GOP seeks to disqualify Brown (Moonbeam not meeting minimum requirements for office?)

Sacramento Bee ^ | Wednesday, October 18, 2006 | Herbert A. Sample

[Names Ash Housewares]

OAKLAND - 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."

[Names Ash Housewares]

Anyone with legal insight into this?

Is Moonbeam unqualified?

[Defiant]

Sounds like Moonbeam is screwed. The Cal. Supremes still follow the law, usually. "Immediately preceding" means he doesn't get to count the 70s.

[goldstategop]

Yes, he can't be Attorney General since five years haven't lapsed since he reactivated his State Bar membership in 2003. Then again, regard for the law has never stopped the Democrats before.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Uriah_lost]

Michael Savage questions the timing.......heh

[Dems_R_Losers]

[CharlesWayneCT]

Note GOP is not "seeking to disqualify" Brown, they are simply saying that he is not qualified.

[RacerX1128]

I don't know about technically, but this leftie, Linda Rondstat lovin, anti-death penalty freak is a joke runnin for AG. But I live in a land of leftists so who knows if he gets in or not. Hope the Republicans come out on election day in CA. I know a lot of the cards are stacked against us but we still have to vote even if it's simply for rights to bitch about the Dems.

[Carry_Okie]

12166 - Posted by Mike Renberg on 2006-10-18 04:22:52 on Steve Frank's blog:

Qualifications for AG are set forth in Government Code Section 12503 -- No person eligible for office of AG unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Cal. Supreme Court for a perod of at least 5 years immediately preceeding election. Jerry Brown was on inactive status with State Bar from 1997 until May 1, 2003 when he went to active status again. Someone who is inactive with State Bar is generally prohibitted from engaging in the practice of law and cannot appear before the Court.

What is especially disturbing is not only did the Dimwits blow this, but the GOP "brain trust" (neither of which applies) didn't pick up on it either.

[kingu]

@*@& idiots... Why the *@*! did they let this out before election day? @**#! I was so looking forward to Arnold appointing a replacement if Brown won. Now they got a couple weeks to come up with a solution.

[My2Cents]

Prediction: he'll win, and will serve as AG.

[kingu]

Actually, I got a better prediction: CAGOP won't bother running commercials exposing this breach in the law, and a court will declare that the lawsuit was filed against the wrong party and that only the Secretary of State could proceed in such a case.

Thursday afternoon, these commercials should be rolling - quote the law, quote when Moonbat reactivated his license, then quote the campaign stating that the law doesn't matter. Anything less is just plain stupid, a hallmark of the state GOP.

[My2Cents]

Never underestimate the stupidity of the California Republican Party.

[Names Ash Housewares]

"Prediction: he'll win, and will serve as AG."


Some damn judge will say since no one caught it in time it's ok.

[My2Cents]

Yes, that's probably how it will go down. Now, if a Republican had pulled something like this, he/she'd be toast by the end of the day tomorrow.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

Does this mean the Republicans are actually going to take on the Moonbeams, or cut and run from the Democrat smear machine?

[FairOpinion]

WOW! Wouldn't that be something!


"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."


"for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his or her election "

Well, I am no lawyer, but if the five years IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING his election is to be taken literally, he isn't qualified. But I think one could argue that it refers to having at least 5 years of experience, not necessary all of it being immediately preceding.

My guess is that it won't hole up, but I wish it did.

[L.N. Smithee]

I am sure Brown will respond that his first act as Attorney General will be to prosecute himself to the fullest extent of the law.

[Defiant]

LOL. Savage will be bummed he wasted the dough--he's going to need it soon.

[Kay]

Are you kidding me? You already knew about this?

I'm just thrilled to hear there is a possibility the Jerry Brown could be thwarted. He has always been a disaster to California. E.g. Voted against victims's rights and for prisoner's rights -- giving prisoners rights that can't posted here. Defended serial killers & cop killers.

[kingu]

It was brought up on a now deleted post on an election law blog right after the name was submitted for the primary ballot. Consensus at the time was California was the wrong state to try to play around with, and hopes were that he'd bow out.