ## Court's Reasoning Texas counties must find authorization for their actions in the Constitution or a statute and have no inherent or residual authority, so the absence of an express prohibition is of little consequence, and a claimed power to unsettle the map mid-election for any reason raises serious constitutional concerns (Opinion, PDF p. 2). The Election Code makes residency within consistent boundaries central, party nominees selected by primary become the candidates for the same office in the general election, and the primary and general election operate together as one election, so the County's plan would unmoor the general election from its primary, put candidates in a different race and leave some voters without candidates for whom they could vote in the primary (Opinion, PDF pp. 4-6). The Code's instruction that elections be "uniform and consistent" and its narrow section 42.033(c) exception, allowing a mid-election change only to follow a boundary change required elsewhere or to comply with a court order, show that a commissioners court's mere preference does not qualify (Opinion, PDF pp. 6-7). *Williams v. Castleman*'s statement that precincts may be redrawn "at any time" meant only that they need not wait for each census and does not authorize actions contrary to the Code's uniform structure, and the relevant question is whether the Code authorizes the change, not whether it prohibits it (Opinion, PDF pp. 7-8). ## Disposition Petition for writ of mandamus conditionally granted: Galveston County must use the precinct maps from the March 2026 primary in the November general election and hold a general election only for offices for which a primary was held, and the writ will issue only if it does not comply (Opinion, PDF pp. 3, 8). ## Vote Breakdown, Authorship, and Any Concurrence/Dissent Per curiam opinion, with Justice Hawkins not participating and no separate writing (Opinion, PDF p. 1). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/26-0916. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.