dissenting.
I dissent. Bonnie Fitch applied to the Democratic Party for a position on its general primary election ballot as a candidate for Judge of the 152nd District Court in Harris County. The Election Code requires that Fitch’s application be accompanied by petitions bearing the signatures of at least 750 registered voters, Tex.Elec.Code §§ 172.021(e), 172.025, and that each petition state that Fitch had applied for a position on the Democratic Party ballot, id. § 172.027. The reason voter petitions must identify the political party of the candidate is that a voter who signs a petition “becomes ineligible to vote in a primary election or participate in a convention of another political party during the voting year in which the primary election is held.” Id. § 172.026. The petition must alert voters to the effect of their signatures by containing the following statement: “I understand that by signing this petition I become ineligible to vote in a primary election or participate in a convention of another party, including a party not holding a primary election, during the voting year in which this primary election is held.” Id. § 172.027. This statement must be read to each voter who signs a petition, id. § 141.064, and the person who obtains the signature must swear that this was done, id. § 141.065. A person who votes in an election in which he is not eligible commits a third degree felony. Id. § 64.012.
The petitions Fitch filed with her application do not identify her political party. Thus, voters who signed the petitions were not given the statutory warning concerning their ineligibility to vote in other primaries and participate in other conventions. The Court holds that Fitch’s petitions nevertheless meet the statutory requirement because the Election Code also provides: “If an application is accompanied by a petition, the petition is considered part of the appli-cation_” Id. § 141.032(c). This provision does not support the Court’s holding, for while it makes the petition part of the application, it does not make the application part of the petition. It is one thing to read the petition as part of the application; the two are filed together in the same place, and anyone with access to one has ready access to the other. It is quite another thing to read the application as part of the petition; the application is not required to be presented to voters when they sign the petition and is not available to them. By holding that Fitch’s petitions substantially complied with statutory requirements, the Court in essence equates written notice on a petition which a voter signs to information on an application which a voter cannot access easily and maybe not at all. In my *339view, Fitch’s failure to tell voters signing her petitions that she was seeking the Democratic Party nomination cannot be excused simply because they could have discovered that fact if they had somehow obtained a copy of her application.
The Court’s holding conflicts with our settled rule that “statutory requirements concerning candidacy for political office are mandatory and are to be strictly enforced.” Wallace v. Howell, 707 S.W.2d 876, 877 (Tex.1986); see Painter v. Shaner, 667 S.W.2d 123, 125 (Tex.1984); Brown v. Walker, 377 S.W.2d 630, 632 (Tex.1964); Burroughs v. Lyles, 181 S.W.2d 570, 573 (Tex.1944). If the requirements of the Election Code are strictly enforced against Fitch, her petitions are not valid. Tex. Elec.Code §§ 141.062, 141.063.
Fitch contends that her failure to include her party affiliation on her petitions should be excused because she established by the affidavits of all the persons who circulated petitions for her that every voter who signed a petition was told that she “is a Democrat and that they would have to vote in the Democratic Primary.” I agree with the Court’s rejection of this contention for two reasons. First, what the affiants swore they told petition signers is not all that the statute mandates they be told. And second, a verbal statement to petition signers, even if complete, would not meet the strict requirements of the statute.
Because Fitch’s petitions were invalid, her name should not have been placed on the Democratic Party ballot. The court of appeals was correct in reaching this conclusion and in directing Democratic Party officials to remove Fitch’s name from the primary election ballot. This Court stayed the appeals court’s judgment because Fitch was unopposed in her primary race and the proximity of the primary election did not allow time for us to consider the merits of the case. 35 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 462. Although I conclude that Fitch is ineligible as a candidate for Judge of the 152nd District Court in Harris County, the only relief sought in this original proceeding is that the court of appeals be directed to set aside its judgment. Now that the primary election is over, both the judgment of the court of appeals and the relief sought by Fitch from that judgment are moot. I would therefore dismiss Fitch’s petition for mandamus as moot.
Fitch’s opponent in the general election has filed a separate petition for mandamus requesting that we direct Democratic Party officials not to certify Fitch as the party’s nominee for placement on the general election ballot, and that we direct the Harris County Clerk not to place Fitch’s name on the ballot. O’Neill v. Bentsen, No. D-2198 (Tex., filed March 18, 1992). The Court dismisses O’Neill’s petition in conjunction with its decision on Fitch’s petition. I would grant the relief O’Neill seeks.