Rogers: Texas needs independent candidates

After a recent meeting in Washington D.C., my wife and I took an extra day for a Potomac River boat ride and tour of George Washington’s Mount Vernon. It was our first time, and it did not disappoint. We were surprised to find Revolutionary War reenactment events in full swing, complete with hundreds of appropriately adorned soldiers.

Washington’s legacy, though imperfect, was chock full of actions and words that shaped the foundation of this free society. He was vehemently opposed to political parties. In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington stated that the “spirit of party” was the greatest threat to the survival of the American republic.

The father of our country eerily foreshadowed, more than 200 years ago, that ambitious and cunning individuals could use party machinery to subvert the will of the people and seize control of the government. He cautioned that partisan bickering could divide the nation, distract the government and make our country more vulnerable to foreign influence and corruption.

Since that time, radical, hyper-partisan political swings have often ebbed and flowed from left to right. Yet most American citizens remain, and most effective governance occurs, somewhere in between the extremes.

Today, questions arise about whether either major political party is salvageable, given the takeover by radical elements, empowered by chronic low voter turnout. Is the rule by a loud and ineffective superminority, both on the left or right, unending?

A January 2026 Gallup poll revealed a record-high 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025. With this many U.S. citizens identifying as independents, why are there so few independent candidates appearing on the ballot? The answer lies in election codes that make independent ballot access virtually impossible.

For independent candidates and minor parties, Texas has one of the most difficult pathways in the nation. For access to the 2026 ballot, a declaration had to be filed by Dec. 8, 2025. The most onerous challenge is the requirement for petition signatures required in a short timeline. Texas law states that signatures cannot be collected until after the March primary or after the runoff, if one occurs. This election season, after the May 26 runoff and before 5:00 pm on June 27, signatures must be collected from registered voters who did not participate in a party primary that nominated a candidate for the office sought. For any statewide office 81,030 signatures (1% of the total vote for all gubernatorial candidates in 2022) are required. By design, the exorbitant cost to collect these signatures, coupled with only a 30-day collection period, serves to prevent statewide independent candidates from seeking office in Texas.

Sam Houston is recognized by many historians as the last independent candidate to win a statewide election in Texas, serving as governor from 1859 to 1861. One of the few independent candidates for statewide office in recent history was the eccentric provocateur Kinky Friedman, who ran for governor in 2006, against Rick Perry.

At that time, independent gubernatorial candidates were required to submit 45,540 valid signatures from registered voters who had not participated in the March primary. Friedman's campaign, empowered by his rabid fanbase, collected almost 170,000 signatures. Friedman went down in defeat, but he reigns in political history as the champion of grassroots ballot signatures. Most reasonable Texans would concur that one should not have to be Sam Houston or a Texas cultural icon to run as an independent.

Sam and Kinky are among the very few independent candidates to have been granted ballot access for a statewide race since 1846. Does this not seem like an impermissible restriction?

An independent candidate's primary advantage is the freedom to focus on constituent needs and specific issues rather than adhering to a strict party platform. This approach can appeal to a diverse base of voters who are frustrated with political polarization and are looking for alternatives to the two major parties.

Currently, the clear path to victory in statewide elections, and increasingly in local elections, is hyperpartisan party affiliation, lots of money, repetitive deception and outright lies. The more megadonor contributions, party purity tests and hyperpartisan rhetoric, the less focus on candidate character, leadership experience and previous accomplishments. As a state and nation, we shouldn’t be consistently forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils.” More options, through improved ballot access for independent candidates, would move us toward more representative governance.

Unfortunately, regardless of which party is in power, the desire to maintain control will offset any meaningful legislative changes in election codes restricting ballot access. It appears the only viable option lies in the courts. Organizations such as the Washington, D.C. based Center for Competitive Democracy are working to identify and eliminate barriers to political participation. 

On the 250th anniversary of the birth of our great nation, George Washington would be pleased with timely efforts to reign in the “party spirit.”