Progreso, TX (KRGV) — The 13th Court of Appeals temporarily paused an order that would remove three candidates from the Nov. 3, ballot in Progreso.

The state challenged the order, arguing it disrupts Hidalgo County’s ballot process, that the Attorney General’s Office did not receive required notice before the hearing and that many ballots have already been mailed to voters.

The lawsuit was originally filed Sept. 2, by three candidates, Raúl Martinez, Ruben Arturo Abundiz and Santiago Galván IV, trying to remove Mayor Hugo Gamboa, Norberto Rangel and Commissioner Stephanie Alegria from the ballot over alleged issues with their candidate applications.

A district judge signed a temporary restraining order on Sept. 23, that would have removed Gamboa, Rangel and Alegria from the ballot. The defendants were served Sept. 25 and 26.

RELATED STORY: Progreso mayor, two candidates face lawsuit over ballot eligibility ahead of November election

With the appeals court ruling, that restraining order is now on hold.

This lawsuit is a legal dispute over whether three candidate applications for the upcoming Nov. 3 municipal election in the city of Progreso should be rejected due to missing requirements.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim the city clerk should have rejected the paperwork for Gamboa, Rangel and Alegria because their applications violated local election rules and state law.

Gamboa and Rangel both filed applications on July 31, but did not pay the required $500 filing fee at that time. Money orders were later submitted, dated Aug. 11 and Aug. 14, nearly two weeks after the applications were turned in.

Alegria's application, turned in on Aug. 14, left key fields blank, including her occupation, how her name should appear on the ballot and the name of the election and municipality.

The plaintiffs are not asking for money damages. They want the city clerk to reject the three applications and remove those candidates from the November 2026 ballot.

The appeals court is giving everyone involved three days to respond to the state’s challenge. The district court docket still shows a hearing scheduled for Oct. 5.