One of the more difficult (and underappreciated) tasks in politics is recruiting candidates, especially in down-ballot races. Lots of people can be convinced to run for President, but recruiting for county-level races is a much tougher ask. State Representative races fall in-between: Pretty important, but not so high profile that recruiting solid candidates is a gimme. In 2024, there were over 20 races where no Democrat ran in the general election, and over 30 races where no Republican ran. You can’t beat somebody with nobody, and running candidates, even in longshot races, ties down resources on the other side that could be used elsewhere.
Of course, the problem is that you have to find a candidate that’s actually qualified to run, and that seems to be where Democrats fell down in the Texas House District 93 race. There Ericka Lomick ran unopposed in the Democrat primary, and was slated to compete against Republican Alan Blaylock in November. Incumbent Republican Nate Schatzline decided not to run for reelection in after redistricting.
Tiny problem: It turns out that Ericka Lomick is ineligible to serve because she’s a convicted felon.
Democrat Texas House candidate Ericka Lomick has suspended her campaign following questions about whether her previous federal felony conviction makes her eligible to hold public office.
Lomick announced Monday that she was ending her bid for the Tarrant County-based district 93 seat, saying the decision came “after careful consideration.”
“Although this was not an easy decision, I am convinced that it was the right one for the people of HD 93,” said Lomick.
The right decision to make would be not to run for an office you weren’t eligible to serve in. It’s called “due diligence.”
Her campaign acknowledged that the decision followed questions about her eligibility to serve.
“After questions arose about the candidate’s eligibility to serve as the district’s elected Representative, Ericka Lomick has chosen to step aside and allow the people of HD 93 to elect someone who can serve the district without the burden of defending against attacks that would threaten to derail the business of the people,” the campaign stated.
Those questions emerged after the Protect and Serve Texas PAC resurfaced Lomick’s federal criminal history in the race.
Federal court records show Lomick, known then as Ericka Flood, was charged in 2010 as part of a federal mortgage fraud investigation in North Carolina. Federal prosecutors identified Flood as both a mortgage broker and promoter involved in the scheme.
If only she had run Medicaid fraud ring instead, she probably would have remained unindicted until this year…
Lomick ultimately pleaded guilty in the case and was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison.
She later attempted to have her sentence vacated, alleging, among other claims, ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with her plea and sentencing. A federal district judge denied the motion in 2012.
The conviction raised questions about Lomick’s eligibility to seek state office in Texas.
Under Texas law, a person who has been finally convicted of a felony is generally ineligible to be a candidate for public office unless they have been pardoned or “otherwise released from the resulting disabilities.” The Texas Secretary of State specifically notes that merely completing a felony sentence does not restore a person’s eligibility to run for office.
The Texas Constitution also directs the Legislature to exclude from office individuals convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other “high crimes.”
Lomick had previously told the Fort Worth Report that she had never been convicted of a crime “in any state.”
So she’s a damn liar as well as a felon.
Her departure leaves Republican candidate Alan Blaylock, a former Fort Worth city councilman, as the likely winner of the seat, which was recently vacated by Nate Schatzline.
This is a blow to Democrats, because Lomick actually received a few hundred more votes in the primary election than the two Republicans candidates, indicating the new district might possibly be competitive.
A nice break for Republicans, and a self-inflicted wound for Democrats.
I don’t know what’s the matter with Texas. This never stopped anybody from running or holding office here in Massachusetts. As the invitations to fundraisers read:”If you’re indicted, you’re invited.”
I suspect the revelation that she had a felony.conviction .and.what that would.mean to her viability were more motivating than the Texas law in her decision to drop out.It is well.established that states cannot impose electoral conditions not in the Constitution on federal candidates (see the term limit cases) and that only Congress can judge its members. As such, she could probably beat the Texas law if she challenged it.
I am NOT saying we want convicted felons.in Congress, only that the Texas law is of dubious Constitutional legality. A Constitutional amendment barring felons.from Congress might be a good idea. Until one passes, however, the Texas requirement for federal offices stands on weak ground.
Except she was running for State Rep, not U.S. Rep, so laws on federal candidates don’t apply.