Background
Three candidates for City of Progreso offices sued the city, its clerk, Hidalgo County Elections Administrator Hilda A. Salinas, and three rival candidates. They alleged that the rivals’ ballot applications violated the Texas Election Code because two candidates had not timely paid filing fees and another candidate had omitted required information.
On September 22, 2026, without a hearing, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order barring election officials from finalizing, printing, mailing, or otherwise rendering irreversible ballots containing the names of two challenged candidates. By then, Hidalgo County had completed ballot coding and logic-and-accuracy testing, mailed military and overseas ballots, begun mailing other absentee ballots, and printed thousands of ballots. The State and Salinas separately petitioned for mandamus relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted both mandamus petitions and directed the trial court to vacate the temporary restraining order within seven days. The court held that the order was an impermissible exercise of judicial power because it interfered with an election after absentee balloting had begun.
Under settled Texas precedent, the election commenced—and the ballot-application challenges became moot—no later than September 18, 2026, when absentee ballots were transmitted to voters. The court rejected arguments that the order affected only two municipal contests, that officials had not established the exact number of ballots printed when the order issued, and that the Election Code permits correction of transmitted ballots. Because a temporary restraining order is not appealable and the election dispute was time-sensitive, the relators lacked an adequate remedy by appeal. The court did not reach the separate issue concerning lack of notice before issuance of the order.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to a candidate’s placement on a Texas ballot becomes moot once absentee balloting begins and effective pre-election relief would disrupt the election process.
- Courts may not halt ballot production or transmission after an election has commenced, even when the underlying challenge may otherwise have merit.
- Mandamus review was available because the temporary restraining order was not appealable and post-order appellate relief would be inadequate in the time-sensitive election context.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a firm timing limit on pre-election ballot litigation in Texas. Once absentee ballots have been sent, courts generally cannot alter ballot content or restrain election administration in a manner that disrupts the ongoing process.
Candidates and election litigants therefore must pursue ballot challenges early enough for a final judicial determination before absentee voting begins. The ruling also confirms that mandamus can provide immediate relief from an unappealable order that unlawfully interferes with an election already underway.