Posted on 10/24/2006 11:38:28 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO -- A judge Tuesday rejected a request by Republican activists for a preelection hearing on their bid to bar Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown from becoming attorney general if the Democrat wins Nov. 7.
Brown supporters declared victory and predicted that the lawsuit, which they called a "political stunt," would evaporate after his election day showdown with state Sen. Chuck Poochigian (R-Fresno).
Republican officials say they will continue to press for a hearing after the election to get a fair airing of their challenge to Brown's qualifications to hold office.
The activists focused their challenge on Brown's eligibility under a state law requiring that an attorney general be "admitted to practice" for five years immediately preceding election.
Brown passed the bar and was admitted to practice law in California in 1965, but for several years chose to pay a lower membership fee available to attorneys on inactive status, most recently because of his public duties as Oakland mayor.
The former two-term governor reestablished his active status in 2003, but the GOP activists argued that during the years he was inactive he was not allowed to practice and thus is ineligible to be attorney general.
They sought to bar the counting of votes for Brown in five California counties, including Los Angeles. Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang made her ruling at a closed hearing held in chambers.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
A Sacramento judge on Wednesday ruled that votes for Jerry Brown as attorney general should be counted, delivering a blow to a long-shot bid by Republican officials to have the Oakland mayor declared ineligible for the office.
Brown, the frontrunner in the race against Fresno state Sen. Chuck Poochigian, hailed the decision as proof that the suit was a political stunt.
It's an "incompetent effort to sabotage the democratic process and the judge summarily threw it out by saying come in after the election," he said in a phone interview.
The suit asked that Brown's votes not be counted because he does not meet the qualification that an attorney general be "admitted to practice" before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years. Brown, a former secretary of state and two-term governor, was admitted to the California State Bar in 1965. But he went on "inactive" status in January 1997 and did not reactivate until May 1, 2003, meaning he has only been on active status for 3 1/2 years.
Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang did not rule on the merits of the case. Rather, she told attorneys in a private meeting that the suit should follow the normal procedures that it not be heard until 16 days after the defendant is served with the suit, which has not happened yet.
The decision means the plaintiffs would have to contest the Nov. 7 election -- if Brown wins -- rather than seek to have the votes left uncounted.
Bad News ping!
"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
I'm sure if the lawsuit is successful, Schwarzenegger will appoint Poochigian. /s
"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
http://www.sacbar.org/members/saclawyer/may_june2003/chang.html
Newly-appointed Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang is a soft-spoken, unpretentious, slender woman of medium stature. She is eminently gracious and friendly. Born in Hawaii to third generation Chinese-Americans from Guangchou (formerly Canton), South China, Judge Chang grew up predominantly in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. She attended the University of Washington, the alma mater of both her parents, and, thereafter, opted for McGeorge Law School because of its international law program.
(snip)
Before her December 19, 2002 appointment, Judge Chang served as the Chief Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary for Governor Gray Davis. In that capacity, she advised the Governor and his staff on legal issues and pending litigation, provided direction to the Attorney General's Office on litigation involving the Governor, and reviewed and analyzed proposed legislation.
"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
Court Delays Hearing on the Merits
Brown Continues Avoidance Tactics
Hearing On Merits to be in Mid to Late NovemberToday the Court decided to delay the hearing on the merits of this case until after the election. The Court agreed that the Plaintiffs have post-election remedies but the Court stated that they are better pursued after the election.
The Court did NOT decide the merits of whether Brown is eligible to become Attorney General. That issue will be decided after the election pursuant to a motion to be filed by the Plaintiffs - if Chuck Poochigian does not beat Jerry Brown on election day.
We believe that a more reasoned decision is possible after the election in lieu of a potentially rushed decision before the election.
Further, despite the passage of 35 days from when Brown first looked at the issue, Brown has yet to provide any legal authority that the proper qualification standard for him is mere "admission to the Bar." The actual standard requires him [1] to "be qualified as an attorney [2] actually entitled to practice in the state courts." Since it would have been a crime for Brown to practice law for 2 out of the last 5 years due to his inactive license, we do not believe that Brown is eligible to be Attorney General.
We are disappointed with the ruling regarding the timing of the hearing on the merits. We believe that the voters of California had a right to know whether Mr. Brown was eligible for the office prior to the election.
Nevertheless, the case will continue to move forward on its merits. This court will decide at a later date our main contention that: Jerry Brown was not “admitted to practice before the Supreme Court” as the law requires for 5 years before the election and therefore he is ineligible to be Attorney General.
As you know, Jerry Brown has been doing everything he can to delay a court decision. Once again, in open Court, Brown's representatives refused to accept service and he fought holding an expedited hearing. In other words, Brown is and has been doing everything he can to avoid a ruling on the merits of his eligiblity. We think that speaks volumes as to who Jerry Brown really is.
This case remains very significant as indicated by the joinder of the Attorney General’s office and the Secretary of State’s office. It is also worth noting that Jerry Brown has made no attempt to dismiss the case.
In sum, the case will go forward and we have no intention of backing down. Nothing has taken away from the fact that Jerry Brown was unable to practice law for the requisite five straight years prior to the election nor that he is ineligible to be Attorney General.
Why? It's so common as to make such an exercise horribly repetitive.
"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
Not much subtlety to Judge Change, is there? She lets Brown get away with evading service, then later invokes the 16-day rule to keep him in the election. I can see why Gray Davis liked her.
Voting began weeks ago across the state. The GOP were pretty dumb to wait so late to challenge. Of course, if Brown wins, they can prevent him from getting into office. Presumably Arnold would have to appoint someone (other than Brown). Since Chuck would have lost, it isn't clear to me that he should be the person appointed to serve. I would go with someone who was not on the ballot but well qualified.
It starts in the selection process for law school.
The activists focused their challenge on Brown's eligibility under a state law requiring that an attorney general be "admitted to practice" for five years immediately preceding election.
If the above rule applies
Why was Brown allowed on the ballot in the first place?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.