Texas Supreme Court Election Results: Democrats Win All 4 Seats, Cutting GOP Majority to 5-4

Texas Supreme Court election results from November 3, 2026 show Democrats winning all four seats on the ballot, unseating Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock and Justices James P. Sullivan, Kyle Hawkins and Brett Busby with roughly 52% to 53% of the vote each. Republicans keep a 5-4 majority on the state's court of last resort for civil cases, but a four-member Democratic bloc can grant petitions for review on its own, so personal injury, insurance, and arbitration litigants should expect a different docket even before the merits majority changes.

The result ends a run of more than three decades in which every elected member of the Supreme Court of Texas was a Republican. According to the Texas Tribune, a Democrat last won a seat on the court in 1994. The incoming chief justice, Maggie Ellis, a justice on the Austin-based Third Court of Appeals, will be the first woman to lead the court.

For the plaintiffs' bar and the defense bar alike, the court matters more than any federal appellate bench in Texas. It sets the rules on damages review, expert testimony, premises and products liability, insurance coverage, and the enforcement of arbitration agreements in state court. This briefing sets out the Texas Supreme Court election results seat by seat, explains what changes in January and what does not, and walks through the concrete consequences for tort, insurance and arbitration practice.

Texas Supreme Court election results, seat by seat

All figures below are unofficial returns reported on election night and the morning of November 4 by KENS 5 and the Texas Lawbook, with roughly 96% to 99% of the expected vote counted. The Texas Secretary of State posts the running totals; certified results come later in November after the statewide canvass.

Seat	Democrat (winner)	Republican (incumbent)	Approx. result	Incumbent's path to the bench
Chief Justice	Maggie Ellis, Third Court of Appeals	Jimmy Blacklock	52.4% to 47.6% (5,098,064 to 4,624,488 at 96.87% reporting)	Elevated to chief justice by Gov. Greg Abbott in January 2025
Place 2 (unexpired term)	Chari Kelly	James P. Sullivan	about 52.3% to 47.8%	Appointed January 2025 to fill Blacklock's old seat; formerly Abbott's general counsel
Place 7	Kristen Hawkins, Harris County district judge	Kyle Hawkins	about 52.8% to 47.2%	Appointed October 24, 2025 to replace retiring Justice Jeff Boyd; former Texas solicitor general
Place 8	Gisela Triana, Third Court of Appeals	Brett Busby	about 52.0% to 48.0%	On the court since 2019; won a full term in 2020 against Triana

Three features of the table matter for practitioners. First, the margins are narrow but uniform: each Democrat won by four to six points, which signals a top-of-ticket wave rather than race-by-race judgments about individual justices. Second, three of the four defeated Republicans had been appointed by the governor rather than first elected, a common path onto the Texas Supreme Court. Third, the two Hawkinses are not related, a point several outlets flagged because the shared surname appeared on the same ballot line.

Who won the Texas Supreme Court elections in 2026?

Democrats Maggie Ellis (chief justice), Chari Kelly (Place 2), Kristen Hawkins (Place 7) and Gisela Triana (Place 8) won all four Texas Supreme Court seats on the November 3, 2026 ballot. Busby conceded to Triana early on Wednesday, November 4, according to the Texas Tribune. The Texas Lawbook described the outcome as a sweep of all ten statewide judicial races: four Supreme Court seats, three seats on the Court of Criminal Appeals, and all three seats on the new Fifteenth Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court races ran alongside a broader Democratic showing. Democrat Nathan Johnson won the open attorney general race against Republican Mayes Middleton, taking about 52.3% to 46% in Associated Press figures reported by KERA, and becomes the first Democratic attorney general since Dan Morales left office in 1999. That result is relevant here because the attorney general decides which cases the state brings to, and defends in, the Supreme Court, a point the Dallas Morning News highlighted in its analysis of the new court.

Did Democrats take control of the Texas Supreme Court?

No. Republicans keep a 5-4 majority on the nine-member Supreme Court of Texas. The five continuing justices were not on the 2026 ballot: Debra Lehrmann (Place 3), John Devine (Place 4), Rebeca Huddle (Place 5), Jane Bland (Place 6) and Evan Young (Place 9). Published county officials lists show Lehrmann, Huddle and Young serving terms that end December 31, 2028, and Devine and Bland serving terms that end December 31, 2030.

That calendar sets up the next fight. Texas justices serve staggered six-year terms in partisan elections. In 2028, three Republican-held seats (Places 3, 5 and 9) are scheduled for the ballot. A net gain of a single seat in that cycle would give Democrats a merits majority. Kelly's Place 2 seat is an unexpired term and comes back up in 2030, while the chief justice, Place 7 and Place 8 seats won this year carry full six-year terms.

The Republican majority can also change between elections. Under the Texas Constitution, the governor fills an appellate vacancy by appointment, subject to Texas Senate confirmation, until the next general election. Three of the four justices defeated on Tuesday reached the court that way, which shows how often the appointment path has shaped the bench.

When do the new Texas Supreme Court justices take office?

The new justices take their seats at the start of 2027. The governor's office announced that Blacklock's term as chief justice, Sullivan's Place 2 appointment and Kyle Hawkins's Place 7 appointment each expire December 31, 2026; Busby's full term runs on the same cycle. Until then, the current nine-member court remains in place and continues to issue opinions.

That gap matters for pending cases. The court customarily releases opinions on Fridays and tends to clear argued cases before a membership change. Parties with argued or fully briefed cases in which the court has granted review should expect the outgoing justices to try to finish them in November and December. Petitions that are pending but not yet acted on face a different calculation, discussed below.

What happened to Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock?

Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock lost to Maggie Ellis by about 4.9 points, roughly 474,000 votes in the unofficial tally at 96.87% reporting. Blacklock had led the court since January 2025, when Gov. Abbott elevated him from Place 2 after Chief Justice Nathan Hecht reached the mandatory retirement age. He will serve as chief justice through December 31, 2026.

The chief justice in Texas does more than preside over arguments. The office oversees the Texas judicial branch, chairs the Texas Judicial Council, and leads the Supreme Court's rulemaking for civil procedure and evidence. A change in the center chair therefore reaches into the procedural rules that govern every civil case in the state, including the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules governing appeals, and not only into the outcome of individual appeals.

Why four votes matter: the petition for review rule

The single most important practical consequence of the Texas Supreme Court election results is procedural. Review in the Supreme Court of Texas is discretionary for most civil appeals, and four justices must vote to grant a petition for review. The court amended the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for petitions filed after January 1, 2026, so that it ordinarily decides whether to grant review, request merits briefing, and set argument on the petition-stage briefing alone. Under both the old and the new process, the four-vote threshold is the gatekeeper, and practice guides estimate that only about one petition in ten is granted.

A four-justice Democratic bloc can therefore put cases on the docket without a single Republican vote. That changes the risk profile for both sides:

• Plaintiffs who lose large verdicts on appeal in intermediate courts have, in recent years, rarely persuaded the Supreme Court to take their petitions. From 2027, a petition that frames an issue the new bloc cares about, such as the standard for reviewing noneconomic damages or the scope of a statutory cap, has a realistic path to a grant.
• Defendants can no longer assume that an intermediate-court win will be the final word. The cost of a petition-stage response, and of the merits briefing that follows a grant, rises when grants become less predictable.
• Outcomes on the merits still turn on five votes. A grant pushed by four justices can end in a 5-4 affirmance of the existing rule, and the opinion that results may harden that rule rather than soften it.

Commentators have also predicted more original mandamus filings in the Supreme Court. A Volokh Conspiracy post published on election day forecast "a lot" of mandamus suits, and the Dallas Morning News quoted an expert who expects more challenges to existing statutes in the hope of overturning them. Neither prediction is a ruling, and both depend on how the new justices vote once seated.

What does the Texas Supreme Court election mean for personal injury lawsuits?

For personal injury lawsuits, the Texas Supreme Court election means the court's direction on damages review, caps and expert evidence is contestable for the first time in decades, but the governing statutes and the 5-4 majority stay in place for now. The doctrines most likely to be tested are those where recent decisions narrowed recoveries through judicial interpretation rather than through statute.

Three lines of recent authority are worth tracking:

Noneconomic damages review. In Gregory v. Chohan (Tex. 2023), the court reversed a large noneconomic award in a trucking wrongful death case and required that noneconomic damages bear a rational connection, grounded in the evidence, to the injury, while criticizing unsupported "anchoring" arguments to the jury. That decision has been invoked to trim awards across the state. Georgia has since legislated against anchoring directly, as covered in our report on the Walmart new trial under Georgia's anchoring law. In Texas the rule is judge-made, so a future court can refine it.

Punitive damages caps. On May 22, 2026, in K&K Inez Properties, LLC v. Kolle, a unanimous court held that the exemplary damages cap in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008 is applied defendant by defendant, using each defendant's share of economic damages. The cap itself is statutory and the decision was unanimous, so a changed court would not obviously revisit it, but cap arithmetic remains central to settlement value, as our analysis of the Tarrant County sewer gas verdict shows.

Appeal bonds and judgment enforcement. The same day, in In re Greystar, the court held that the Texas cap on security needed to suspend a money judgment, the lesser of 50% of net worth or $25 million, applies per judgment debtor. That ruling governs leverage after every large verdict.

The statutory framework does not change with the election. Chapter 74's caps on noneconomic damages in health care liability claims ($250,000 per claimant against physicians, with separate limits for institutions) and Chapter 41's exemplary damages cap are acts of the Legislature, and only the Legislature, or voters through a constitutional amendment, can change them. The court can construe those statutes, decide constitutional challenges, and set the evidentiary standards for expert testimony, but it cannot repeal them.

How could the new Texas Supreme Court affect arbitration agreements?

The new Texas Supreme Court is unlikely to change how arbitration agreements are enforced in the near term, because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state rules that disfavor arbitration and the U.S. Supreme Court sets the outer limits. Where state law still controls, however, a different court could shift outcomes in the close cases: contract formation, Unconscionability, nonsignatory enforcement, and Waiver of Arbitration.

The recent record shows where those close cases sit. On October 16, 2026, in UATP Management, LLC v. Geter, a per curiam opinion let Urban Air's unsigned affiliates compel arbitration of a child's injury claims as third-party beneficiaries of a waiver the mother signed; our analysis of the Urban Air arbitration ruling covers the holding. In Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air (May 23, 2025), the court treated whether a waiver covered a later visit as a scope question for the arbitrator. Both decisions applied general Texas contract law, which is exactly the terrain where FAA Preemption leaves room for state courts to differ.

Procedure also matters. A party denied a Motion to Compel Arbitration in Texas state court can take an interlocutory appeal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.016 (for FAA agreements) or § 171.098 (under the Texas Arbitration Act), and the losing side in the court of appeals can petition the Supreme Court. With four votes enough to grant, claimants who lose arbitration fights on nonsignatory or formation questions now have a more credible route to further review, and businesses whose agreements were upheld below face more uncertainty.

For drafters, the practical advice that held before Tuesday holds after it: invoke the FAA expressly, name every affiliate that should be able to enforce the clause in the arbitration paragraph itself, keep a Delegation Clause clear and unmistakable, and include a Severability Clause that saves the agreement if a remedial limit is struck.

What happened in the Court of Criminal Appeals and Fifteenth Court of Appeals races?

Democrats won all three seats on the ballot for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, leaving Republicans with a 6-3 majority there, according to the Texas Tribune. Democrats also won all three seats on the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, where Democrat Tom Baker defeated Republican Scott Field and Democrat Marc Meyer defeated Republican April Farris, according to Texas Tribune reporting carried by KSAT.

The Fifteenth Court of Appeals is the more consequential of the two for civil practitioners. Created by the Legislature in 2023 and operating since September 1, 2024, it is a statewide intermediate court with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Texas Business Court, civil appeals involving the state and its agencies, and challenges to the constitutionality of state statutes. Because all three of its sitting Republican justices lost, the court that reviews business-court judgments and constitutional challenges to tort reform statutes will have a new majority at the same time the Supreme Court gains a four-member bloc.

Who fills vacancies on the Texas Supreme Court?

The governor fills vacancies on the Texas Supreme Court by appointment, with the advice and consent of the Texas Senate, and the appointee serves until the next general election. Three of the four Republicans who lost on November 3 first joined the court this way: Blacklock's elevation and Sullivan's appointment in January 2025, and Kyle Hawkins's appointment in October 2025 after Justice Jeff Boyd retired. A mid-term retirement or resignation before 2028 would therefore give the governor in office at that time a chance to reshape the 5-4 balance without an election.

The money and the politics behind the result

Texas judicial elections are expensive and closely watched by organized interests on both sides of the tort debate. Campaign finance coverage before the election showed Texans for Lawsuit Reform's political action committee among the top contributors to Busby, Kyle Hawkins and Blacklock, along with law firm and energy company PACs. The Texas Civil Justice League, which the Texas Tribune describes as focused on electing judges who support restricting lawsuits against businesses, ran a candidate comparison site for voters.

On the other side, the Texas Trial Lawyers Association has been rebuilding influence inside the Republican primary electorate; an August 2026 Texas Tribune report described TTLA backing a Republican incumbent against a TLR-funded primary challenger. The November result came from a different direction, a general-election wave rather than a primary realignment, but it lands on the same question that has organized Texas civil justice politics since the 2003 tort reform package: how much room courts should give juries.

No post-election statement from TLR, TCJL or TTLA had been published in the sources reviewed for this briefing.

What it means for practitioners

For PI firms and plaintiffs' counsel: Preservation matters more than it did last week. Arguments that the court's recent damages and causation rulings should be narrowed, distinguished or reconsidered need to be raised in the trial court and the court of appeals to be available on a petition in 2027. Firms that have historically skipped petitions after losing in the intermediate courts should reassess, case by case, whether an issue could attract four votes.

For defendants and insurers: Verdict-reduction strategies built on Gregory v. Chohan and related decisions remain good law, but the odds that a plaintiff's petition will be granted have risen. Reserves on large Texas exposures, and the timing of settlement windows, should account for a longer appellate tail. Coverage disputes now on the docket, such as the Zurich v. BNSF duty-to-defend appeal granted on October 2, 2026, will be decided by whichever court is sitting when the opinion issues.

For arbitration drafters and mass-claims counsel: FAA doctrine is not up for grabs, but Texas contract-formation and nonsignatory rules are. Businesses facing large numbers of claims in Texas should audit assent flows and affiliate coverage now, while the current court's precedents are fresh, and claimant-side firms should expect more appetite for review of close formation questions.

For litigation funders: A less predictable Supreme Court docket lengthens timelines on large Texas verdicts but also improves the expected value of appeals that previously had little chance of a grant. Underwriting models keyed to historical Texas grant rates will need adjustment from 2027.

Timeline

Date	Event
January 2025	Gov. Abbott elevates Jimmy Blacklock to chief justice and appoints James P. Sullivan to Place 2
May 23, 2025	Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air sends waiver-scope question to the arbitrator
October 24, 2025	Kyle Hawkins appointed to Place 7, replacing Justice Jeff Boyd
January 1, 2026	Amended appellate rules apply to new petitions for review
May 22, 2026	K&K Inez Properties v. Kolle and In re Greystar decided
October 16, 2026	UATP Management v. Geter lets Urban Air affiliates compel arbitration
November 3, 2026	Democrats win all four Supreme Court seats on the ballot
November 4, 2026	Busby concedes; outlets report a ten-for-ten Democratic judicial sweep
December 31, 2026	Terms of Blacklock, Sullivan, Kyle Hawkins and Busby end
Early 2027	Ellis, Kelly, Kristen Hawkins and Triana join the court
November 2028	Places 3, 5 and 9 (Lehrmann, Huddle, Young) scheduled for the ballot

FAQ

Did Democrats take control of the Texas Supreme Court?

No. Democrats won four seats, but Republicans hold a 5-4 majority because five Republican justices were not on the 2026 ballot.

Who will be the new chief justice of Texas?

Maggie Ellis, a justice on the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, defeated Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock and will be the first woman to serve as chief justice of Texas.

When do the new Texas Supreme Court justices start?

They take office at the start of 2027, because the terms and appointments of the four defeated justices expire on December 31, 2026.

Can four Democratic justices change Texas tort law?

Not on their own. Four votes are enough to grant a petition for review and put a case on the docket, but deciding a case still takes a majority of five.

Are the Texas Supreme Court election results final?

The figures reported on November 3 and 4 are unofficial. The statewide canvass certifies the results later in November, though every Republican incumbent in these races had lost by about four points or more and Busby conceded.

Does the election affect arbitration agreements in Texas?

Not directly. The Federal Arbitration Act still governs most consumer and employment arbitration agreements, but Texas contract-formation and nonsignatory rules are state law, and a court with a four-member bloc may be more willing to review close cases.