The Texas Republican Party is heading for a collision — not with Democrats, but with itself. At the heart of the storm is a controversial party rule, a wealthy donor ready to go to court, and a battle over who gets to decide which Republicans are “Republican enough” to appear on the primary ballot.
The Rule That Sparked the Fire
Last year, delegates at the Texas GOP’s 2024 convention approved an enhanced Rule 44, which allows the party to censure GOP lawmakers who stray too far from its platform. This isn’t just a slap on the wrist — in extreme cases, it could mean barring them from running in the Republican primary altogether.
Under the rule, a lawmaker must commit at least three “censurable offenses” in their most recent term to qualify for the penalty. These offenses are defined as acts contrary to the party’s legislative priorities or the principles outlined in the preamble of its platform.
For the party’s most conservative activists, this is about holding elected officials accountable when they deviate from the base’s expectations. As Texas GOP general counsel Rachel Hooper bluntly put it:
“Sometimes there’s acts that are so bad that you need the death penalty.”
But for others in the party — especially those facing possible censure — the rule is seen as an overreach that concentrates too much power in the hands of a small group of insiders.
Enter Alex Fairly: Donor, PAC Founder, and Reluctant Party Rebel
Amarillo businessman Alex Fairly didn’t make his fortune in politics, but he’s suddenly one of the most influential players in the Texas GOP’s internal battle. Last year, he launched the Texas Republican Leadership Fund, putting $20 million of his own money into the political action committee.
Initially, Fairly seemed aligned with party leadership. During the fight for Texas House Speaker, he said he would use his PAC to support Rep. David Cook, the caucus-backed candidate. But when Rep. Dustin Burrows ultimately won the speakership, Fairly backed off and declared:
“The vote for Speaker belongs to the members.”
Since then, he’s been steadily distancing himself from the party’s current leadership, particularly over what he sees as heavy-handed tactics. His latest move? Threatening a full-scale legal challenge if the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) goes forward with plans to bar lawmakers from the March primary ballot.
Fairly’s position is clear:
“The discussions taking place by the State Republican Executive Committee to block candidates from appearing on the primary ballot is not only unlawful, it’s disastrous for the Republican Party of Texas.”
And he’s not bluffing. He says he will “fully fund” a court battle to stop it.
The Numbers — and the Stakes
The draft report being considered by the SREC paints a picture of widespread discontent within the party. According to it:
1 Senate Republican and 41 of 88 House Republicans have committed at least three censurable offenses.
If you include the election of Burrows as House Speaker (which some in the SREC count as a censurable act), the number rises to 45 House members — a majority of the caucus.
That means the rule could, in theory, knock out a huge swath of sitting Republican lawmakers before voters even have a say.
Some county-level GOP organizations have already initiated censures against at least eight state representatives. But the process isn’t automatic — local parties must first approve the censure, then ask the SREC for permission to bar the lawmaker from the ballot.
Ironies and Complications
There’s a personal twist here: one of the lawmakers potentially barred from the ballot is State Rep. Caroline Fairly — Alex Fairly’s daughter. She supported Burrows for Speaker and has reportedly accumulated enough censurable offenses to trigger the ban.
If the SREC proceeds, the rule could force a father to fight in court for his daughter’s right to run for reelection — not because she’s a Democrat or an opponent, but because she backed the wrong Republican in an internal leadership race.
Why This Fight Matters Beyond Texas
While this is an intraparty conflict, it raises bigger questions about democracy, party politics, and the First Amendment. Fairly argues that limiting primary ballot access to only those who strictly adhere to a party platform undermines voter choice:
“Letting a handful of insiders dictate who can run in our primaries undermines both our party’s core principles and the First Amendment.”
Supporters of the rule counter that primaries are party-run events, and political parties have the right to set their own standards for candidates. In their view, holding office as a Republican comes with the expectation that lawmakers will support the party’s agreed-upon agenda.
This tension isn’t new — it’s a long-running debate in American politics about whether parties are big tents or exclusive clubs.
Political Dynamics at Play
The Texas GOP has been shifting right for years, driven in part by the influence of donors like Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, who have bankrolled primary challengers to push the Legislature toward socially conservative positions. Fairly’s entrance adds a new wrinkle: he has both the resources and the willingness to push back against that faction.
Texas GOP Chair Abraham George, who supports the accountability rule, hasn’t been shy in responding to Fairly’s criticisms:
“People just hate accountability.”
But George has also signaled he wants the rule to be applied carefully, saying:
“I want the right people censured if they deserve a censure… We want to do the right thing.”
It’s worth noting that even as the censure discussion heats up, George has maintained open lines with Speaker Burrows, meeting him at the Governor’s Mansion alongside Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republicans. That suggests political pragmatism still plays a role, even amid ideological battles.
Legal Uncertainty Ahead
If Fairly follows through on his threat to sue, the courts will have to weigh in on a tricky constitutional question: Can a political party in Texas — or anywhere — bar a candidate from its primary ballot based solely on internal rules about legislative votes?
Supporters of the rule will argue that primaries are, in essence, private party affairs, and that parties have a First Amendment right to choose their own candidates. Opponents will argue that because primaries are taxpayer-funded elections, denying access based on party loyalty tests crosses a constitutional line.
This isn’t just about internal Republican politics — the outcome could set a precedent affecting party ballot control across the country.
What Happens Next
The SREC was set to meet and potentially finalize its review of the 2025 legislative session, which could form the basis for blocking lawmakers from the ballot. But with Fairly’s legal threat looming, some members have urged caution, delaying the report to get more input from lawmakers.
Given the stakes, we can expect a drawn-out battle:
SREC Decision: Whether to formally adopt censures and recommend blocking lawmakers.
Local Party Actions: County parties initiating censures and seeking SREC approval.
Potential Court Fight: Fairly’s legal challenge, if the rule is applied to bar candidates.
Political Fallout: Possible primary battles, donor realignment, and voter backlash.
Bottom line: This fight is about much more than a few censures. It’s a struggle over who controls the Republican Party of Texas — its most active grassroots delegates, or its broader base of voters. And with $20 million on the table, a high-profile donor in the mix, and the possibility of dozens of incumbents barred from the ballot, the battle is just getting started.
0 Comments