Conservatives often criticize leftist-inspired cancel culture because it is a form of censorship, an attack on free speech and an infringement on individual rights. Cancel culture punishes differing opinions, silences dissenting voices and discourages open debate. So why would the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) adopt a rule that does these very things?
Censure culture
Party censures have historically been a rare occurrence among Texas Republicans. House Speaker Joe Straus was censured in 2018 for his opposition to the “bathroom bill” and his perceived role in blocking party priorities. Speaker Dade Phelan was censured by the RPT in the middle of the 2024 primary season, largely for his role in the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton and his continuance of the long-standing tradition of allowing members of the minority party to chair committees.
The censure train sped up significantly a few years ago, as a small group within RPT leadership sought the power to dictate who could, and could not, appear on primary election ballots. With this action, party bosses on the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) would effectively usurp the choices of Republican voters.
Originally, the intent of the so-called “Rule 44” was to allow a county or district executive committee to censure a Republican officeholder for actions that went against the core principles of the RPT. Ultimately, Rule 44 simply allowed the Republican Party to discourage certain candidates from running and to work against candidates who were censured.
After long and contentious debate during the RPT’s 2024 convention, delegates expanded Rule 44 to require that county chairs reject primary applications from any candidate who would not “swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury” that they had not been censured in the two years prior. The new rules also apply to judges, who are elected in partisan races but are required by the state’s judicial ethics code to be politically neutral on the bench.
These changes expanded the scope of the rule and weaponized the censure process. Rather than upholding ethical standards, Rule 44 is now designed to punish political opponents and silence dissent. Cancel culture had come home to roost.
Joshua Blank, research director at the University of Texas at Austin’s Texas Politics Project, stated “It’s very unusual for a group of unelected party members to essentially say that they are going to deny duly elected officials the ability to run under the party’s name. I think the one thing that’s guaranteed here is that this will lead to a lawsuit if it’s applied.”
A cancellation cycle
The 89th regular session of the Texas Legislature has drawn to another dramatic close and the dreaded campaign season begins posthaste. No rest for the weary. Such is the vicious two-year cycle of relentless sessions followed immediately by increasingly contentious and remarkably expensive campaigns.
Those expenses are paid largely by far-right megadonors whose priorities don’t always align with Republican voters. Even before session closure, several incumbent Republicans were censured by their local party apparatuses for daring to support Speaker Dustin Burrows over Rep. David Cook, the House Republican Caucus favorite. Cook was the chosen candidate of the far-right political machine, although both Burrows and Cook, based on their voting record, would be considered conservative Republicans. Burrows prevailed in the House speaker race 85-55, with only 36 votes from Republicans.
Other Texas Republicans already censured by their county GOP organizations include Reps. Morgan Meyer and Angie Chen Button in Dallas County; Cecil Bell and Will Metcalf in Montgomery County; John McQueeney in Tarrant County; and Angelia Orr in Hill County (though censured by Bosque County). There is a common thread among these representatives: They are not beholden to party operatives and megadonors.
More censures are expected. The 2024 Republican primary was brutal. Next year’s will be worse.
Is this even legal?
Texas Republican County Chairmen’s Association President David Luther asked two Texas law firms for an opinion about the legality of Rule 44.
Scanes Yelverton Talbert, LLP and Ryan Law, PLLC agreed that, “The Texas Election Code does not permit political parties to restrict ballot access with additional obligations like Rule 44(e); instead, a party chair has a mandatory duty to accept and certify ballot applications complying with the Election Code.”
The memo went on to say, “to insist that the party’s own procedures must prevail over election law, the party would have to argue that the Texas Election Code’s provision violates the party’s First Amendment freedom of association rights. Such a challenge is unlikely to succeed. Under existing law, the better answer is that Rule 44(e) cannot override Texas election law.”
Campaign prediction
Based on my three experiences in far-right smear campaigns financed primarily by billionaire donors Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, I will make the following predictions. Billboards will be posted throughout the censured candidates’ districts stating they voted with Democrats to oppose Republican-supported House Speaker candidate David Cook. Enough negative mailers, texts, social media posts and television ads to make your head spin will be distributed. Money will be no object. Truth will be optional.
The far left and the far right are often not so different. On the surface, there appears to be an ever-increasing linear distance between opposite poles of extremism. In reality, the path eventually becomes more circular until, paradoxically, they become the same thing.
With both far-right Republicans and far-left Democrats, social cancel culture tactics and formal censorship involve suppression or restricting of political representation and expression.
Extremists are extremists, regardless of party affiliation.