|
Sat 10 Feb 2007 7:14
by Kevin McGehee
in Coweta County, GA
[Courting Disaster]
[Yippee-Ki-Yay!]
|
Does it all depend on what your definition of “active” is?
A judge on Friday denied a long-shot bid by GOP operatives to have state Attorney General Jerry Brown declared ineligible for office.
In a lawsuit first brought during Brown’s campaign last fall, several Republican Party officials claimed that Brown did not meet the qualification that an attorney general be an “uninterrupted, active member” of the State Bar for the five years prior to the primary election for the office. Brown, a Democrat, 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, allowing him to pay lower bar dues.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the change in status is “purely ministerial” and that “active status” is not a requirement.» Bee: Judge tosses anti-Brown suit
What am I missing here? Does the law say the attorney general must be “an ‘uninterrupted, active member’ of the State Bar for the five years prior to the primary election for the office,“ as claimed by the petitioners, or doesn’t it? And if it does, where does this judge get off ruling that a requirement of active status doesn’t really mean active status is required? “Purely ministerial” or not, it looks to me as though the law requires a certain status, and Brown didn’t meet the requirement.
Somebody with a grasp of non-Euclidean legal geometry (is that redundant?) is going to have to explain this to me.
Update: I just figured it out! The judge has determined that California law doesn’t require the attorney general to be qualified!
That actually does make sense. It being California.
|
