Counterargument to the Letter from Chairman Gary Singleton Regarding Censure and Ballot Access

In a recent letter from Bowie County Republican Party Chairman Gary Singleton, the chairman argues against using censure resolutions to enforce party accountability, claiming such actions undermine grassroots democracy and violate Texas law. While his call to "trust the voters" resonates with core Republican values, it overlooks the robust infrastructure of the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) that empowers local committees to hold elected officials to our shared principles. More troubling, Chairman Singleton's letter itself exemplifies the very top-down control he decries: the Bowie County Republican Executive Committee (CEC) never held a formal debate or vote on whether censure is appropriate in this context. Instead, this position was issued as a unilateral dictate from the chair, bypassing the elected precinct chairs who represent our grassroots base.

Below is a point-by-point counterargument to the key assertions in Chairman Singleton's letter. This response highlights the robust infrastructure of the Republican Party in Texas, which operates through a decentralized system of elected officials at precinct, county, and state levels to ensure grassroots accountability. It also references the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) rules, particularly Rule 44, which explicitly authorizes censures as a mechanism for holding officeholders accountable to the party's platform.

Finally, it underscores that resolutions, including censures, are a routine practice at county executive committee (CEC) meetings, which are composed of elected precinct chairs and county chairs chosen by Republican primary voters, reflecting the party's commitment to internal democracy and principle-driven governance.

1. Assertion: Using censure to deny ballot access runs counter to Texas law and Republican values of grassroots democracy.

Counter: Censure under RPT Rule 44 is a well-established tool within the party's infrastructure, designed to enforce accountability without conflicting with state law when properly applied. The RPT, as Texas's dominant political party controlling the governorship, both legislative chambers, and all statewide offices, uses Rule 44 to reprimand officeholders for three or more actions opposing core platform principles or legislative priorities, such as election integrity and border security. This aligns with Republican values by empowering grassroots-elected CEC members to hold leaders accountable, rather than imposing top-down control. Recent amendments to party rules, adopted at the 2024 state convention, allow censures to include ballot restrictions as an internal penalty, reflecting the party's evolution to protect primary integrity from external influences like Democrat crossover voting�consistent with the platform's emphasis on closed primaries and voter sovereignty.

2. Assertion: The Republican Party stands for sovereignty resting with the people and grassroots control, not top-down dictates from committees.

Counter: The RPT's infrastructure is inherently grassroots-oriented, with CECs serving as the foundational layer where elected precinct chairs�chosen directly by Republican primary voters�convene to pass resolutions that influence higher party levels. The 2024 platform explicitly supports grassroots control through delegate-driven priorities, such as banning Democrat chairs in committees and prohibiting taxpayer-funded lobbying, which ensure voter sovereignty by preventing elite capture of the legislative process. Rule 44 censures embody this by allowing locally elected officials to enforce accountability, feeding into state conventions where thousands of delegates refine the platform. This bottom-up approach has strengthened the RPT's role in Texas, enabling historic achievements like property tax relief and school choice advocacy, all rooted in voter-driven principles rather than arbitrary dictates.

3. Assertion: Claiming to strip ballot access substitutes the judgment of a few party officials for the voice of thousands of Republican voters.

Counter: CECs are not "a few party officials" but democratically elected bodies comprising precinct chairs voted in by Republican primary participants, ensuring broad representation within the party's infrastructure. Resolutions like censures under Rule 44 are common at these meetings, where elected officials deliberate on adherence to the platform's core principles, such as protecting election integrity and family values. This process amplifies voter voices by holding officeholders accountable mid-term, preventing deviations that could undermine the party's dominance in Texas politics. Far from substituting judgment, it empowers the grassroots base, as evidenced by widespread county-level censures that have influenced state policy without disenfranchising voters.

4. Assertion: Texas law strictly governs ballot access, with no provision for committees to remove candidates via censure (citing Tex. Elec. Code �� 141.031, 172.021, 52.004).

Counter: While Texas Election Code outlines general ballot requirements, RPT rules, including Rule 44, provide an internal framework for party governance that complements state law by allowing penalties like withholding endorsements or, under recent updates, ballot restrictions for repeated violations of platform priorities. The RPT's role in managing primaries�authorized by state law�includes enforcing accountability, as seen in the platform's calls for closed primaries and citizenship verification to safeguard voter sovereignty. County chairs, as elected party officials, must balance legal obligations with party directives, and resolutions are routine tools at CEC meetings to address such issues without automatically violating code provisions, as demonstrated by numerous unchallenged censures across Texas counties.

5. Assertion: Courts have held for nearly a century that political parties cannot deny ballot access (citing Love v. Wilcox, Nixon v. Condon, Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, Utah Republican Party v. Cox).

Counter: These cases primarily address arbitrary or discriminatory exclusions (e.g., racial barriers in Nixon v. Condon or procedural ineligibility in Benkiser), not structured accountability mechanisms like Rule 44 censures, which target specific, repeated violations of the RPT platform's principles. The RPT's infrastructure distinguishes itself by vesting authority in elected CEC members, aligning with grassroots democracy rather than "party bosses" as in the Utah case. Modern applications of Rule 44, common in county resolutions, have not been broadly overturned, and the party's 2024 rules updates reflect adaptations to protect its role in Texas elections. Resolutions remain a standard practice at CEC meetings, fostering accountability without replicating the historical abuses cited in these rulings.

6. Assertion: Adopting such a resolution would lead to court strikes, waste resources, disenfranchise voters, and contradict the party platform.

Counter: Rule 44 censures are a proven, resource-efficient tool within the RPT's framework, with dozens of examples from counties like Montgomery, Bosque, Tarrant, and Orange demonstrating their routine use without widespread legal invalidation or voter disenfranchisement. The 2024 platform reinforces accountability by prioritizing election integrity measures, such as banning ranked-choice voting and requiring paper ballots, which censures support by ensuring officials adhere to these voter-sovereignty planks. Far from contradicting principles, these resolutions�passed by elected CEC officials�empower grassroots Republicans, bolstering the party's infrastructure and its pivotal role in advancing conservative policies in Texas.

7. Assertion: Express displeasure through the ballot box, not resolutions, and trust voters to decide.

Counter: While the ballot box is ultimate, the RPT's rules and platform endorse interim accountability via resolutions at CEC meetings, which are standard forums for elected party officials to enforce principles like limited government and family protection. Rule 44 explicitly allows censures to address deviations, complementing voter decisions by informing them through party actions. This layered infrastructure has solidified the RPT's influence in Texas, with censures in counties like Fort Bend and Hood exemplifying how grassroots-elected leaders maintain party unity and trust without usurping voter sovereignty.

Ultimately, censures strengthen Republican unity by informing voters and reinforcing our platform, not usurping their role. They are not about denying ballot access arbitrarily but about ensuring fidelity to principles that Texas Republicans have fought to enshrine. Chairman Singleton's dictate undermines this system; it's time for Bowie County's CEC to reclaim its voice through open debate and votes. Only then can we hold true to our values: empowering the grassroots, following party rules, and trusting informed voters to lead Texas forward.

This is the debate that our Bowie County Precinct Chairs should have had but were denied.

Dale Huls, Candidate for Bowie County Republican Chair

281-658-9480