Though we may not understand the reason(s) Kenny Arredondo Loyola chose to decline the seat on the Washington County Quorum Court to which he was duly elected (see above), we'd be the last to suggest he has an obligation to serve if his concerns are serious enough to even consider stepping aside.
Whatever they were, it is unfortunate that the factors leading to his decision weren't discussed or given more weight by his party or in his own deliberations before he filed to run. Granted, as the political parties' push to compete in just about every race on the ballot, sometimes all a potential candidate has to do is fog a mirror. But Loyola's refusal to campaign or answer questions about himself seemed disrespectful to the electorate.
The Republican in the race, Bill Ussery, had to defeat a challenger in the GOP primary last spring. He earned his way onto the General Election ballot the hard way. He'd served previously on the Quorum Court for six years.
And yet the people of Springdale's District 4 picked Loyola, not knowing he would decline to serve. And, according to the lawyers, that meant the incumbent, who did not seek re-election, gets to keep the job.
Here's a question we have for state lawmakers, who are meeting in their regular legislative session in Little Rock these days: Does it seem right that Judith Yanez, who didn't want to serve, will be in office for two more years by default? Or that the only candidate who was willing to serve, again, is left out in the cold?
Loyola got 1,030 votes in November. Ussery received 898. Yanez received zero, because she wasn't even on the ballot, and yet she's one who gets to serve?
If Loyola had taken the oath of office then stepped down, selection of a replacement would have been the governor's job. Perhaps because the governor's a Republican while Loyola and Yanez are Democrats played a role.
Not that it was by Yanez's design, but does it bother any legislators that state law allows an incumbent who chose not to be on the ballot to nonetheless retain the office? To suggest an unlikely scenario, could an incumbent stay in office forever, no matter how unpopular, as long as the party's winning nominee refuses to take the oath?
It seems an appointment or a special election ought to factor into this strange tale.
What say you, state Legislature?