In a weekend editorial about the possible early departure of Judge Robert Eckels, the Chronicle Editorial LiveJournalists made a couple of statements about upcoming elections that raised questions.
Here’s the first assertion:
If he does quit, Eckels will be following in the footsteps of Houston at-large Councilwoman Shelley Sekula Gibbs, who bailed out midway through her two-year term to become an instant lame duck in Congress in December. Sekula Gibbs finished out the term of former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, who also had resigned his position. Sekula Gibb’s maneuver will cost Houston taxpayers several million dollars. State law mandates that she be replaced in an expensive special election that will take place next month.
The Chronicle previously reported that the special election to which the Editorial LiveJournalists refer has been scheduled for May.
Here’s the second assertion:
The idea that voters will not be able to vote on a replacement for nearly four years is repugnant. At minimum, Eckels and fellow commissioners should choose an interim who will pledge not to stand for election, so no candidate will have the advantage of incumbency in 2010.
While we obviously have some sympathy for the idea that the best time to decide to take an offer from the private sector would have been before the last election, is it a decided matter that an interim appointment will serve until 2010?
Kristen Mack’s reporting for the Chronicle is unclear:
Someone appointed to the job would have the advantage of incumbency in running next year to complete Eckels’ term or in 2010 for a full term.
Reader participation time — A replacement would serve until an election to fill Eckels’ term (if he resigns early), correct? Or would an appointee be granted the full term (nearly four years, as the Editorial LiveJournalists assert)?
UPDATE (02-13-2007): The Chronicle posted a correction today.
