This comes from a Jepsen press release:
HARTFORD – George Jepsen, Democratic candidate for Attorney General, said he is confident the state election for attorney general will move forward as scheduled Nov. 2 with his name firmly on the ballot, despite the “desperate” lawsuit filed by his Republican opponent Martha Dean.
Lawyers representing both sides as well as the Secretary of the State’s Office and the Democratic State Central Committee of Connecticut, met with Superior Court Judge Julia Aurigemma Wednesday to discuss the significant legal and jurisdictional flaws in the complaint.
Judge Aurigemma asked the parties to submit briefs by 2 p.m. Thursday on legal issues – such as whether Dean even has the legal right to bring the lawsuit and whether Dean failed to include essential parties to the case. A hearing on legal issues only is scheduled Friday at 10 a.m. Cameras will be permitted in the courtroom.
Both sides have said they will appeal any adverse ruling. That would put any final disposition of the case well beyond Nov. 2.
I have to say that as an attorney, I still don’t understand this. The constitution says that any elector, 18 or older, can hold a constitutional office unless otherwise stated in the constitution. “Every elector shall be eligible to any office in the state, except in cases provided for in this constitution.”
All of the other constitutional offices list the qualifications if they are different. Do they not? Is there any other office where the legislature gets to decide who can hold a constitutional office when the constitution itself says “every elector”?
Now the Supreme Court has employed a Geisler analysis to say that the Constitution does not mean what it says. Normally, Geisler is employed to determine if the state constitution is broader than the federal constitution or, in some cases, to determine the broadness of a certain provision, i.e., the right to education. Here, the court is using Geisler to say that the constitional does not mean what it says on its face. They are not interpreting a certain word or phrase.
Is the statute defining the requirements to run for AG to be read in conjunction with the constitution? Can the statute be amended? By whom? Is the statute implicitly part of the constitution or is the legislature’s right to define the requirements for the office of AG implicitly part of the constitution? Either way, what precident is there to do such a thing? Has any other provision of our constitution, or of the federal constitution, ever been read to not mean what it clearly says or to vest in the legislature the right that clearly is vested in the electors? Have they ever been read to mean that the legislature has the power to define something that the constitution, on its face,, already defines?
Again, I just don’t understand. Can someone please explain this further?
Reply
As a non-lawyer, I have to say that I am amazed at Jepsen’s apparent lack of understanding of our system. Jepsen makes the remark that the idea of nullification “ignores the rule of law and our democratic process,…”. It appears that Mr. Jepsen has no understanding of the Tenth Amendment, and feels that Washington can impose any law that it passes on the states.
To me, this illustrates that Mr. Jepsen would be another rubber stamp for Washington, rather than standing up for his state.
I support Martha Dean.
Reply
To voir dire – I also thought SuBy’s constitutional argument had legs. But I think the SC just couldn’t believe that anyone intended to allow an 18-year old non-lawyer to be AG.
Reply
And to Butko: nullification ignores the rule of law because it denies courts the authority to conclusively settle disputes over the meaning of laws and constitutions. It is equally antithetical to the democratic process — for eighty years, the rallying cry of states or regions that came out on the short end of national elections. No surprise that Dean supports it, nor that she supports its kissing cousin, the doctrine of secession. But I think Lincoln, and for that matter Jepsen, are 100% right on this one.
Reply