[calcowgirl]

According to California Code, when an attorney is on inactive status, they are still "a member." The issue is around the phrase "admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election."

Under Brown's interpretation, someone graduating law school and passing the bar in 2000, then immediately going "inactive", never practicing law, could still be eligible to run for Attorney General. That makes no sense to me.

[AmeriBrit]

He became "inactive" by choice, didn't pay his dues, didn't keep his education up till he decided he wanted to be A.G. and now he wants everyone to ignore the wording "immediately preceding" just to suit him. I think not. If he can't follow the law and read his own candidacy application right, how would he be as an A.G?

[goldstategop]

Exactly! The law applies specifically to this office and Brown didn't do his homework prior to filing candidacy papers for AG. Its not the voters fault he's ineligible; its his fault if their votes don't count because he broke the law. And the AG is the state's top law enforcement officer and it wouldn't be right to have someone serve who is above the law, right? I can see only one way the courts can rule and that's not good news for Brown. Precedent and case history aren't on his side here.

"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