Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/41972.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/111/stor y/41972.html</a> >>Republicans are set to file a lawsuit Thursday in Sacramento County Superior Court that seeks to disqualify Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown from holding the state attorney general's office. The suit, to be filed by Tom Del Beccaro, chairman of the Contra Costa County GOP, will assert that Brown, a Democrat, will run afoul of a state law if he wins next month because he reactivated his status in the State Bar in May 2003. Government Code section 12503 declares that no person is eligible to be attorney general unless "he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his or her election to the office." Del Becarro would not comment. But Ace Smith, Brown's campaign consultant, called the lawsuit desperate and specious. "This is a frivolous lawsuit," Smith said. "The law is very clear. You need to be admitted to the bar, and Brown was admitted to the bar nearly half a century ago." Smith said the campaign of state Sen. Chuck Poochigian, the Fresno Republican who is seeking the attorney general post, may be responsible for the lawsuit. But a Poochigian campaign spokesman said that was not true. "We're not a plaintiff in the lawsuit," said Seth Unger. "We support it." In an e-mail, Unger added, "These are serious charges that should be adjudicated. The Brown campaign's response doesn't address the merits of the case. It sounds like they're panicked over the probability that their candidate isn't qualified." Brown was first admitted to the bar in June 1965, according to the organization's Web site. His status became inactive in January 1992, and active again four years later. In January 1997, however, Brown's status again became inactive. He reactivated his status on May 1, 2003. Smith said he did not know why Brown's status became inactive in 1997. Kareem Clayton, a University of Southern California Law School professor who specializes in election law, said Del Becarro may have a point. "It's not obvious that they are wrong," Clayton said. "It depends on whether 'have been admitted to practice' becomes operable when you are only active vs. when you are inactive."<< And what happens if the courts rule Jerry Brown has not been eligible to practice the five years immediately preceding his or her election to the office??? Another election if Jerry Brown wins? The person with the second most votes wins?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>And what happens if the courts rule Jerry Brown has not been eligible to practice the five years immediately preceding his or her election to the office??? Another election if Jerry Brown wins? The person with the second most votes wins?<< I believe the new governor would get to nominate someone to serve as Acting Attorney General.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://politicalvanguard.com/index.php?id=publisherscorner" target="_blank">http://politicalvanguard.com/i ndex.php?id=publisherscorner</a> >>All of which brings us to Jerry Brown. He wants to be our Attorney General. It is important to note that, according to California Constitution: “It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced.†Indeed, the enforcement of our laws in a dispassionate, uniform and fair manner is the central role of the Attorney General. Unfortunately for Jerry Brown, it is also the law of this state that no one is eligible to be Attorney General: “unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.†The law is NOT as Brown’s consultant told the Sacramento Bee last night that Brown need only be “admitted to the bar.†There is a difference and the law matters. Brown’s consultant either misreads the law or knows full well that Jerry Brown does not meet the minimum qualifications for election as Attorney General. In fact, for whatever reason, Jerry Brown chose not to meet the basic requirement for the full five years. Brown has only had an active law license for about 3 ½ years, far less than the minimum five years required. When his law license was inactive, Brown could not appear as a lawyer before any of California’s courts. According to our Supreme Court: “An inactive member of the State Bar, of course, is not entitled to practice law, and the involuntary enrollment of an attorney on inactive status thus operates as a temporary suspension from the practice of law.â€[1] Further, our Supreme Court also ruled, in a similar case – reviewing the same requirement and operative language, that if an attorney is under suspension, that attorney specifically does not meet the above eligibility requirement.[2] Why did our California Supreme Court rule that way? Because, according to the Supreme Court: It is self-evident, we think, that said provision requires as a fundamental qualification . . . that the candidate for such position be qualified as an attorney actually entitled to practice in the state courts. Brown was not so qualified.<<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder A similar tactic was tried with L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. It lost. Also with a recent L.A. Superior Court judge race. That lost too. What could likely happen here is the code section will be interpreted as a candidate for attorney general has to have at least five years of experience practicing law, instead of being "active" for the last five years. That prevents completely unqualified candidates from running for office. Moreover, technically speaking, judges and commissioners are on "inactive" status with the state bar. Does that prevent them from deciding cases? No.
