5-Day Storm Ends Ericka Lomick’s HD 93 Bid

Austin, TX – Ericka Lomick has suspended her campaign for Texas House District 93, ending a candidacy that came under intense scrutiny after independent journalist Sarah J. Fields reported on Lomick’s federal criminal history and raised questions about what the Democratic candidate disclosed on her campaign application.

Lomick’s campaign issued a press release Monday, Sept. 21, confirming the suspension. The announcement came one day after Fields published her report concerning Lomick’s past federal conviction. The timing is difficult to miss, although Lomick’s statement does not explicitly say the reporting caused her decision.

“After careful consideration, I have made the decision to suspend my campaign for House District 93,” Lomick said in the release. “Although this was not an easy decision, I am convinced that it was the right one for the people of HD 93.”

The release says Lomick decided to “step aside” after questions arose about her eligibility to serve as the district’s elected representative. It does not identify those questions in detail, but they came immediately after Fields’ reporting on Lomick’s criminal history.

Fields’ reporting deserves full attribution here because she was the independent journalist who brought the issue into the public conversation. Sarah J. Fields on Facebook

And this wasn’t simply a case of somebody finding an old rumor on the internet.

Federal records identify Ericka L. Flood, aka Ericka Lomick, as a defendant in a 2010 federal mortgage-fraud investigation in North Carolina. The Dallas Express reported that federal records confirm the identity connection and that Lomick later challenged her conviction while incarcerated.

The FBI’s 2010 announcement identified Flood as a mortgage broker and promoter and said she faced charges involving conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud, bank fraud, money-laundering conspiracy and concealment money laundering.

Federal appellate records subsequently identify “Ericka L. Flood, a/k/a Ericka Lomick” in the same criminal matter. The Fourth Circuit’s 2013 proceeding involved a post-conviction challenge under 28 U.S.C. §2255, and the court dismissed the appeal because it was not timely filed.

The reported sentence was substantial.

According to reporting published by The Dallas Express and research released by Protect and Serve Texas PAC, Lomick entered a plea agreement in January 2011 and received concurrent federal prison sentences, including a 63-month sentence. The Dallas Express independently confirmed the federal case while attributing the sentencing details to the PAC’s research.

Then came the question that appears to have changed the trajectory of the campaign.

Fields reported that Lomick’s candidate paperwork indicated she had answered “no” to a question concerning a felony conviction, despite the federal record documenting her criminal case and incarceration. That is a serious factual question, but the actual application and the precise wording of the question should remain central to any examination of the issue.

Pipkins Reports has requested a copy of Lomick’s ballot application, but as of publication has not yet received a copy for verification.

There is another allegation involving a purported $300,000 federal lien filed in Tarrant County in 2024. Protect and Serve Texas PAC has alleged that the lien relates to restitution arising from the federal case. The Dallas Express, however, reported that it had not independently verified the current status of the alleged lien.

Lomick had been the Democratic nominee for HD 93 after running unopposed in the March Democratic primary. Tarrant County election records show her receiving 14,122 votes in the primary.

She was scheduled to face Republican Alan Blaylock in November. HD 93 presents an unusual election situation this year because the district is scheduled to appear twice on the Nov. 3 ballot, once for the regular House term and again in a special election concerning the remainder of former Rep. Nate Schatzline’s term.

Now Lomick says she is stepping aside.

Her press release thanked her campaign staff, volunteers, donors and voters, saying her commitment to the district remains unchanged.

What happens next is a matter for Texas election officials and the Democratic Party. A campaign suspension is not, by itself, the same thing as removing a candidate’s name from a ballot.

For voters, though, the episode illustrates something basic about political campaigns: candidate histories can withstand years of obscurity until somebody starts looking.

Sometimes it takes an independent journalist with a stack of records and a willingness to ask uncomfortable questions. Fields did exactly that. And within days, the campaign was over.