In Re Ducato, 66 S.W.3d 558

Relators Linda Steen, Jim Ducato, and Robert Cloud seek writs of mandamus to force Hood County Republican Party Chair Sharon Crittenden to place their names on the March 12, 2002 primary ballot for County Judge (Steen), County Commissioner, Precinct Two (Ducato), and Precinct Nine Chairman (Cloud).
Crittenden informed all three that their names would not appear on the ballot after the filing deadline.
Steen filed an initial application with a long nominating petition (39 pages) but one page failed to identify the party; she later filed a second application with the filing fee paid and was accepted. The petition initially did not meet section 172.027 for party identification.
Ducato filed an initial application with a 13-page petition; one page failed to state the party, and some affidavits were defective; he later filed a second application with the filing fee and was accepted, but Crittenden rejected both applications for petition deficiencies.
Cloud filed his application with a notarization that included strikeouts in the notary section; the notarization defect led Crittenden to refuse placement on the ballot.
The election code requires filing either a fee or a petition with signatures (section 172.021), and provides review, cure opportunities, and notice (sections 141.032 and related provisions).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a candidate may file more than one application for the same office.	Steen and Ducato contend second applications cure defects and entitle placement.	Crittenden argues no second application may be filed for the same office; second applications are void unless first is withdrawn.	Yes; a candidate may file more than one application for the same office.
Whether a late-cured defect via a second application preserves ballot access.	Second applications complied with section 172.021, so they should be placed on ballot.	Only the initial application matters; cure via a second application is not allowed for the same office.	Cure via a subsequent application is permissible; Steen and Ducato entitled to placement.
Whether Cloud's notarization defect invalidates his canvass eligibility.	Cloud swore to the application and the notary acknowledged properly; printing errors do not defeat validity.	Strikeouts in the notary section render the notarization defective under the code.	Cloud's notarization was proper and his name must be placed on the ballot.

Painter v. Shaner, 667 S.W.2d 123 (Tex. 1984) (mandamus to compel party officer to place candidate on ballot)
Wallace v. Howell, 707 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. 1986) (strict construction of election-candidate requirements)
Bejarano v. Hunter, 899 S.W.2d 346 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995) (procedural duty to review applications; cure opportunities)
Gray v. Vance, 567 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1978) (candidacy requirements may be cured before filing deadline)
In re Gibson, 960 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998) (defective application due to failed notarization/filing)
Escobar v. Sutherland, 917 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996) (purpose of timely review and cure period)
Burris v. Gonzalez, 269 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1954) (sworn-to-applications validity despite clerical issues)