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 rival candidates’ ballot applications violated the Texas Election Code because two candidates had not timely paid filing fees and a third candidate’s application omitted required information.
On September 22, 2026, without holding a hearing, the trial court entered a temporary restraining order barring election officials from certifying, transmitting, or finalizing ballots containing the names of two challenged candidates. By then, the elections department had completed ballot coding and logic-and-accuracy testing, mailed military and overseas ballots on September 18, begun mailing other absentee ballots, and printed thousands of ballots. The State of Texas and Salinas filed separate mandamus petitions, which the court of appeals resolved in one opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally granted both mandamus petitions and directed the trial court to vacate its September 22 temporary restraining order within seven days. It held that the order improperly interfered with an election already underway. Under long-standing Texas precedent, an election begins when absentee balloting begins, and a pre-election challenge to a candidate’s ballot placement becomes moot once the requested judicial relief can no longer be implemented without disrupting the election process.
Because ballots had already been transmitted to voters by September 18, the challenges to the rival candidates’ applications were moot before the restraining order was issued. The court rejected arguments that only some ballots or contests were affected, explaining that the governing precedent contains no de minimis exception. It did not reach the relators’ separate notice argument.
The court also held that the relators lacked an adequate appellate remedy. A temporary restraining order is not appealable, and waiting to appeal a later temporary injunction would be inadequate given the election’s public importance and the time-sensitive disruption caused by the order.
Key Takeaways
- A Texas election commences when absentee balloting begins.
- Once ballots have been transmitted to voters, courts may not grant relief on candidate-placement challenges that would disrupt the ongoing election, even if the challenges might otherwise have merit.
- Mandamus was available because the temporary restraining order was unappealable and ordinary appellate review would not provide timely relief.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a firm cutoff for pre-election challenges in Texas: parties seeking to contest a candidate’s ballot placement must obtain effective relief before absentee voting begins. After that point, courts prioritize the orderly administration of the election and voters’ interest in an accurate, reliable ballot.
The ruling also confirms that narrowly framed relief affecting only selected races or a subset of ballots does not avoid the rule when the order would halt or alter ballot production after voting has begun.