A federal judge has denied independent Texas lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Michael Collier’s emergency request for ballot access, finding that both forms of relief his campaign requested would go beyond the purpose of a preliminary injunction.
Ballot Access News reported on August 10 that U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman denied Collier’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Even so, according to the court filing, Pitman acknowledged that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs pointed to a “concerningly persistent pattern of exclusion of independent candidates from the ballot” and extremely high and unequal costs imposed on independent candidates.
Collier, who previously ran as the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 2018 and 2022, announced last year that he would seek the office once more as an independent candidate. Texas law required him to collect 81,030 valid signatures, equal to one percent of the total vote cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election.
Absent the runoff, Collier would have had 113 days to do so. However, after no candidate won a majority in the Democratic primary for the position, the race advanced to a May 26 runoff between state Rep. Vikki Goodwin and Marcos Velez. Under state law, that meant Collier could not begin collecting signatures until after the runoff concluded. As a result, his petitioning window did not open until the following day, leaving him just 30 days before the June 25 deadline.
While still collecting signatures, Collier and a group of Texas voters, including state Forward Party leadership, sued state election officials on June 10, arguing that the current requirements restrict ballot access and political speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They asked Pitman to either order Collier onto the November ballot or, alternatively, extend his filing deadline to September 16 while reducing the signature requirement to 5,000.
Pitman declined to grant either form of relief. In his ruling, he wrote that placing Collier directly on the general election ballot would alter rather than preserve the status quo. Furthermore, he found that extending the deadline and reducing the signature threshold would effectively put the court in the position of creating an alternative petitioning system.
“Either form of relief would go far beyond preserving the status quo and would, in effect, grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek on the merits, instead of simply preserving the Court’s ability to hear the merits at a later date,” the court ruling reads.
Pitman also said the court could not reasonably assume Collier would have qualified under a less restrictive set of requirements. Without knowing whether Collier would have met such requirements, he said the court could not determine that the law was what kept him off the ballot. He therefore found that Collier and the others had not shown the irreparable harm necessary for an injunction and declined to consider the remaining factors.
Even so, Pitman acknowledged the practical burdens imposed on independent candidates under the current system, pointing out that petitioning firms quoted Collier approximately $1.6 million and $3.3 million to conduct a statewide petition drive, with the firm he ultimately hired charging $30 per signature. Pitman noted that collecting the minimum number at such a rate would have cost the campaign around $2.43 million, even before accounting for additional signatures needed to offset those found invalid.
Speaking in a video on X following the ruling, Collier said he would not appeal Pitman’s decision, explaining that there was simply not enough time remaining to do so and that he did not want his continued candidacy to make it easier for Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to win another term. Collier said he respected the ruling and was stepping away from the race.
“I’m not going to appeal this ruling,” Collier said. “There’s just not enough time, so I’m stepping away, but I’m far from finished. I continue to believe we need to be able to elect independents.”
Collier said electing independents would have “a dramatic impact” on the quality of political life and that he intends to continue pursuing the underlying lawsuit in order to make it easier to do so. He also said he has “every intention” of seeking statewide office again as an independent candidate once the legal challenge is resolved.
Be First to Comment