Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00640-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE MELODY SALDANA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1 Relator Melody Saldana has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus through which she seeks to compel the City Council for the City of Edcouch, Texas, to place her on the ballot for the position of Alderman, Place One, in the November 2026 election. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available in limited circumstances to correct clear errors in exceptional cases.” In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (citation modified); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). “A writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an election or to correct a clear abuse of discretion by a public official.” In re Rose, No. 26-0916, 2026 WL 2672098, at *2 (Tex. Sept. 11, 2026) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (citation modified); see TEX. ELEC. CODE § 273.061(a). “In a mandamus relating to an election proceeding, we must be careful to avoid undue interference with the electoral process and the people’s right to self-governance, including their choice of candidates.” In re Anthony, 642 S.W.3d 588, 589 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relator filed her application to appear on the ballot on August 17, 2026, and the real parties rejected her application the following day. On September 8, 2026, the real parties notified relator that the final deadline for ballot changes was September 11, 2026. After that deadline, the real parties completed election coding so that voting equipment would be ready for an “initial logic and accuracy test” which was scheduled to occur on September 16, 2026, but did not occur until September 17, 2026. The real parties began printing ballots on September 17, 2026, after successful testing, and began transmitting the ballots to voters on September 18, 2026. “[A]s a fundamental matter, ‘judicial power cannot be invoked to interfere with the election process once it has begun.’” In re Cnty. of Hidalgo, 655 S.W.3d 44, 49 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2022, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Lopez, 593 S.W.3d 353, 357 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, orig. proceeding)). The election process begins when 2 absentee balloting begins. Lee v. Dallas Cnty. Democratic Party, No. 05-18-00715-CV, 2018 WL 4501448, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Lerma v. Ramon, 760 S.W.2d 727, 730 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1988, no writ). Pursuant to this tenet, mandamus relief is generally unavailable at that point in time. See, e.g., In re O’Brien, No. 05-18-00984-CV, 2018 WL 4141484, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 29, 2018, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.) (“Here, the deadline for printing ballots is imminent and, therefore, we decline to take any action that would interfere with the orderly process of the election.”); In re Lopez, 593 S.W.3d at 357–58 (concluding that mandamus would be “improper” where overseas ballots were mailed the same day that relator filed the original proceeding); In re Williams, No. 05-18-00068-CV, 2018 WL 563976, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 26, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (stating that mandamus “relief is unavailable because overseas and military ballots have already been printed and mailed for the March primary”). Here, relator did not file her petition for writ of mandamus until September 15, 2026, and she thereafter filed an amended petition on September 17, 2026. Relator offers no explanation for the delay in filing this original proceeding. These circumstances do not permit extraordinary relief by mandamus. See In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d at 720 (stating that “[t]here is an extremely narrow timeframe” in which relief can be granted once the filing period ends, thus the applicable law has “vigorously demanded otherwise unjustifiable expedition in election-related litigation”); In re Smith, 727 S.W.3d 497, 499 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Equitable principles require reasonable swiftness by the party seeking relief . . . .”); In re Travis Cnty. Republican Party, 702 S.W.3d 328, 329 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (Blacklock, J. concurring in part) (stating 3 that the relator has the “burden to seek mandamus relief as quickly as it possibly can, so that the courts have as much time as possible to assess the allegations and to determine what impact the requested relief will have on the election”); In re Self, 652 S.W.3d 829, 830 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief and noting that “relators have not contended that the emergency timeline for this Court’s consideration of the parties’ arguments results from emergency circumstances beyond the relators’ control”); In re Khanoyan, 637 S.W.3d 762, 764 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (explaining in detail that election cases require both expedition and precision in requesting relief). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by the real parties in interest City of Edcouch and its City Council, 2 the record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain relief. In so ruling, we remain mindful that “a candidate’s access to the ballot . . . lies at the very heart of a constitutional republic,” and “[t]he public interest is best served when public offices are decided by fair and vigorous elections, not technicalities leading to default.” In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d at 719 (citation modified) (quoting In re Walker, 683 S.W.3d 400, 401–02 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). However, under the circumstances presented here, we are unable to address the merits of the claims made in this original proceeding. Rather, “[o]ur narrow holding is that this mandamus petition, under the circumstances we describe [here], cannot go forward under settled precedents that sharply limit judicial authority to intervene in 2 The real parties filed a response in opposition to the petition for writ of mandamus which included a motion to dismiss this original proceeding. Given our ruling herein, we dismiss the real parties’ motion as moot. 4 ongoing elections.” See In re Khanoyan, 637 S.W.3d at 764. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without regard to the merits. L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice Delivered and filed on the 28th day of September, 2026. 5