Sign up for The Brief, the Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that provides readers with the most important Texas news.
In an already heated race for speaker of the Texas House, state Republican Party officials are using new powers to ensure their preferred candidate wins, making an unprecedented list of who can run in the Republican primary. I want to be able to control it.
The Texas Republican Party last week signaled it would censure Republican Texas House members who do not vote for House Speaker David Cook. Under new party rules, those members will be barred from running in Republican primaries for two years.
The party’s statement comes between Cook, who was endorsed by a majority of the House Republican caucus last week, and Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, who says he has enough bipartisan support in the 150-member House. The announcement was made in the midst of a fierce battle. Reach the 76 votes needed to become chair. The vitriolic remarks further escalated Republicans’ ongoing war for control of the state party and the Legislature.
These disputes could quickly spill over into the courts and have serious repercussions for Texas’ political system. Political experts predict that if the Texas Republican Party complies with the charges, a lawsuit could ensue, resulting in a high-stakes legal drama that could change the relationship between political parties, candidates and voters. There is.
“A group of unelected party members intends to deny duly elected officials the ability to run in the party’s name,” said Joshua Blank, research director at the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. “It is extremely unusual for him to make a substantive statement.” “I think what we can say for sure here is that if applied, it will lead to litigation.”
At issue is Rule 44 of the Texas Republican Party’s rulebook, which deals with censure, a means of punishing party members who oppose or undermine Republican policies. After a long and contentious debate at the 2024 Texas Republican Party Convention, delegates expanded Rule 44 to allow them to declare that they have not been censured in Congress by “taking an oath or under penalty of perjury.” Requires county or party chairpersons to reject initial applications from candidates who do not “affirm.” 2 years ago. The new rules also apply to judges. Judges are elected in partisan elections, but the state’s judicial ethics rules require the court to be politically neutral.
Now, Rule 44 faces its first major test as part of the intense Republican race for speaker of the Texas House. On Saturday, the day the House Republican Caucus announced its support for Cook, the Texas Republican Party passed a resolution calling on House Republicans to rally behind Cook.
Although the resolution does not explicitly call for censure, it does violate the party’s platform and legislative priorities, including voting for a “chairman not elected by the caucus,” and “has not been addressed by voters.” It disavows a number of “destructive tactics” that would lead to and by the Republican Party of Texas. ” Since then, at least one local party, the Fort Bend County Republican Party, has passed a resolution censuring lawmakers on similar grounds.
The most important Texas news is
I sent it on a weekday morning.
The Texas Republican Party reaffirmed its position in a statement to the Tribune on Thursday, citing Rule 44.
“The Republican caucus has selected a candidate for chair, and the party firmly supports this selection,” the statement said. “Members who oppose caucus candidates are considered to be acting contrary to our platform and principles.”
tension within the party
Tensions between the far-right wing of the Texas Republican Party and its more moderate but still deeply conservative wing have simmered for years, until Attorney General Ken Paxton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate in 2023. This led to an all-out war. Infighting intensified during the 2024 Republican primaries, with far-right forces ousting dozens of sitting Republican House members and further tightening their grip on the party machine.
Backed by West Texas oil billionaires Tim Dunn and Farris Wilkes, the state’s right wing is using its new influence to purge moderate lawmakers, shut down primaries, and control the Texas House of Representatives. ended the Democratic Party’s small mandate.
Condemnations were rare before the infighting, but they have become central to an ongoing effort by the right to rid the party of people they consider “Republicans in name only.” Over the past two years, the party has censured a number of more establishment Republicans. They are U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzalez and Dade Phelan, a Beaumont Republican who was re-elected to the Texas House of Representatives this year but recently ended his year-long bid to be speaker of the House. the campaign against him by the right-wing Texas Republican Party;
Supporters of the change to Rule 44 say it is necessary to prevent MPs from rebelling against their party’s foundations and platform. But critics say they strengthen purity checks and give a small number of party members the power to decide who can run.
Rule 44 allows for the censure of party members who act contrary to the Texas Republican Party’s top legislative priorities or who fail to act in accordance with the broader principles outlined in the party platform and its preamble. Among its provisions are “affirming belief in God,” recognizing that “human nature is unchangeable,” or “economic success depends on free market principles,” and “personal accountability.” We uphold “responsibility and accountability” and “the sanctity of innocent human life,” and “we salute all those who have served and protected our freedom.”
Gonzalez has come under fire for Congressional Democrats who support same-sex marriage and for voting in favor of gun control legislation in the wake of the mass shooting at Uvalde Elementary School in his school district. In condemning Mr. Phelan, party leaders said he had violated numerous legislative priorities, including bills on border security and school finance. The latter was at the center of the controversial debate over the school voucher system, which was rejected in Congress in 2023 due to rural conditions. , Republican opposition.
It was also mentioned that Phelan played a central role in Paxton’s impeachment, but since Paxton’s fraud allegations pre-date the most recent election, party leaders have argued that It argued that the “time-consuming” process was illegal and should never have proceeded. These charges accuse Mr. Phelan of violating the principles of limited government and “individual accountability and responsibility.”
Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Ferran were reelected this year despite accusations and well-funded primary challengers backed by party leadership. If the new Rule 44 changes had been in effect at the time, neither would have been able to run in the Republican March primary.
Political experts say Rule 44 is evidence of increasing polarization that is no longer limited to Democrats versus Republicans.
“A notable feature of Texas politics is that as the state becomes more conservative, the result is that Republicans are seriously ramping up their efforts to counter each other to maintain control of the levers of power.” UT’s Blank said. -Austin political expert.
But Texas Republicans are not alone. Earlier this year, the Idaho Republican Party passed language similar to Rule 44, with one Republican lawmaker decrying the change as akin to communism. Also, this initiative is not entirely new. For decades, state or federal courts have hammered down attempts by state parties to tighten control over primaries.
Earlier this year, a judge in Missouri ruled that the state’s Republican Party had already accepted nomination fees from candidates, including former “honorary members” of the Ku Klux Klan in the Republican primary for governor. The court ruled that he must be allowed to run for office. . In 2018, the Utah Republican Party similarly lost a legal challenge seeking to exclude a candidate from the primary. This decision was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that “election laws are ineffective if party officials can decide how candidates qualify for the primary ballot.” said.
In Texas, courts are considering related issues. For example, in the 1920s, the Texas Democratic Party expanded the party’s influence over primaries by banning women from voting, banning non-white primary candidates, and banning primary candidates who supported the Republican candidate in the previous general election. He has lost multiple lawsuits aimed at election. In the 1932 case Nixon v. Condon, the U.S. Supreme Court similarly ruled against the Texas Democratic Party’s argument that it was a “voluntary association” and therefore had the right to choose its own members. The decision was made to prohibit participation. In 1935 and 1944, the high court again struck down the Texas Democratic Party’s attempts to preserve the so-called “white primary.”
Noting that the Texas Republican Party has promised to cover the legal costs of party leaders sued over the implementation of the new rules, Blank, a political expert at the University of Texas at Austin, said he expected new court challenges related to Rule 44.
“As soon as they introduced this rule, they were effectively admitting that it could lead to litigation,” he said.
