Texas Won’t Defend its Open Primary in Court

Posted on by October 10, 2025

On September 4, the Texas Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit, alleging that the party has a constitutional right to a closed primary instead of an open primary. Hunt v State, n.d., 2:25cv-200. On October 9, the Texas Attorney General filed this motion, saying that the state will not defend its own election law, and that the state agrees with the plaintiffs.

Presumably, supporters of the status quo will now file an amicus curiae brief to defend the law. That is the normal procedure when a state won’t defend the constitutionality of its own laws. Thanks to Linda Curtis for the link.

Comments

Texas Won’t Defend its Open Primary in Court — 22 Comments

  4. As far as I can tell, this case is not about open versus closed primaries as those terms are ordinarily used — to refer to who is eligible to vote in them. Instead, it’s about who gets to decide who is eligible to be a candidate. So I think your title and text are a little misleading.

  5. This case is challenging the voters’ right to vote in the primary of their choice. Texas has no party registration.

    This is also an extraordinary move by the Texas AG — an insatiable partisan hack — who goes so far as to attack the Secretary of State, Jane Nelson, a former longtime State Senators, associated with the corporate establishment wing of GOP. Guess who is in their crossfire? Voters who do not identify with either party.

    This Texas Scorecard piece (representing the partisan purists in the GOP) legitimizes the notion that our open primary law is “unconstitutional.” We have always had this “unconstitutional” law in place!

    It has long allowed Texans the right to choose where to cast our vote, freely remaining above the race to the bottom of the two-party swamp.

    Keep at it, Texas GOP — keep killing your one-party rule from within with this bullshit.

    https://texasscorecard.com/state/exclusive-paxton-backs-texas-gop-opposes-secretary-of-state-in-lawsuit-to-close-primaries/

  7. I neglected to mention that Paxton is running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by longtime corporate establishment GOP Senator John Cornyn. It’s now a three-way race and a March primary unless redistricting litigation stalls the primary.

    Hold your breath for whether this is the only way Texas will finally see Paxton out of politics. The effort to impeach him failed in the Texas Senate just two years ago when the Lt. Governor Dan Patrick received a $3M from a pro-Paxton group.

    It’s been a retribution road ever since.

    No, you can’t make this stuff up: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/18/ken-paxton-impeachment-dan-patrick/

  8. Bob, the Texas Republican Party is doing two entirely different things. It is in court to get a closed primary for itself. Separate from that, it is trying to get the right to bar candidates it doesn’t like from running in its primary.

  10. DID 1836 TEXANS FIGHT AND DIE TO HAVE A TYRANT REGIME IN TEXAS ???

    ANY BLOOD OATHS TO A SPECIFIC TYRANT IN TEXAS TYRANT REGIME [YET] ???

    SEE PERSONAL OATHS TO LEADER/TYRANT HITLER IN GERMANY IN 1936.

  16. Trump Hit With Humiliating Attack From Republicans Over His ‘Abuses of Power’
    Janna Brancolini
    Thu, October 9, 2025 at 9:33 AM EDT

    Dozens of Republicans have signed a statement blasting President Donald Trump for using the Department of Justice to launch his own personal revenge campaigns.

    The statement—which was signed by nearly 40 people who have held key roles in law, government, and national security—accused the president of “abuses of power” for demanding that the DOJ prosecute his perceived enemies.

    “No president should order the investigation or prosecution of specific individuals against whom he bears personal grievances, especially not when advised by Justice Department attorneys that the facts and the law do not support such a case,” said the statement, which was first shared with Axios.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26183508/statement-on-doj-abuses-of-power.pdf

    —–
    MORE VICTIMS IN ANY TYRANT TRUMP PURGE ???

  17. @eeyn,

    HB 951 (89(R)) would have provided for party registration. The lawsuit said that the legislature had “failed” to pass the bill, so that the party was forced to act putting the Legislature on notice that the primary law was unconstitutional and they could be given an opportunity to fix it. If they failed to do so then the RPT could fix it.

    To preserve freedom of association, the State of Texas must maintain records of the political beliefs of its citizens.

  18. The lawyer for the SOS had asked for an extension to file their response.

    Then on October 9, the Attorney General (representing the State of Texas) filed a motion saying they agreed with the plaintiff. The lawyer for the SOS then told the court that the Attorney General had given the SOS one hour to respond before the AG filed their motion. I suspect that the AG will try to block the SOS from participating in the case.

    The actual lawyer for the AG is Keith Ingram who was formerly Director of Elections in the SOS office. He had been demoted in 2023 after he had praised (if faintly) Harris County’s 2022 election performance. Ingram was the author of the SOS’s unlawful (ultra vires) regulations of the convention party filing fee law.

    In 2019, the Democrats had got cross-wise with SOS David Whitley, who had been appointed by Greg Abbott. Whitley had been a long time associate of Abbott. The Democrats blocked confirmation of Whitley who was forced to resign. In retribution, Republicans passed the filing fee law, including a 2nd Reading amendment that put the Green Party back on the ballot. Because Whitley had resigned the COFOE lawsuit was initially styled as Miller vs. Doe.

    Republicans also blocked confirmation of Ruth Hughs in 2021. The reason for appointing former senator Jane Nelson as SOS was so the Texas Senate would not block confirmation of a former colleague.

  19. “… the Texas Republican Party is doing two entirely different things. It is in court to get a closed primary for itself. Separate from that, it is trying to get the right to bar candidates it doesn’t like from running in its primary.” Are both issues in the same lawsuit, or are they in separate suits? Thanks in advance!

  20. Bob, the lawsuit is entirely concerned with who can vote in primaries.

    As to the issue of candidates being allowed to file in Republican primaries, there is no lawsuit on that.

  21. @BR and RW,

    The RPT eliminated all references to the Texas Election Code from its bylaws, and replaced them with the provisions from the code. The party could then change the provisions they didn’t like.

    In Texas, political parties putatively conduct their own primaries in accord with state law. After the primaries are completed, the party informs the SOS whom they have nominated so that the SOS can inform county election officials who to place on the general election ballot. Theoretically, the SOS could say that a nomination was improper if, for example, the RPT had prevented a voter from voting in their primary. The SOS could also say that a nomination was improper, if the RPT had denied a candidate access to the primary ballot.

    The proposed injunction would prevent enforcement of TEC 172.001 which says that larger parties (more than 20% for governor) must nominate by primary (conducted in conformance with state law). If the SREC had gone ahead with excluding candidates, they likely would have cited the Amarillo case as justification for them doing so. The RPT got pushback on closing the primary, perhaps from the Trump administration, but also from county Republican parties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.