Bill Dingus Makes Our Heads Hurt

Oh, elections. Someone wins, someone loses, right? Wrong. The ever-more complicated legal kerfuffle around Bill Dingus, Democratic challenger to House Speaker Tom Craddick for his Midland seat got even more complicated today. Grab a stiff drink and we'll begin.

First off, Dingus filed to run back in December, but then someone realized that, as mayor of Midland, he couldn't run because that counted as a lucrative office, and, under the Texas Supreme Court decision in Willis v. Potts (1964), in Texas you can't run for one lucrative office while you hold another. Ah, said the Texas Democratic Party, but League of United Latin American Counsel and the Black Advisory Council v. City of Midland (1996) says that doesn't apply to Midland office holders. So they took that to court, to head off any attempts to get Dingus thrown off the ballot, but then Judge Walter Smith said, no, that didn't apply here.

So who is Dingus suing now? The Texas Democratic Party, of course.

"Outside the judicial process, there is no one else in the election process between now and the election who has the authority to make a determination about Bill's eligibility," said Dingus' lawyer Max Renea Hicks (who represented the city of Austin and several Dems during redistricting). "And to date, the Democratic Party has not made a final, definitive statement either way."