Why Cuellar & Mitchell Should Stay Put (For Now)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)

Politics is an unusual beast because it's one that combines pragmatism with principle.  You can believe something with your whole heart, be faced with two options, and realize that one side is better than the other even if it's not the most ethical.  This is actually true of all of life-adulthood is frequently about choosing between two imperfect paths, and making decisions based on those choices, even in some cases you're, for example, choosing money over happiness or career over love.  I was struck by this with two political pieces of news that came out this past week surrounding two Democratic politicians: Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX) and State Sen. Nicole Mitchell (MN).

To give you a bit of grounding (in case you haven't heard about either of these stores), both of these two Democratic politicians are facing criminal investigations presently, and in both cases now have indictments they are fighting in court.  In Cuellar's case, the longtime Democratic politician is charged with accepting $600,000 in bribes, facing charges of bribing a federal official and money laundering.  Cuellar reportedly received bribes from companies in Azerbaijan and Mexico to help both of these entities as a member of Congress.  Pretty serious charges, and not that dissimilar to those faced by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), which will come up in a second but I'll mention it now since I have called for him to resign in the past.

Mitchell, on the other hand, is charged with first-degree burglary.  The state senator, first sworn into the State Senate just last year, broke into her stepmother's home after the death of her father, in hopes of taking some items of personal value that her stepmother had been keeping, including her late father's ashes (in this case, a really good reminder that every adult over 25 should have a will written, and it should not be a surprise to those mentioned in the will what they will be getting).

In both Cuellar & Mitchell's cases, neither of them are (at this point) offering to resign from their current offices, and while there are members of their parties who are critical or "concerned" for the most part their same-party colleagues are not asking for their resignations.  In cases of their leadership, it seems clear they want to "let the law do what it needs to" situation more than anything else, rather than voting to expel or putting more pressure on them to resign.  This might seem hypocritical, particularly of Democrats who have made a point of going after certain politicians (particularly Donald Trump and George Santos) to resign from office given facing indictments of their own.  But I'm going to be honest-I kind of get the hypocrisy, and might even condone it a little bit.

I'll back up by saying that I don't really like Henry Cuellar (he is way too moderate, particularly on social issues, for my taste, and I'm still a bit mad at him for challenging Rep. Ciro Rodriguez in the 2004 primaries, which he won by only 58 votes, as Rodriguez was more progressive than Cuellar).  He's arguably my least favorite Democrat in Congress (give or take Krysten Sinema and Jared Moskowitz).  And Mitchell...I had never heard of Mitchell before this story even though I'm from Minnesota.  But I also understand what's at stake here, and am reluctant to cede ground that I know Republicans wouldn't.

State Sen. Nicole Mitchell (D-MN)

Cuellar is already our nominee for the House in TX-28 in November; Texas does their primaries early, and they also don't have a mechanism to remove the nominee in the case of resignation.  Therefore, we're kind of stuck with Cuellar or nothing in November.  If he's charged (and he may well be charged), he's going to have to resign regardless, but it's entirely possible that he won't know that until well after the election.  Cuellar is popular, and given the anti-establishment trends of his district, it's possible that if he is on the ballot in November, he'll win, even by a slimmer margin.  This is a red-trending district that's still one Biden will likely win in November, albeit by less than he did four years ago.  Essentially giving that to the Republicans on a silver platter, especially in a House majority situation where every seat matters and where if we wait we might only have to give up the seat for a few months rather than the full two years...it'd be easier & more practical to wait until after November given how much is at stake.

The same can be said for Mitchell.  Currently the Democrats hold a trifecta in the state of Minnesota, with control of the governor's mansion, State Senate, & State House.  The Minnesota legislative session should hold through May 20th (or longer if the governor called for a special session), and the State Senate is only controlled by one-vote (34D-33R).  This means that if Mitchell resigns, they'll give up their trifecta at least until her special election (and until at least 2026 if the Democrats lost her suburban seat), possibly for the bulk of 2024.  That's a big loss, particularly as the Minnesota State House is up in November (where Republicans could win back control), and this is the first trifecta the Democrats have had in a generation.  Until Mitchell is convicted (or becomes too politically toxic to carry)...why give that up?

These are loaded questions, and they deserve a bit of "hypocrite!" calling from the Republicans, but I'll be honest-it also just feels logical, and slightly different than Santos, Trump, or Menendez.  In the case of Santos, this was a lost cause seat for the GOP.  Unlike Cuellar, there was no way he'd win in November, and while a special election would mean a few months with one less seat, the majority wasn't in jeopardy, and the press's coverage of his erratic behavior was making him untenable to keep in the House.  This was a case where there was virtually nothing at risk.  Menendez, again, would be replaced by a Democrat (also, he had a longer history of shading dealings than Cuellar or Mitchell had).  Calling for his resignation there's nothing to lose-we have to vote for his replacement in November anyway.

And Trump...what Trump did is far worse than Cuellar or Mitchell.  As the president, he encouraged a coup, and has actively said he would not honor the basic tenants of democracy.  That is worse than anything the aforementioned people have done-or-said.  If Trump was a Democrat, I would've wanted him to resign and certainly would've wanted him to step down as our nominee.  There is a line in pencil, and then there's another line in ink that it's not worth the political gains to avoid the consequences (also, it's worth noting that the Republicans would have a better shot with another nominee, and had Trump resigned while in office, would've still had the presidency...they risked very little on-paper by getting rid of him).  The unfortunate thing, though, is that when it comes to people like Cuellar & Mitchell, they occupy positions so great, a wait-and-see approach is worth it even if you are admittedly dealing with some hypocrisy.