The legal qeustion concerns whether or not the AG’s “elected” terms are, as a matter of law, considered contiguous, or if each is separate, indpendent of each other and does not constitue a legally contigous office holding.
If all the terms are considered contiguous, then matters concerning terms before his recent “re-election” are matters within the law’s scope of scrutiny concerning “while in office”.
I think Abbott could lose on that legal question. He is and he was AG, contiguously.
elections are not contiguous. They are each stand alone, independent of each other, and not interrelated.