City Hall Hustle: McCracken's Gambit

While the May City Council races are heating up – with Bill Spelman drawing challenger Sandy Baldridge (for Place 5), and Perla Cavazos, Rick Cofer, and Chris Riley vying for The Seat Yet to Be Vacated (Lee Leffingwell's Place 1) – it's been all quiet on the mayoral front since the tit for tat last month of Brewster McCracken's official kickoff and the announcement of the Draft Lee Leffingwell for Mayor campaign. It was quiet, quiet enough to make council watchers wonder if rumored challenges to Leffingwell's announcement might not occur – i.e., intimations that the timing of Leffing­well's expected January campaign kickoff might trigger a special election for his Place 1 seat.

McCracken made good on the rumor. Within days of what's thought to be the earliest Leffingwell could declare his candidacy without triggering that special election – Jan. 9, 120 days before the May 9 election – word broke of a memo co-authored by McCracken, an attorney, to the city law department questioning his opponent's timing. McCracken's memo, "Law governing replacement election dates," points to election rules from the Texas Attorney General's Office regarding the window in which an elected official can resign his seat to run for higher office without initiating a special election. It specifically cites a provision that the newly open seat must be "filled within 120 days after the vacancy occurs," and with a crowded field of candidates likely to file for Leffingwell's seat, a run-off seems likely. Therefore, the memo none too subtly implies, the 120-day window should count back from the possible June 13 run-off instead of the May 9 general election – which would bump Leffingwell's announcement to the middle of February, delivering a considerable campaign advantage to McCracken. Does the argument hold water? It cites a 2006 proposition aligning city election dates with state election laws as proof "the City took the position that it had a duty to factor in the runoff date in determining when it could ensure a seat would be filled."

Leffingwell says the Texas Constitution succinctly spells out the city's responsibilities: "It says very clearly that the responsibility is to call an election within 120 days," and nothing about run-off elections and the like. "I think that's clear enough language, and I'm satisfied that if I were to make an announcement within 120 days of the scheduled election for May 9, that it would not trigger the necessity to call a special election." As for an A.G. opinion the memo cites, Leffingwell calls the finding "case specific," and says, "even in that opinion ... they never refer to the need to allow for a run-off." So, can Leffingwell say whether the memo might impact his plans without tipping his hand? "Well, I wouldn't go so far to say I've intended to make an announcement," he says, cognizant of the fact he can't announce ... yet. "I'm seriously considering it and all that stuff, but this memo will not affect any decision that I make. ... It's my understanding that the memo was written by Council Member McCracken and a friend of his," Leffingwell says, referencing In Fact Daily's reporting that William Heyer, McCracken's "friend from law school," helped write it. "I prefer to take my legal advice from my own sources and use my own common sense, and the conclusion I've reached is that the memo would not have any impact on any plans that I might or might not have had."

What happens next? Believing right's on his side, Leffing­well has no incentive to stop, meaning any onus to contest his announcement rests with McCracken. It's easy to see his gambit backfiring – or as Leffingwell consultant Mark Nathan more memorably puts it, appearing as "petty political shit that most people hate. Voters want to see leadership not gamesmanship, and I think most people will see this as falling in the latter category." McCracken consultant Christian Archer says: "A special election will cost taxpayers close to $1 million. It is a basic responsibility of any elected official to ask the city attorney what the law is instead of hoping or guessing. Brewster McCracken asked the question. That's his job. Lee Leffingwell said he wouldn't trigger a special election. You'll have to ask him whether he asked the city attorney for this information." (For the record, the City Clerk's office pegs the cost of the May election and run-off as not any cheaper than $799,000 and $674,000, respectively.)

The necessity of a special election (or lack thereof) is already emerging as a campaign issue elsewhere, with Chris Riley stating, "The city's obligation is simply to hold an election within 120 days after the seat is vacated." Leffingwell must be comforted by his built-in constituency – the candidates eyeing his seat.

Council returns next week. Until then, e-mail your resolutions to the Hustle: [email protected].