On October 26, the Republican nominee for Connecticut Attorney General, Martha Dean, brought a lawsuit in state court to disqualify her Democratic opponent, George Jepsen. See this story.
Earlier this year, the Connecticut Supreme Court had ruled that Susan Bysiewicz, the Democratic Secretary of State who wanted to run for Attorney General this year, does not meet the statutory qualifications to be Attorney General. Although the Supreme Court issued its conclusion in May, it didn’t explain itself until last week. When the decision came down, it said that no one is qualified to be Attorney General unless the person has litigated cases in court for ten years. Dean charges that Jepsen does not qualify because he allegedly does not have ten years of experience trying cases. He is an attorney who has been “of counsel” for many lawsuits. That means he advises the attorneys who are actually doing the litigating.
The ballots have already been printed, so Dean is asking that the election for Attorney General be postponed. There is a third nominee on the ballot for Attorney General, Stephen Fournier. He is the Green Party nominee.
Laches now.
Quo Warranto – Civil Action later if and when Jepsen is elected.
How many cases will be filed on 1 Nov to stop all or part of any election on 2 Nov — by a MORON plaintiff ???
Richard,
The case says no such thing. It does not say one must have litigated during the LAST 10 years. It says that one must have AT LEAST 10 years of active litigation experience. One could have been a litigator for 10 years, then held another non-legal position, and then still run for AG. The issue with Susan Bysiewicz was that she did not have, collectively, 10 years active litigation experience. Re-read the case.
To that end, the complaint against Jepsen is frivolous.
2008 Obama/McCain eligibility and court removal keeps coming to mind. Barnett v Dunn USDC-CAED 10-2216 should have some action (district special 3 judge panel motion recommendation by magistrate having heard the case above his paygrade-jurisdiction)
Assuming this case has merit… why would the GOP ask for the race be “postponed” instead of just having the votes cast for the unqualified Democrat not be tallied? In other cases wherein nominees have found to be unqualified after ballots have been prepared the judgement has been simply for the state elections office (Secretary of State or whomever) to post a notice at the polling place informing the voters that votes cast for so and so will not be counted. I guess they are either not sure of their facts or just plain stupid.
Thank you, Jason R, I amended the post as a result of your comment.
#4, My guess is that because it was impossible to know when the candidate was nominated that he was not eligible because the decision was just handed down a couple of days ago, the right is to let them replace the candidate.
The law firm that represented Bysiewicz (the Democrat SOS who had sought a declaratory judgment that she was qualified), is now representing Dean (the Republican candidate), trying to disqualify Jepsen, the Democratic candidate).
The Supreme Court decision is not clear about the litigation requirement. Its decision note that, “[n]one of the parties in the present case claims that the meaning of the phrase ‘‘an attorney at law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state’’ is clear and unambiguous, and we conclude that it is not.”
The main finding of their decision was that Bysiewicz’s time at SOS did not count as active practice of the law. She had 8 years as a lawyer prior to becoming a legislator and then SOS, and the inclusion of time as SOS was necessary to get to 10 years.
The legal requirement of 10 years was enacted in 1897 at the time the office of Attorney General was created. Prior to that, state officials had to hire private counsel to represent them in court. In 1897, non-lawyers were permitted to perform all legal activities other than appear in court. It wasn’t until 1933 that non-lawyers were restricted from what is now regarded as “practicing law”, and the internet had not yet been invented.
So the Supreme Court concluded that the intent of the legislature in 1897 was that the “attorney general must have some measure of experience in trying cases.” Bysiewicz had none.
It is not clear how one would measure time as a litigator. Time in court? Time preparing to be in court? What about time preparing for a case that never goes to court? Time spent chasing a ambulance, if it does result in litigation? Does the clock run while waiting for a court to render a decision? Billable hours divided by 2000?
The court did not even attempt to answer the question, and admitted that since qualifications for office must be liberally construed, that someone who had less than 10 years where their primary activity was as a litigator might be eligible to be Attorney General.
Incidentally, Julia Tashjian was the Secretary of State at the time of Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut. Joe Lieberman was the Attorney General. Lowell Weicker was then senator, and was a party to the suit. Weicker was defeated in 1988 by Lieberman (with backing from among others William and James Buckley), and then elected governor as an independent in 1990.