President of the County Chairman’s Association
Board Member, California Republican Party
Chairman, Contra Costa Republican Party
Brown Continues Avoidance Tactics
Hearing On Merits to be in Mid to Late November
Today 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 and that they are better pursued after 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 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 five years prior to the election nor that he is ineligible to be Attorney General.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Not a huge setback, just procedural. Too bad an invalid candidate gets to disturb an election.
As GC 12503 states,
“No person shall be eligible to the office of Atty. 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 election or appointment to such office.”
The use of the phrasing “admitted … for a period” clearly means that such admission is not a mere momentary transition of status or ‘crossing the bar’ (so to speak :))
Rather, it is state of continuum for the period specified. If it were intended to be otherwise – that is, the way JB asserts – this is mighty curious and tortured phrasing for something like “admitted… over five years ago”.
If the legislature had wanted that latter meaning they could have readily employed that phrasing, or other similar phrasing, that is much different than what is read in GC 12503.
Laws and regulations ‘legislative intent’ must initially be due to a plain reading, and have their meaning extracted ‘on their face’. The plain language is the intent, unless it’s so murky as to offer multiple meanings.
In particular, the Secy of State controls elections matters, and would himself be using GC12503 as his guidepost. In Highland Ranch v. Agricultural Relations Board (1981, 29Cal.3d 848-859), “Both this court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized on numerous occasions that ‘the construction of a statute by the officials charged with its administration must be given great weight.’” Thus, the
SecState & and his office may carry more weight in determining this than the AG, since Sec State is
really the ultimate standards-determining gatekeeper for acceptance or rejection of a candidate in statewide election.
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA