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, , ruling that Texas鈥� election laws 鈥渏ealously guard the voters鈥� power鈥� 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鈥檚 high court has repeatedly upheld this ruling, with some frustration that 鈥渘o other holding would comport with sound public policy.鈥�
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鈥檚 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鈥檚 willingness to consider testing this precedent has frustrated even some staunch Republicans.
鈥淲e鈥檙e the party of less government and local control,鈥� Smith County GOP chair David Stein said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want 64 members of the SREC deciding who gets elected out of Smith County, Texas. That鈥檚 up to our voters, and I feel very strongly about that.鈥�
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 and helped stymie Gov. 鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 鈥渨hat everyone wanted.鈥�
鈥淵ou want the opportunity to do this? This is your opportunity,鈥� Nichols said.
Stein, the Smith County chair, said the rules were passed hastily amid 鈥渃ensure fever.鈥� 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.
鈥淭he genesis was to influence primary elections, but that is up to the voters,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e want a mechanism to hold people accountable, and we have that. It鈥檚 a primary election every two years.鈥�
In January, amid a contentious House speaker鈥檚 race, the SREC suggesting that it would go against the party platform to vote for Rep. , R-Lubbock, over Rep. , R-Mansfield 鈥� a potential first strike toward censure.
As the pressure mounted, the Texas Republican County Chairmen鈥檚 Association asked a law firm to look into whether members could actually be barred from the ballot after a censure. The short answer? No.
鈥淎lthough 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 鈥榮hall accept,鈥欌�� the .
The party might try to challenge that finding on First Amendment grounds, the memo said, but it would be a 鈥渟teep uphill battle.鈥�
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 to clarify the state鈥檚 new election laws. The right to decide who was on the ballot was 鈥渋nherent in the sovereign voters of such a political party,鈥� not the party itself, assistant Attorney General W.A. Keeling wrote.
But loyalty tests persisted. In 1926, Dolph Briscoe Sr. 鈥� father of future Texas Governor Dolph Briscoe 鈥� 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 鈥渢he action complained of is a mere party regulation, and therefore political, and that the courts should not interfere therewith.鈥� That was once the case, the Texas Supreme Court ruled, but now, the Legislature had 鈥渢aken possession and control of the machinery鈥� of primaries, and imbued them with 鈥渟tatutory regulations and restrictions as to deprive the parties and their managers of all discretion in the manipulation of that machinery.鈥�
鈥淭he true spirit of election laws is to extend the right of suffrage to all persons normally entitled to that right,鈥� the court said, while noting that the only acceptable restriction 鈥渋s that against negroes.鈥�
But even as the state took control of some party activities, these groups retained their status as independent activists for partisan goals.
鈥淧arties are supposed to organize dissent against the government and run candidates against incumbents, and really think about what the government ought to be doing,鈥� said Michael Kang, a law professor at Northwestern University who studies political parties. 鈥淵ou would think, in that capacity, the government really shouldn't regulate them very much.鈥�
This has created what Kang calls a 鈥渄ual constitutional status,鈥� where parties are tightly regulated when running primaries, but have robust free speech protections when handling their internal affairs.
鈥淭he government can't just say, no party can be against abortion. That wouldn't be allowed and would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut you can regulate and force, for instance, political parties to run primary elections to decide their nominations.鈥�
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鈥檝e been successful 鈥� in 1992, Georgia鈥檚 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 鈥渉onorary鈥� KKK member ran for governor in Missouri, the party had to put him on the ballot. His presence in the primary 鈥渋s not necessarily an endorsement of the candidate by the party,鈥� .
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鈥檚 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鈥檚 major factions.
鈥淭his is a much tougher case, when it鈥檚 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鈥檛 necessarily the consensus view within the party,鈥� Kang said.
Some county GOP parties have condemned this effort as undemocratic, noting that it鈥檚 exactly the type of party-level control that voter-led primaries intended to get rid of.
鈥淪uch 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,鈥� Burrows鈥� hometown Lubbock County GOP .
GOP megadonor Alex Fairly has vowed to tap into his $20 million political action committee to challenge any potential removals. The effort is 鈥渘ot only unlawful, it鈥檚 disastrous for the Republican Party of Texas,鈥�
A group of seven House Republicans facing potential censure, led by Burrows, sent party leadership a letter Wednesday asking them to reconsider.
鈥淚t 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,鈥� they wrote. 鈥淐andidate choice in Republican primaries must rest with the people, not party bosses.鈥�
Texas GOP Chair Abraham George did not respond to a request for comment.
鈥淐ensure fever鈥� within the state GOP was tempered significantly after a unifying summer of redrawing the state鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.
鈥淣o matter what, those who feel the censure motion should be weaponized will be emboldened and keep looking for even stronger measures,鈥� Stein said. 鈥淚鈥檓 of the mindset that we should pass good public policy, but when you鈥檙e talking about, how can we change the laws to benefit our situation, you鈥檝e lost me.鈥�
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 .
This article originally appeared in at .
The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
