Clayton Tucker
Attorneys for Clayton Tucker, the Democratic candidate running for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, on Tuesday accused his opponent, Nate Sheets, of being ineligible to serve in the position and is asking state Republican party leadership to review and potentially declare Sheets as ineligible for the election taking place in November.
In a letter sent to Texas GOP Chair D’rinda Randall, Tucker’s attorneys at Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez PLLC claim that Sheets lacks the experience to run for the office. Tucker’s team states that Texas law requires a prospective Agriculture Commissioner to be engaged for five of the last 10 years in “the business of agriculture.” Candidates can also be eligible if they have served five years of work at a government agency related to agriculture or at the Texas Agricultural Council, or if they’ve owned and operated a ranch or farm that qualifies as agricultural use for five years.
“The public record shows that Nathan Sheets is not qualified to serve as Texas’ next Agriculture Commissioner because he does not meet the criteria for that office as set forth in Texas law,” the letter reads.
Sheets responded to Tucker’s claims as a “last-ditch” effort to avoid losing the race.
“This is a fourth-quarter, last-ditch attempt by Clayton Tucker to avoid his imminent defeat at the ballot box,” Sheets said.
Sheets’ campaign team said it’s actually Tucker who does not qualify for the role, saying Tucker’s sworn financial paperwork shows his occupation as an organizer for the Trade Justice Education Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. On their website, Tucker is listed as a program associate.
Sheets’ team also linked to a YouTube link purportedly showing a screenshot from what they claim is Tucker’s now-deleted LinkedIn page. The screenshot shows a line of work related to politics.
According to the statement by Sheets’ campaign, “…[Tucker] has spent the last decade running for office or working in politics, not making his living farming or ranching.”
Tucker’s attorneys cite a number of records to prove their claims against Sheets, including that he has owned Honey Rock Ranch In Burnet for four years — not five — and that the 10,000-acre ranch is owned by an LLC and not Sheets directly. They also claim his honey company, Nature Nate’s, does not produce crops as it uses honey that has come from other beekeepers. Even if it did, the attorneys claim, honey is not considered a crop and bees are not considered livestock.
The legal team gave the Texas GOP three business days to respond and publicly share their findings and conclusions to Texas voters.
Here’s the press release the Tucker campaign sent out about this. I had heard there were questions about Sheets’ eligibility a couple months ago – I forget who was the source of this for me – but there was no documentation to go with it, and so I forgot about it till now. On the one hand, it’s an interesting question, one that I don’t recall coming up before now. On the other hand, I rather doubt that the Texas GOP Chair is going to come back with “yep, you’re right, he totally doesn’t meet the statutory requirements, our bad”, and even if she did it’s past the point where someone can be removed from the ballot. I mean, mail ballots have already been sent, so Nate Sheets will be there regardless of what happens next. And even if he were to be declared ineligible – by a court, at some point, I suppose – it would mean that the office would be vacant in the event Sheets won. That would mean the Governor would appoint someone, and there would be a special election in 2028. (I’m assuming the appointment part, as that is the case for other statewide offices.)
In other words, I’m not sure why this didn’t come out sooner, like when I first got wind of it, when Sheets could have been bounced from the ballot. But then, if he were truly ineligible, then I would think the GOP could pick a replacement candidate, as they could have if he had died or been appointed to some other political office. So maybe that answers my own question, and from a strategic perspective it was better to unleash this as a late September surprise. And hey, maybe it will be Governor Gina Hinojosa making that appointment. That would be nice. Or of course Tucker could win and render it all moot. That would also be nice. In the meantime, I’m going to do a closer reading of that letter and try to understand the laws in question better. What do you think?