Eckels: "Who cares what you think?"

Shorter Robert Eckels: So I quit. What's it to you?

County Judge Robert Eckels, drawing some heat for his decision to leave office just months after voters gave him a fourth term, offered no apologies Friday, and he noted that he had to file for re-election more than a year ago.

New opportunities since then, and introspection as he approached age 50, convinced him -- as he said in announcing his departure Thursday -- that "the time is now."

Generally conservative Web site BlogHouston.net's response to that quote was typical of critical sentiment. "Actually, no. The time would have been right before the last election, so voters could have picked your replacement," wrote BlogHouston's Kevin Whited. "Thanks for your years of service and solid conservative governance, but jeers for the way you decided to quit."

[...]

As for the criticism of his timing, Eckels said, "The world is full of cynics. There is no answer I can give that will satisfy them."

"My election was over in January (2006) when no one filed against me and not November. There is nothing magic about leaving today."

Actually, that's not true, as a quick peek at the relevant laws makes clear. If Eckels had withdrawn from the ballot "on or before the 74th day before election day", which is to say around the end of August, then given the fact that he'd been unopposed, "the appropriate executive committee of each political party making nominations for the general election for state and county officers may make a replacement nomination for the office sought by the withdrawing candidate". In other words, if he had dropped out any time up till almost September, there would have been a contested election last November to replace him. Note that the key here is that Eckels was the only candidate on the ballot. Had there been a Democrat as well, we would have had a DeLay situation, in that the Republicans would not have been able to put up a replacement. But since an Eckels departure would have meant no candidates at all, as was the case with Vilma Luna in HD33, then both teams would have gotten to put in a sub.

What would have happened after the 74th day before Election Day? Eckels would have been barred from abandoning the race, meaning his name would have remained whether he still wanted the job or not. This is analogous to the situation in HD29 where the late Glenda Dawson remained on the ballot after her death. The difference here of course is that when her victory in November left that seat empty, an immediate special election to replace her was necessitated. With Eckels' sayonara act, a replacement is named and no vote is taken till next November.

Eckels' timing, however, may make it a little more difficult for Republicans to hold on to the seat, Radack said. He, Eckels and Eversole are the Commissioners Court's three Republicans.

"You increase your chances of losing the seat because there is an election in 2008 that we wouldn't otherwise have," Radack said. "He's put it in jeopardy."

[...]

Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill said the party regrets losing Eckels at the top of the county ticket because he is one of the GOP's top local vote getters. That's why Democrats didn't run anyone against him, Woodfill said. But depending on who the Republican nominee is in 2008, the GOP's chances could be just as strong.

"Politically, people could argue it both ways," Woodfill said. "We choose to look at it as an opportunity instead of a negative for the party. Right now, it's too early to tell whether it will hurt our ticket in 2008."

This is the critical thing. I guarantee you that Jared Woodfill would rather take his chances in 2008 with Ed Emmett or whoever else as the de facto incumbent than last November with no incumbent. That's why, no matter how Eckels cares to spin it, that his timing matters. Whenever it actually was that he decided he was bored with his job, he did what he could to give his party a leg up. Well played, Robert, well played.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on February 17, 2007 to Local politics