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.
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.