Democrats Elect Texas Candidate Despite Conviction and Campaign Suspension

By

Democrat Ericka Lomick Wins Texas House Race After Suspending Campaign, but Felony Eligibility Questions Remain

A Democratic candidate who suspended her campaign weeks before Election Day has won a closely contested Texas House race, creating an unusual legal and political situation in House District 93. Ericka Lomick defeated Republican Alan Blaylock despite questions surrounding a reported federal felony conviction that could make her ineligible to serve under Texas law.

Unofficial election results show Lomick receiving 38,972 votes, or approximately 50.53%, compared with 38,162 votes, or 49.47%, for Blaylock. Her margin was 810 votes.

The outcome has drawn attention because Lomick announced in late September that she was suspending her campaign after questions emerged about her eligibility. Her name nevertheless remained on the November 3 ballot because the deadline for removing candidates had passed.

The controversy centers on federal court records from North Carolina describing a 2011 conviction involving mortgage-fraud conspiracy, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. According to reporting by CBS News Texas and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a person identified in those records as Ericka Lomick was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison.

Whether those records conclusively establish the identity and legal status of the Texas candidate remains a central question in the dispute. Political officials and attorneys are reviewing the matter, and no final public determination has established whether Lomick qualifies to take the seat.

Lomick suspended her campaign before Election Day

Lomick had been the Democratic nominee for Texas House District 93, which includes parts of Fort Worth, Haslet, Blue Mound and Saginaw in Tarrant County.

Her campaign ended active campaigning in September after questions about her background and eligibility became public. The announcement said she was stepping aside to allow voters to choose someone who could serve without the controversy surrounding her candidacy.

The campaign suspension did not remove her name from the ballot. Texas election procedures set deadlines for withdrawing candidates and changing ballots, meaning voters could still select Lomick even though she was no longer actively campaigning.

The situation became more complicated because voters in District 93 were deciding two contests on the same day. One was the regular general election for the next full term, while the other was a special election to complete the unexpired term of former state Rep. Nate Schatzline, who left the Legislature during the summer.

Lomick won both contests, according to reported unofficial results. That means the eligibility issue could affect both the immediate vacancy and the district’s representation in the next legislative term.

Federal court records raise questions about a 2011 conviction

The eligibility controversy emerged after a political action committee supporting Blaylock publicized records concerning a federal criminal case in North Carolina.

The records describe a defendant named Ericka Lomick, also reported in connection with the name Ericka Flood, who pleaded guilty to offenses involving mortgage fraud, bank fraud and money-laundering conspiracy. The reported sentence included 63 months in federal prison.

CBS News Texas reported that federal court documents it obtained showed Lomick was convicted of the three felonies in 2011. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram also reported that federal court records identified an Ericka Lomick convicted in the North Carolina case.

The distinction is important because the legal question is not simply whether a person with the same name was convicted. Officials must establish that the records relate to the candidate and determine whether she has received a pardon or other legal relief that restores eligibility under Texas law.

Lomick previously told the Fort Worth Report that she had never been convicted of a crime in any state, according to earlier coverage. After the records became an issue, she suspended her campaign. Her public campaign announcement did not provide a detailed explanation of the criminal-record allegations.

Lomick has since said she is awaiting guidance from legal counsel. She has not publicly provided a detailed account resolving the questions about the North Carolina records.

What Texas law says about convicted felons holding office

The central legal provision is Section 141.001 of the Texas Election Code. It states that a person is not eligible to be a candidate for, or elected or appointed to, public elective office in Texas if that person has been finally convicted of a felony and has not been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities.

The law makes an important distinction between the right to vote and eligibility to hold public office. Texas generally restores voting eligibility after a person completes the punishment phase of a felony sentence, including incarceration, parole, supervision or probation.

That does not automatically restore eligibility to run for state office. The Texas Secretary of State’s guidance specifically says that completing a sentence alone is not enough to regain the ability to become a candidate. A pardon or other release from the legal disabilities associated with the conviction is required.

Consequently, if the North Carolina conviction belongs to the Texas candidate and no qualifying legal relief applies, the conviction could prevent her from serving in the Legislature.

However, the legal process still matters. Section 145.004 of the Texas Election Code provides that a candidate’s entitlement to a place on the ballot or a certificate of election is not affected by a judicial determination of ineligibility until the judgment declaring the candidate ineligible becomes final.

Section 145.005 addresses what happens when an ineligible candidate remains on the ballot. Votes cast for that candidate are counted in the same manner as votes for other candidates. If the candidate receives enough votes to win, the resulting vacancy is filled through the regular legal process.

That means the election result and the eventual question of who can legally occupy the seat are separate matters. Lomick’s vote total does not by itself resolve her eligibility, and a possible disqualification would not automatically transfer her votes to Blaylock.

Democratic officials and lawyers review the situation

Democratic Party officials in Tarrant County have said they are consulting attorneys and communicating with Lomick’s campaign as they assess the legal questions.

Tarrant County Democratic Party Chair Allison Campolo told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that party officials were working with legal counsel to determine whether Lomick could legally serve. Campolo said there was no established timetable for a final determination.

Lomick also told the newspaper that her campaign was awaiting legal guidance and that she appreciated the election outcome.

Blaylock, meanwhile, said the unofficial results did not settle who would ultimately represent the district. He argued that voters should be represented by a candidate who meets the legal requirements for office and said he was pursuing available legal avenues.

The dispute could involve election officials, attorneys and potentially the courts. The Texas Secretary of State’s office has published guidance on felony convictions and candidate eligibility, but the application of that guidance to Lomick depends on the underlying records and any documentation of legal relief.

What happens if Lomick is declared ineligible?

Related Posts

Scroll to Top