While serving on the council, he ran for the Texas Supreme Court, was kept off the primary ballot over his petition signatures, and lost in court twice.

In late 2025 Rogers sought the Republican nomination for Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, Place 8, against incumbent Brett Busby. The chair of the Republican Party of Texas rejected his ballot application as deficient. Rogers sued in Travis County District Court, where Judge Amy Meachum dissolved a temporary restraining order and denied a temporary injunction. David Rogers then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for mandamus. On January 13, 2026 that Court denied the petition. Its per curiam opinion noted that he had neither appealed the trial court's denial nor sought emergency relief in the court of appeals, and instead “appears to have abandoned those proceedings, changing tactics to pursue mandamus relief a week after the trial court denied relief.”

Office sought
Justice, Supreme Court of Texas, Place 8
Rejected by
Chair, Republican Party of Texas — application deficient
Trial court
Travis County District Court, Judge Amy Meachum — TRO dissolved, injunction denied
Supreme Court of Texas
Mandamus denied, January 13, 2026
Cause
In re David Rogers, No. 26-0010
Recused
Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Busby did not participate
Result
Kept off the ballot

What cuts the other way

No court found that Rogers did anything improper. The Supreme Court of Texas denied mandamus without resolving the signature dispute on the merits, noting that he had not appealed the trial court's denial or sought emergency relief in the court of appeals. The Republican Party of Texas's assertions about how the signatures were collected were never adjudicated and are not repeated here as fact. Seeking another office while in elected service is lawful and common. Rogers has said publicly, “I continue to believe that the people of Texas deserve options when it comes to nominations.”

What this does not assert

  • no court found that Rogers did anything improper — the Supreme Court denied mandamus because a genuine factual dispute existed and he had not pursued the ordinary appellate route
  • the party's assertions about signature collection are the party's allegations and were not adjudicated; they are not repeated here as fact
  • seeking another office while in elected service is lawful and common; this entry does not suggest otherwise
  • does not allege the petition signatures were in fact invalid — that dispute was never resolved on the merits

Sources