How the Texas GOP’s bid to block lawmakers from the ballot defies a century of court precedent

Subscribe to The Blast, The Texas Tribune’s premier newsletter, for exclusive reporting, nonpartisan analysis and the first word on political moves across the state.

---

For more reporting like this, sign up for our premium politics newsletter, The Blast, which delivers exclusive reporting, nonpartisan analysis and the first word on political moves across the state. Subscribe today.

The year was 1930, and Texas Democrats had a problem.

State Sen. Thomas B. Love had declared his intention to run for governor as a Democrat, just months after he campaigned for Republican presidential nominee Herbert Hoover. For this unacceptable breach of party loyalty, the State Democratic Executive Committee wanted him off the primary ballot.

But they could do no such thing, the Texas Supreme Court said, ruling that Texas’ election laws “jealously guard the voters’ power” by compelling state political parties to place otherwise qualified candidates on the ballot, regardless of their adherence to party rules or loyalty tests. The state’s high court has repeatedly upheld this ruling, remarking in 1958 with some frustration that “no other holding would comport with sound public policy.”

But 95 years after Democrats were forced to keep Love on the ballot, Republicans are on the brink of testing the issue once more.

The State Republican Executive Committee is meeting Saturday to decide whether to censure lawmakers they consider insufficiently loyal, over infractions that include voting for an establishment-aligned speaker candidate over a rival backed by the House’s rightmost faction. Under party rules passed last year, these censures could bar candidates from the Republican primary ballot for two years.

As private ideological groups that run state-sanctioned primaries, political parties occupy a liminal space in our democracy. Courts have struggled to balance their free speech rights with their role as government actors, allowing parties to remove candidates from the ballot in some states while striking down such efforts in others.

But in Texas, the courts have been consistent: Party leadership cannot enforce its own purity tests to remove candidates from the primary ballot. The state party’s willingness to consider testing this precedent has frustrated even some staunch Republicans.

“We’re the party of less government and local control,” Smith County GOP chair David Stein said. “I don’t want 64 members of the SREC deciding who gets elected out of Smith County, Texas. That’s up to our voters, and I feel very strongly about that.”

From censure to removal

In 2016, amid grassroots frustration with moderate Republican House Speaker Joe Straus, the Texas GOP approved new rules allowing local party leaders to censure elected officials for three violations of the party platform. The tool was rarely used, even as infighting grew between the business-friendly, establishment Republicans and right-wing, social conservatives.

Then came 2023. House Republicans impeached Attorney General Ken Paxton and helped stymie Gov. Greg Abbott’s push for a school voucher program.

When the SREC met the next year, anti-incumbent energy was running hot, especially after Abbott helped unseat most of the GOP representatives who defied him. Many of the state GOP’s leaders and rank-and-file delegates wanted to add teeth to the censure threat. San Antonio attorney Justin Nichols drafted the rule allowing censured members to be barred from the primary ballot for two years.

Nichols declined to comment to The Texas Tribune on the legality of the measure, but said it was “what everyone wanted.”

“You want the opportunity to do this? This is your opportunity,” Nichols said.

Stein, the Smith County chair, said the rules were passed hastily amid “censure fever.” The threat of ballot removal has worsened relationships between the party and lawmakers, to the detriment of Republican voters who are caught in the middle, he said.

“The genesis was to influence primary elections, but that is up to the voters,” he said. “We want a mechanism to hold people accountable, and we have that. It’s a primary election every two years.”

In January, amid a contentious House speaker’s race, the SREC adopted a resolution suggesting that it would go against the party platform to vote for Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, over Rep. David Cook, R-Mansfield — a potential first strike toward censure.

As the pressure mounted, the Texas Republican County Chairmen’s Association asked a law firm to look into whether members could actually be barred from the ballot after a censure. The short answer? No.

“Although the Election Code calls on political parties to adopt internal rules, nothing permits, much less expressly allows a political party to impose additional restrictions to ballot access or reject the applications the Election Code commands it ‘shall accept,’” the 10-page memo concluded.

The party might try to challenge that finding on First Amendment grounds, the memo said, but it would be a “steep uphill battle.”

Dual constitutional status

Until the late 1800s, political parties were private entities, where Boss Tweed-style kingmakers in smoke-filled rooms could pick candidates however they wanted. Then came the Progressive Era, with its emphasis on transparent government. States began passing laws giving themselves more oversight of primaries, even as the parties still ran them.

In 1916, county attorneys from Gilmer and Corpus Christi asked the Texas attorney general to clarify the state’s new election laws. The right to decide who was on the ballot was “inherent in the sovereign voters of such a political party,” not the party itself, assistant Attorney General W.A. Keeling wrote.

But loyalty tests persisted. In 1926, Dolph Briscoe Sr. — father of future Texas Governor Dolph Briscoe — sued the Uvalde County Democratic Executive Committee over a rule prohibiting people from voting in the Democratic primary if they had previously voted for a Republican candidate.

The party argued that “the action complained of is a mere party regulation, and therefore political, and that the courts should not interfere therewith.” That was once the case, the Texas Supreme Court ruled, but now, the Legislature had “taken possession and control of the machinery” of primaries, and imbued them with “statutory regulations and restrictions as to deprive the parties and their managers of all discretion in the manipulation of that machinery.”

“The true spirit of election laws is to extend the right of suffrage to all persons normally entitled to that right,” the court said, while noting that the only acceptable restriction “is that against negroes.”

But even as the state took control of some party activities, these groups retained their status as independent activists for partisan goals.

“Parties are supposed to organize dissent against the government and run candidates against incumbents, and really think about what the government ought to be doing,” said Michael Kang, a law professor at Northwestern University who studies political parties. “You would think, in that capacity, the government really shouldn't regulate them very much.”

This has created what Kang calls a “dual constitutional status,” where parties are tightly regulated when running primaries, but have robust free speech protections when handling their internal affairs.

“The government can't just say, no party can be against abortion. That wouldn't be allowed and would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” he said. “But you can regulate and force, for instance, political parties to run primary elections to decide their nominations.”

State parties have argued that forcing them to place someone on the ballot conflicts with their rights of association under the First Amendment. At times, they’ve been successful — in 1992, Georgia’s state Republican Party was allowed to keep Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke off the presidential primary ballot.

But in 2024, when another self-proclaimed “honorary” KKK member ran for governor in Missouri, the party had to put him on the ballot. His presence in the primary “is not necessarily an endorsement of the candidate by the party,” the judge wrote, according to NBC News.

Legal challenges loom

Most cases where parties have been allowed to remove someone from the ballot involve candidates who are plainly antithetical to the party’s values, like Duke, or a member of the opposing party seeking an electoral advantage, Kang said. In Texas, the lawmakers facing censure are longtime Republican elected officials, including current and former speakers of the House, who represent one of the party’s major factions.

“This is a much tougher case, when it’s someone in the mainstream of the party, and what party leadership is trying to do is enforce some sort of orthodoxy or party-line position that isn’t necessarily the consensus view within the party,” Kang said.

Some county GOP parties have condemned this effort as undemocratic, noting that it’s exactly the type of party-level control that voter-led primaries intended to get rid of.

“Such a concentration of authority in a small, centralized body resembles not the open democracy envisioned by our Founders, but instead echoes the undemocratic practices of the old Soviet Politburo, where a handful of elites determined who could or could not stand for election,” Burrows’ hometown Lubbock County GOP wrote on Facebook.

GOP megadonor Alex Fairly has vowed to tap into his $20 million political action committee to challenge any potential removals. The effort is “not only unlawful, it’s disastrous for the Republican Party of Texas,” he said in a statement.

A group of seven House Republicans facing potential censure, led by Burrows, sent party leadership a letter Wednesday asking them to reconsider.

“It sends a message that loyalty to the grassroots and to the national conservative agenda is subordinate to the whims of the local or state party insiders rather than Republican primary voters,” they wrote. “Candidate choice in Republican primaries must rest with the people, not party bosses.”

Texas GOP Chair Abraham George did not respond to a request for comment.

“Censure fever” within the state GOP was tempered significantly after a unifying summer of redrawing the state’s congressional map and haranguing Democrats who tried to stand in the way, ushering in what appears to be a warmer relationship between House Republican leadership and those in charge of the state party.

But even if the party’s governing board does not go forward with the censures on Saturday, the rule remains on the books, looming over the heads of state lawmakers as they decide how to govern.

“No matter what, those who feel the censure motion should be weaponized will be emboldened and keep looking for even stronger measures,” Stein said. “I’m of the mindset that we should pass good public policy, but when you’re talking about, how can we change the laws to benefit our situation, you’ve lost me.”

Disclosure: Facebook has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

---

The wait is over! The full TribFest program is here. Join us Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin and hear from 300+ thinkers, leaders and change-makers shaping Texas’ future. TribFest gives you a front-row seat to what’s next, with 100+ sessions covering education, the economy, policy, culture and more. Explore the program.

TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.