Looks like the winner of the “Who Wants To Be Harris County Judge?” competition at the Tuesday Commissioners’ Court meeting will be former State Rep. and complete unknown Ed Emmett.
While some in the Republican grass roots have pushed for a better-known figure with more established conservative credentials, all four county commissioners said Friday they anticipate that Emmett will be named county judge at the panel’s Tuesday meeting.
Eckels, who has a vote on his successor, strongly hinted that he would support Emmett, saying he would recommend a person acceptable to commissioners.
“He will be able to bridge the personal and philosophical differences on the court,” Eckels said. “He clearly already has — he has four of the (court members) saying they like him.”
Republicans Jerry Eversole and Steve Radack said they will vote for Emmett. Democrat El Franco Lee, who served in the state House with Emmett and speaks well of him, said he won’t cast a symbolic partisan vote against him if he has the support of the Commissioners Court GOP majority — Eckels, Eversole and Radack.
Democrat Sylvia Garcia likely will cast the lone vote against Emmett, who intends to run in the 2008 election to complete Eckels’ term. She said he impressed her during a meeting, but she opposes voting for a person who intends to seek election to the office.
The appointee should be “a caretaker,” rather than someone who will run with the advantage of incumbency, she said.
I’ve said before, and I still believe, that Commissioners Lee and Garcia should vote against the Chosen One to make the point that this whole thing is a farce. Having said that, if Lee’s vote for Emmett makes it less likely that Jared Woodfill gets to be the kingmaker, then I can at least live with it. And I applaud Garcia for pegging the issue correctly. This should not be a succession ceremony.
Emmett could face Bacarisse, among others, in what’s expected to be a spirited GOP primary a year from now. A “draft Charles Bacarisse” Web site already is supporting his candidacy.
Bring it on. As long as Bacarisse steps down in time to allow for a Democrat to file for his office in 2008, that’s fine by me.
One last thing:
Garcia asked the county attorney’s office to research whether Eckels should get to vote on his successor after he submits a letter of resignation.
“It goes against common sense,” she said.
County Attorney Mike Stafford said under the state constitution, office holders can resign and create a vacancy, but they become “holdovers” who continue to serve until their successors assume office. As a holdover, Eckels has voting privileges — he’s still the county judge, Stafford said.
I’ve heard some rumblings about this. I’m not sure if I buy this, but I suppose if Lee is on Emmett’s side it’s a moot point anyway. Were that not the case, it’d be interesting to know what the method for filling a vacancy would be. And on a side note, if the Court changes course and taps Bettencourt or Bacarisse instead, does Stafford’s ruling imply that the newly-promoted gentleman could name his own replacement? How would that work?
Of course Stafford would have this opinion: the republican majority in Commissioners Court put him there mid-term. God knows he couldn’t pull it off on his own in a Republican Primary. He kept it via incumbency – as Ed will – that is until Eckels taps him for a private-sector opening mid-term. (The $64,000 question: which republican will Ed pick as his successor in mid-term 2012?)
Garcia will not realize her full potential as a County Commissioner until she can shake her city government logic: the County Attorney is accountable to the voter – not Commissioners Court. Considering Stafford’s background, Garcia – elected, not appointed, and apparently an attorney herself, would probably be better off not seeking Stafford’s opinions. Those opinions are only an outlet to underscore the opinions of those she is not voting with.
Let me start by saying I haven’t researched the Constitution and case law like County Attorney Stafford surely has, but my impression is it seems illogical for a resigned former office holder to vote to fill the vacancy his resignation caused. I’m sure there is a clear distinction between a true holdover incumbent whose term has expired or who has term-limited (but who has not “resigned” and who has not yet, for whatever reason, been replaced) and an office holder who has outright resigned prior to his natural term expiring. I dont see how a resigned office holder can still be holding over a vacant office. The office is, after all, “vacant.” That has to mean something. As an example, we’ve just had two members of the 7-member Galveston City Council leave office prematurely – i.e., before their terms naturally expired, and they are gone – they can’t vote on anything. The seats are….vacant. City business – including the calling of an election to fill the vacancies – is being done by the remaining five council members. The plain meaning of resignation and vacancy flies in the face of a resigned office-holder voting for his or her replacement. Right?
So, now I’ve done the research, albeit briefly. Attorney General Opinion M-659 (1970) appears to be the authority that says a resignation isn’t fully effective until the successor is appointed and qualified, and that the resigned officeholder shall “holdover” until the successor is qualified.
Bettencourt doesn’t want to be County Judge. He wants to be Congressman CD-22. While Emmett will have $1m in vendo money immediately Bacarisse is as popular as can be before Republicans.
The meeting Monday night is open to the public starting at 6:30 pm at HCC SW on US 59