NOTE: If both the county chair and the secretary will be available, the notice must contain the address at which each will be available.
NOTE: The law says internet posting “or” posting at the physical location. SOS recommends posting notice using each method, if possible. We also recommend allowing plenty of time for the state party to work with posting your notice if you plan to use the state party website.
NOTE: Although the law has been updated to more clearly authorize faxing or emailing of a candidate application, for the general rule about delivery, the law still requires that a candidate’s application and all of its components be delivered at the same time, not piecemeal. For example, if the application is faxed or emailed in, and the filing fee delivered later, that is fatal; at the time of receipt, the application did not have a filing fee, and so would be rejected. When an application is filed, the review period is considered to start.
NOTE: The “sworn to” requirement means the oath must be administered by someone authorized to administer the oath under Texas law.
NOTE: The Secretary of State’s candidate forms already have the affidavit included.
For the name as it is to appear on the ballot, Section 52.031 was amended to provide that a candidate may use any surname acquired by law or marriage. (NOTE: this codifies SOS interpretation.)
NOTE: See subsection b. below concerning the waiver of the sixth-month residency requirement for a county precinct office.
NEW LAW: Section 141.031 was amended to a public mailing address at which the candidate receives correspondence relating to the candidate’s campaign, if available, and any available electronic mail address at which the candidate receives correspondence relating to the candidate’s campaign, if available. House Bill 1735 (2017). (NOTE: this codifies SOS interpretation.)
The filing authority must still provide notice to the candidate that the public mailing address and email address will be posted on the Secretary of State’s website. (Senate Bill 1073, effective September 1, 2015.)
NOTE: Here, "precinct office" refers to the county precinct offices of county commissioner, justice of the peace, or constable. (Sec. 141.002)
NOTE:Most offices require voter registration in the territory from which the office is elected by the filing deadline. See Candidate’s Guide Qualifications chart for details. However, the law does not require the voter registration number to be on the application form. (House Bill 484, effective September 1, 2015.)
NOTE: Date of Birth: There have been recent court rulings recognizing that public citizens’ dates of birth are protected by common-law privacy under the Public Information Act. In addition, the Office of Attorney General (OAG) has issued various open records rulings concluding that these protections extend to dates of birth on candidate applications and other election records, with certain exceptions. Unless the OAG’s Open Records Division has issued a previous determination allowing a specific entity to redact dates of birth on candidate applications or other particular types of election records, the entity should obtain the requestor’s consent to redact dates of birth or seek an open records ruling from the OAG if a request extends to such information.
NEW LAW:Additional requirements relating to certain judicial candidates (often nicknamed the “judicial petitions”) were repealed in 2015 and then added back in 2017. Senate Bill 44 (2017).
For candidates running for the Court of Appeals in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Districts, and all candidates running for judicial offices in Bexar, Dallas, Harris, and Tarrant counties, an extra 250-signature judicial petition is NOW AGAIN REQUIRED (in addition to the filing fee, or as 250 additional signatures that had to be collected on the petition in lieu of filing fee). Sec. 172.021(e).
Candidates for the state supreme court or the court of criminal appeals who file for office and choose to pay the filing fee are NOW AGAIN REQUIRED to file a petition with at least 50 signatures from each court of appeals district in the state. (Sec. 172.021)
NEW LAW: New Section 141.065 (c) provides that a single notarized affidavit by any person who obtained signatures is valid for all signatures gathered by the person if the date of notarization is on or after the date of the last signature obtained by the person. House Bill 2157 (2017). (NOTE: this codifies SOS interpretation.)
If a petition contains an affidavit that complies with subsection (a) above, for the purpose of determining whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures, the authority with whom the candidate's application is filed may treat as valid each signature to which the affidavit applies, without further verification, unless proven otherwise.
However, the petition is NOT considered part of the application for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements applicable to each document, and a deficiency in the requirements of one document may not be remedied by the contents of the other document. (Sec. 141.032(c)). ; Sec. 172.0222).
NOTE: The Election Code provides no process for a candidate to supplement a defective application. The application and petition must stand or fall as originally filed. Some case law seems to suggest that in certain cases, a candidate may have a right to supplement a defective petition. The Texas Supreme Court has held that candidates, who made timely filings and whose petitions were accepted, could not be rejected later for minor clerical errors that could have been fixed had the candidate been notified of the defect. See In Re Francis, 186 SW 3rd 534 (Tex 2006) and In re Holcomb, 186 SW 3rd 553 (Tex 2006). However, Sections 141.032 and 141.062 were amended in 2011, and Section 172.022 was added in 2019 by HB 2640, to clarify that after the filing deadline, a candidate may not amend an application for a place on the ballot or any accompanying petition in lieu of filing fee (Section 141.062), nor can the filing authority accept an amendment to their application for a place on the ballot or any accompanying petition in lieu of filing fee. The only express authority to amend an application is at Section 141.067(g) (adding signatures after withdrawal of signatures). Our office recommends that the filing authority promptly review applications in order to avoid litigation; however, the law has been amended to emphasize that the filing authority cannot accept amendments after the filing deadline. In sum, a candidate cannot supplement the application except as expressly provided by law or court order.
NOTE: We view this law as emphasis. The application and its components must be filed at the same time, and not piecemeal; see note at Delivery.
NEW LAW: An application for a place on the ballot may not be challenged for compliance with the applicable requirements as to form, content, and procedure after the day before any ballot to be voted early by mail is mailed for the election for which the application is made. This deadline does not apply to a determination of a candidate's eligibility. A challenge must state with specificity how the application does not comply with the applicable requirements as to form, content, and procedure. The authority's review of the challenge is limited to the specific items challenged and any response filed with the authority by the challenged candidate. Sec. 141.034, Senate Bill 44 (2017).
The application must be rejected for lack of a filing fee. It is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient funds to cover the check. The chair is required to give the candidate a prompt notice of rejection.
NOTE: If a candidate’s filing fee that accompanied the application is returned for insufficient funds before the end of the filing deadline, the authority receiving the application shall return the application to the candidate. The candidate may resubmit the fee before the end of the filing period, but cannot submit the filing fee in a form a check from the same account of the payment that was returned. If the filing fee is returned for insufficient funds after the close of the filing period, the authority receiving the application shall inform the applicant that their application was not valid. Section 172.021, as amended by Senate Bill 44 (2017).
If political party’s chair has the opportunity to do so before the candidate files, we suggest that they advise the candidate that the check will be used first and cannot be returned. If he or she files with a check, the chair will proceed to cash the check. If the check is returned for insufficient funds, then the next step depends on whether there is any time remaining in the filing period.
Pursuant to Section 172.021, if there is time left in the filing period, then the candidate has the opportunity to file a new check from a different account.
If there is no time left in the filing period, or the candidate does not wish to provide a new check, then the filing authority should allow the candidate to rely on the petition under the Stadler case. In the case of In Re: Barbara J. Stalder, the candidate’s check bounced and the candidate chose to rely on the petition. The court ruled in favor of the candidate and allowed the petition to be used to satisfy the requirement.
In sum, in these situations, you first advise the candidate (if there is time) that if both a filing fee and a petition are filed, the chair will start by depositing the check. If the check is sufficient, the petition is not reviewed. If the check bounces, the candidate may file a new check from a different account (if there is time in the filing period) under Section 172.021, or rely on the petition (under the Stadler case).
A holder of any of the above offices automatically resigns his or her position if the officeholder announces candidacy or becomes a candidate for any elective office other than the one then held, when the unexpired portion of the current term is more than one year. Tex. Const. art. 16, § 65.
NOTE: For many years, article XVI, Section 65 of the Texas Constitution set out which county offices would be up for election. This language (setting up the staggering scheme) was omitted in 1999 in "clean-up" legislation. Our office requested an attorney general opinion, expressing our concern about the omitted staggering scheme. The attorney general opined that because the staggering scheme was removed, any newly-created offices would be on the next ballot for the full four-year term.
For example, the county commissioners follow the same schedule, because by law there are four commissioners in every county, and therefore no county has created new county commissioners. However, some counties have created new JP and constable positions (this means a new office, not just an old one where the boundary lines changed); or, there might be a new county court of law. You will need to consult directly with the county to see if the county created new offices since the 1999 constitutional change.